“Centralized economic systems also erode the democratic base of politics. In a democracy, the economic agenda is the political agenda.”- Vadana Shiva
Mechanism and Media: Climate Change
A topic recently came up while I was speaking with artist Naziha Mestaoui which I’d actually been dwelling on in my own language-use for some time. As a significant figure and activator in the realm of arts, sciences, architecture, and conservation I was very interested to hear this thought validated by such a person. This idea was the danger of focusing on ‘global warming’ as the main point to facilitating change. I think Naziha originally brought it up in relation to work she’s doing to change the requirements for what qualifies as carbon-offset tree planting in the UN. Without specific regulations, many countries are not planting or re-planting indigenous trees and plants, but profit-enhancing, flammable, monoculture trees that actually inflame the issues already existing. On top of that, an argument by climate-deniers (and in this case a climate-supporter) is that much of the hysteria leads to the swift acceptance of major infrastructure projects that use solar or wind power (not addressing actual energy efficiency) and are a way to funnel profits to more large corporations that many democratic politicians and donors have stakes in.
Yes I believe the climate is changing and that there is no way to dispute releasing SO MUCH carbon dioxide into the atmosphere HAS an effect. It is a rational hypothesis to believe such a change affects natural systems in a way that does not give them proper time to adapt and re-regulate which is compounded by the removal and pollution of many naturally occurring regulatory systems. But as long as so many people in the USA don’t believe it, including our own current president, is it the right conversation to push to enact change at this moment?
Becoming a new desert resident, surrounded by California’s efforts in going 'carbon-free', I'm already becoming jaded about the system. Often our government short-sells its own healthy, biologically diverse, and alive public land to private energy companies instead of encouraging them to move into ‘brown’ land that was previously cleared of life for commercial use. The reductionist idea that desert is simply open land to use for power (as the ocean ‘is’ for wind turbines) is destructive and diminutive of those biological systems. The mechanist idea that you can simply replace one power system with another (renewable or not) as the only solution necessary is actually a very anxiety inducing concept and at the heart of neo-liberalism. Large scale lithium battery projects to store the excess solar energy California currently can’t manage is not acceptable. Replacing old growth with eucalyptus does not a healthy forest make. Removing biomass and doesn’t help stop fires. Bio-engineering 'meat' probably won't help the 31 million beef cows living now be allowed to peacefully retire. <also very good and depressing article in NYT about how the attempt to switch to more biofuel was a large component of ramping up the palm oil industry :( :( >
Vadana Shiva has been crying out against such reductionist methods for decades as she saw western industry pillage the forests of India with no consideration of the necessity of the sustaining communities around it for simple things such as brush for fire, grasses for livestock, and herbs for health. Systems of survival are complex and seeing as we generally know we've got it wrong right now, its the very structure that needs to be re-evaluated not the 'cogs' in the 'machine'. Using oil, cutting trees, tapping aquifers, raising cattle, isn't INHERENTLY evil, though we talk like it is, what's bad is excess and exhaustion. Becoming sustainable needs to really be about reigning it the fuck in. I mean, sometimes I just feel so sad that we've kind of wasted so many scientists on debating carbon and ice measurements to prove something bad is happening rather than researching and lobbying the systems that sustain good things happening.
I guess what's upsetting is that instead of utilizing 'green capitalist' principles 40 years ago when maybe it would be a feasible stepping stone to better and better habits, the world's governments are trying to do it NOW when we're seriously in trouble. It feels like we'll basically be replacing problems with more problems and not really addressing the deeper problems on top of still having millions of people who say humans never caused any of the first problems anyway! So where does the hysteria, the fear mongering, the arguing actually help any of the people who will be most severely affected the soonest?
I know its not necessarily the most useful train of thought... Anyone who reads this probably already believes we need a larger societal shift towards holistic conservation efforts, but its more a note on being wary of rhetoric. Asking for huge infrastructural and production shifts to minimize carbon will inevitably have huge consequences as well. Nothing is perfect of course but our current political climate feels as near-sighted as ever. So, this is Aidan signing off saying: keep your eyes squinted folks!
|
|
|
|
