Dropping In on the Apocalypse By Tom Engelhardt

[Guest guest]

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/020905Y.shtml

 

 

Truthout: Environment

 

 

Editor's Note: To read more articles on the Environment, please visit

the t r u t h o u t environment page.

 

 

 

Editor's Note | There are several hyperlinks in the original

version of this story. If you would like to access them, please click

on our Go to Original link. -smg

 

 

 

Dropping In on the Apocalypse

By Tom Engelhardt

TomDispatch.com

 

Sunday 07 February 2005

 

It's global-warming time again at Tomdispatch; or perhaps it's

the more neutral " climate-change " time favored, for its

non-apocalyptic mildness, by the fossil-fuel enraptured Bush

administration and by others for its temperature inclusiveness (after

all, there may be freezing wrapped in global warming); or perhaps it's

the time of " climate destruction " or even " the heat death of

humanity, " phrases evidently being used by the young activists who are

about to bestow the latest Flat Earth Award; or perhaps we should

choose no name at all in honor of the native peoples of the north

whose lands have by now been invaded by well-warmed southern species

of insects, plants, and animals that they have no words for in their

languages. ( " We can't even describe what we are seeing, " says Sheila

Watt-Cloutier, chair of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference.)

 

Or maybe we should skip the issue of names for the moment

while I sum up a little of the latest news that has continued to flood

in, as if from so many melting glaciers, on the [unnamed subject or,

for short, US] since last I wrote about it. If start down this path we

must, then why not start with the iconic casualties, which, when it

comes to the [uS], are conveniently confined to the far, far north

where only the hardiest of explorers once went to freeze to death and,

of course, where the Inuit live. This is a region - aka " the only

virgin territories left " - that the Great Melting may someday open up

to a final round of land-and-water grabs and mineral over-reaches

before we start exporting ourselves and our extra greenhouse gases to

Mars to help create a more hospitable planet there (as recently

suggested in the Journal of Geophysical Research-Planets, published by

the American Geophysical Union) or even to other solar systems. The

iconic [uS] topics most likely to be found melting into your local

paper (along with the Arctic ice cap, which has shrunk by 20% in the

last three decades) are, in descending order: polar bears, glaciers,

and native peoples.

 

So let's start with those bears. They fall into the new

environmentally inspired category of " charismatic carnivores " because

they're keystone critters - top-o'-the-food-chain large predators -

cool to look at and they can eat you up, which always adds a

hard-to-describe shiver of I-don't-know-what to the subject (except in

the case of alligators and crocs which, unlike lions, tigers, pumas,

and grizzlies, seem to have the unique ability to chomp away on humans

without any charisma whatsoever). Bradley Klapper of the British

Guardian, reporting on a recent major [unnamed Subject] conference in

Europe, writes that the conservation organization WWF believes polar

bears, lacking the melting summer sea ice they normally hunt on, could

be extinct within 20 years.

 

Klapper quotes an expert as saying, " Polar bears will be...

something that our grandchildren can only read about in books. " Of

course, for us non-Inuit, polar bears are already something we (and

our children) can only read about in books or perhaps watch on the

Discovery Channel where nature is always alive as well as red in tooth

and claw. So as long as our visual archives don't biodegrade, polar

bears will be with us, as they are now, forever and ever.

 

Okay, then, what about those glaciers, already oft-reported to

be retreating worldwide - from Mt. Kilimanjaro to the highest peak in

the world, Mount Everest, which, thanks to the [uS], is possibly four

feet shorter than it once was. Well, the news on this - if you happen

to see the slightest value in your basic glacier - is meltingly grim.

(It's worth remembering that unlike sea ice whose loss won't raise sea

levels - think of a melting ice cube in a drink - glaciers, which are

essentially frozen rivers sitting on land, have enormous potential to

raise those levels and so sink islands as well as low-lying farm lands

and cities.)

