When I read through chapters 1 and 2 of Bill McKibben's "Eaarth" I was hit with such a barrage of different emotions, thoughts and internal comments that I think this is my 3rd or 4th attempt at a post because I couldn't seem to be able to get most of what I was thinking down in a coherent manner. I was literally all over the place reading. I would go from wanting to call Bill an outright liar to siding with him 100%. You might find that odd but, hey, it's what happened.
On one hand, I applaud and hail Bill McKibben for taking the time and obvious effort to re-iterate the dire threats that we as a species are bringing upon our planet. He covers the gamut, from excess carbon in the atmosphere to acidic oceans, intense fires and storms to the melting of the ice caps. He brings to light powerfully what others might not know: we are killing our planet. We are not living how we should be living, burning fossil fuels at an increasing rate, spewing millions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere despite knowing what is going on (GW deniers not included). We are truly living on a different planet. His re-naming of Earth to Eaarth is accurate. This planet I live on now is nothing like the world in 1700. He admits the obvious in that this planet has known nothing BUT change, and that our idea of "normal" is by no means the definition of the word in terms of the planet's lifetime. Fluctuations and changes unlike we will ever encounter have occurred, and indeed, we are inflicting change unlike the world has previously seen. But that point is moot since people weren't around 100 million years ago. We must focus on what WE know and protect it. He brings every point up that needs to be said in a very persuasive manner, because after all, you can't argue with the numbers.
However, it was his overall tone (how I took it) to be the biggest issue I had with him. To me, it seems as though ol' Bill has effectively thrown in the towel. I mean, can you really blame him? People like him have been saying this since Al Gore came out with An Inconvenient Truth and yet no-body seems to listen! We keep burning fossil fuels and burning forest to make way for grazing pasture. But gosh, do you really need to take such a negative tone? Last I checked, overwhelming negativity does nothing for inspiration! Does he really think that by taking a glass-half-empty approach will motivate people? I have news for you Bill: If people that do not understand global warming as well as you do read this and get that same sense of tone I did, they aren't going to care anymore because, if you don't, why should they? What's the use? Incredibly still, Bill makes the claim that he thinks we can reduce our carbon ppm from the approximatley 390ppm to around 350...and I have to be honest, that's not going to happen. He himself points out that even if we were to cut our carbon emissions to ZERO, right NOW, it would take several hundred years to naturally reduce carbon to "normal" levels. So, how exactly do you propose we REDUCE those levels? I really didn't find anything.
He proposed that we should raise the prices of oil so much that people are forced to park their cars and take the bus, but I wonder: how plausible is that? Honestly. Do you REALLY think that people living in rural areas where buses DON'T run and never have will sign onto that? I'm not saying its a bad idea since I take the bus frequently, but I don't live 100 miles from the nearest town. Some people DEPEND on their vehicles! And ignoring the people who don't live in a city is just madness. You'd spend millions of dollars in fuel ALONE just getting busses to those people! To make that even possible, billions would need to be spent to radically change the nation's infastructure. A good idea, but I wonder, how are you going to convince every taxpayer in the nation to fork over another couple hundred bucks in this economy? You have to pay for it somehow don't you? Not everyone can afford it.
Or better yet, he wants windmills to sprout up everywhere. Another great idea, since in some areas, wind could be the solution to cheap, clean energy. But even there they meet resistance! Why? to be blunt: they're ugly. People (for the most part) just don't want to look our their window and see hundreds of windmills turning. Even here in Michigan they are fighting it, forcing the proposed Lake Michigan Wind Farm at Muskegon to go further and further offshore so that the windmills will not be an eyesore for beach goers. Last I checked, they were moved to almost 13 miles offshore. Not to mention many people are concerned they interfere with bird migration routes, and can kill many birds and bats every year.
In the 2nd chapter, I thought he did a marvelous job of pointing out the cost of transforming our infrastructure over to a highly efficient one. And again, I thought it odd that he assumes that people are willing to underwrite those countless billions without batting an eye. I myself have no problem pitching in, but unfortunately, a majority of Americans would argue against such costs. At the same time, he brings the monumental task of doing exactly that front and center. It WILL take astronomical amounts of money to change things, and that everyone is going to have to bite the bullet so to speak, and help pay for it. Perhaps not all at once (that's just nuts) but gradually, before things get out of hand too much.
On the whole, I have to say I agree AND disagree with McKibben. He really does (to me anyway) seem like he's about given up. And that is where I draw the line: you can NEVER give up. There must always be new method to explore, and never once should you take the "all hope is lost" position. If you do, you drag others with you. I find his seemingly disconnected view with true cost of doing what he proposes should be done to what can actually BE done (politics notwithstanding). He is impatient, but I would imagine spending your professional career shouting "charge!" to a mass of people out of earshot gets old after awhile too.
hope you agree.
Brian
:) I LOVE the last line!!
ReplyDeleteHis writing still sparks a bit of despair but at least it's not as bad as his first book--where you kind of wanted to kill yourself! Unfortunately there really isn't a hopeful way of saying 'we're killing out planet' without the despair. I just hope people start to listen to his "Charge" now!