One of the things that has bemused me about blogging is how much of it is simply reporting what is already available on the internet. Granted, pointing out valuable sources of information is valuable in and of itself. Over time I also have grown more cynical about the ability of the average human to assimilate novel information and have come to feel that repeating the same thing over and over again is much more important that I would have thought in my youth.
In that spirit I am providing a diary that is largely pointing to what I feel is an extremely valuable article in the NY times magazine. It is Are We Missing the Big Picture on Climate Change by Rebecca Solnit.
Solnit is a better write than I could ever hope to be but I'll devote a paragraph or two to summarizing her message (or perhaps filtering it through my own personal take on the matter).
Solnit begins by painting a vivid picture of a bird (at first) and then birds more generally being killed by a solar energy plant in the Mojave desert. She then turns the compelling story on its head and asks about the alternative. How many birds would have been killed if the plant wasn't operating, if the energy came from fossil fuels instead? To answer that question requires a major leap from the specific and tangible to the more abstract and systemic in order to judge the effects of climate change.
She then argues that we are constantly exposed to a series of very specific environmental problems (e.g. BP in the gulf, the tar sands) and not really grappling conceptually with the big picture.
I'm going to add my own take to this with the following sentence. All of our decisions are bad decisions but it is our job to find the ones that are less worse.
The complexity of the problems, environmental and otherwise, that face us, and the links of cost and benefits across societies and ecosystems inevitably mean that whatever action society takes is likely to have a a bad effect on someone. Solar panels will kill birds. Gun control would mean someone will be unable to defend themselves. And so on. As a result a very compelling and factual story can be told against virtually any action we might take.
My argument, and I am quite prepared to be told that it is politically naive, is that in order to be a grown up society we need to look at each problem with clear eyes and the knowledge that we cannot take actions that won't hurt anyone or anything. But we can make informed judgements about the actions that will hurt the fewest and help the most.
There are, of course, myriad problems associated with this view of life mostly associated with the devaluation of the costs to those falling outside of your own particular group (see sexism, racism, speciesism, etc.). But I think it is necessary to address climate change in particular, and more generally many other issues, as complicated sets of interactions. To recognize that any change we make has far reaching consequences and we should consider them as fully as we can. And not get lost in a compelling story and always look for the big picture.