(no subject)
Heat by George Monbiot.
Rarely have I seen so much common sense packed into three pages (all I've read so far). And even more rarely when it's on environmental issues. Okay, I admit- I am qualifying agreeing with my own pre-conceived ideas as being commonsense, or at least the right way forward when it comes to combatting climate change, but I think in this case it may be justified. Also, I have a pre-conceived liking for George. I read his first book when it came out (birthday present from my mum) and it woke me up to the idea that one didn't need to whinge about politics and sell communist papers, but that one could actually take practical steps in one's own life to do things about the things which are poisoning our society and environment. It not only woke me up to the idea of shopping in small shops versus supermarket convenience, but also to the recognition that things like kerbside recycling, neutralising your carbon output by planting trees, and our school's 'Earth Day' rubbish pick-up are just feel-good ways to make a difference, and don't lead to lasting change. Sense aside, he's also a good writer, and open to being proven wrong by the latest research.
I've only just started Heat, but it's already proven itself to be the most sensible suggestion to dealing with climate change that I've seen. What I can't understand about people who question human causes of climate change is this: even if you were utterly convinced that you weren't harming the planet in any long-term way, why would you even risk fucking up the planet purely so you can drive everywhere in a big car, kill wildlife and eat too much food with crap nutritional value? What's so desirable about that anyway, that the alternative of leading a lifestyle that's healthier for you and everyone else (human and non-human) on the planet is so scary? I appreciate that people are inevitably scared of change, that we're wired up by millions of years of evolution to grab as much as we can for ourselves (and that I'm no less guilty of this than anyone else), but I can't see how waking up to this only when the oil runs out and our greedy lifestyles have reached a pinnacle of unsustainability will be less painful than making changes now (quite the contrary, in fact). Don't we have numerous examples of the collapse of civilizations? I'm fully aware of how arrogant it is to think that we could have a chance of doing any better, but we have science, the examples of history and (relatively) democratic governments on our side, none of which were available to previous civilizations. Put like that, it feels like our generation do have a chance to make a difference, even if it means giving things up. I think we can, and it's nice to see a book saying the same thing. While I find it hard to put faith in any idea of cooperation and humanity on a large scale, I think that governments and companies can affect a change- after all, if you can convince people that junk food is tasty, you can sell anything, right?
Rarely have I seen so much common sense packed into three pages (all I've read so far). And even more rarely when it's on environmental issues. Okay, I admit- I am qualifying agreeing with my own pre-conceived ideas as being commonsense, or at least the right way forward when it comes to combatting climate change, but I think in this case it may be justified. Also, I have a pre-conceived liking for George. I read his first book when it came out (birthday present from my mum) and it woke me up to the idea that one didn't need to whinge about politics and sell communist papers, but that one could actually take practical steps in one's own life to do things about the things which are poisoning our society and environment. It not only woke me up to the idea of shopping in small shops versus supermarket convenience, but also to the recognition that things like kerbside recycling, neutralising your carbon output by planting trees, and our school's 'Earth Day' rubbish pick-up are just feel-good ways to make a difference, and don't lead to lasting change. Sense aside, he's also a good writer, and open to being proven wrong by the latest research.
I've only just started Heat, but it's already proven itself to be the most sensible suggestion to dealing with climate change that I've seen. What I can't understand about people who question human causes of climate change is this: even if you were utterly convinced that you weren't harming the planet in any long-term way, why would you even risk fucking up the planet purely so you can drive everywhere in a big car, kill wildlife and eat too much food with crap nutritional value? What's so desirable about that anyway, that the alternative of leading a lifestyle that's healthier for you and everyone else (human and non-human) on the planet is so scary? I appreciate that people are inevitably scared of change, that we're wired up by millions of years of evolution to grab as much as we can for ourselves (and that I'm no less guilty of this than anyone else), but I can't see how waking up to this only when the oil runs out and our greedy lifestyles have reached a pinnacle of unsustainability will be less painful than making changes now (quite the contrary, in fact). Don't we have numerous examples of the collapse of civilizations? I'm fully aware of how arrogant it is to think that we could have a chance of doing any better, but we have science, the examples of history and (relatively) democratic governments on our side, none of which were available to previous civilizations. Put like that, it feels like our generation do have a chance to make a difference, even if it means giving things up. I think we can, and it's nice to see a book saying the same thing. While I find it hard to put faith in any idea of cooperation and humanity on a large scale, I think that governments and companies can affect a change- after all, if you can convince people that junk food is tasty, you can sell anything, right?