 

The latest bad news on glaciers is just now emerging from the

previously frozen, now thawing, deep south of the globe: Michael

McCarthy of the British Independent (which has consistently had the

best coverage around of the Unnamed Subject) reports that scientists

from the Cambridge-based British Antarctic Survey " have discovered

that a massive Antarctic ice sheet previously assumed to be stable may

be starting to disintegrate... Its collapse would raise sea levels

around the earth by more than 16 feet... [someday] putting enormous

chunks of low-lying, desperately poor countries such as Bangladesh

under water - not to mention much of southern England. "

 

Larry Rohter of the New York Times (Antarctica, Warming, Looks

Ever More Vulnerable) recently took a Chilean Navy plane over " the

weak underbelly " of the southern continent, where individual ice

shelves can be " as large as Texas or Spain. " He quotes one

glaciologist as saying that the region is " competing with the Yukon

for the title of the fastest warming place on the globe " and reports

on the impending collapse of " seemingly impregnable formations that

have developed over thousands of years. " Especially unnerving to those

studying the thinning ice shelves and " large growths of grass

appearing in places that until recently were hidden under a frozen

cloak " are the disappearing glaciers. Scientists, Rohter comments,

" like to compare the spot where the 'tongue' of a glacier flows to sea

in the form of an ice shelf to a cork in a bottle. When the ice shelf

breaks up, this can allow the inland ice to accelerate its march to

the sea. " They fear the catastrophic loss of those " plugs. " The

information being gathered in Antarctica, Rohter concludes, matches

similar information contained in " the recent publication of a report

[underwritten by seven nations including the United States] on

accelerating climate change in the Arctic. "

 

Like polar bears, however, glaciers are seen by most of us, if

at all, on TV, picturesque certainly but not exactly in their melting

state like losing transportation to work or having the local mall

wiped out by a tornado. And the same, of course, might be said of the

native peoples of the north who are, at the moment, deeply aware that

they are directly experiencing the results of the [uS]. Reports on

melting Alaska and its ever hotter native inhabitants have become a

near commonplace in our media, but their lives too undoubtedly seem,

at worst, a case of so many distant tragedies ambushing small numbers

of marginal people. Few of us, I suspect, see them as harbingers of

our future lives.

 

Recently, for instance, Alaskan NPR reporter Gabriel Spitzer,

living in a region where temperatures have risen an average of 4

degrees since the 1950s, visited Shishmaref, one of a number of native

villages that will soon simply be swept away by newly energized seas.

The villagers of Shishmaref will have to move their entire village to

a new location (at the cost of millions of as yet unfound dollars) or

they may simply be relocated (that is, dumped) into Alaska's cities

minus land and culture. (You can listen to Spitzer's report or read

the script here.)

 

Xtreme Weather and the Planet's " Human Carrying Capacity "

 

I don't particularly like " global warming " as a term, but I

wouldn't want to confuse the Unnamed Subject or US with our United

States or U.S. for too long in this piece, especially since we

Americans largely prefer to lead our lives as if global warming were

either nonexistent, fraudulent science, or something to be faced in a

distant future and preferably by others with far more to lose.

 

In any case, such casualties - bears, glaciers, native peoples

- are but the tip of the global-warming iceberg; a metaphor, by the

way, that the 87th International Conference of Linguists (ICL), in a

recent seventy-two nation summary report suggested might cease to

exist before the end of the first half of the 21st century.

 

Okay, that was a joke, but this isn't: One of the special

ironies (or perhaps I mean injustices) of global warming is that the

people it hits first and hardest, those who live on tiny, low-lying

islands and in the distant north, are those least associated with the

burning of fossil fuels. Right now, it looks as if global warming's

main producers - us, the Europeans, the Japanese, and soon enough the

onrushing economies of Asia - will suffer the least immediately.

Though the degree to which we're already experiencing global warming

is perhaps less apparent than it should be.

 

Our media, of course, adores Xtreme weather events. Dan

Rather's CBS prime-time news show, for instance, never saw an El Nino

effect, a hurricane, a major flood, or an onslaught of snow that it

didn't rush right to the top of the news; while those once

Weather-Channel-restricted scenes of reporters, their bodies oddly

angled, shouting into mics and staring into water-smeared lenses in

the pelting rain of an onrushing storm are now commonplaces of the

national news; and yet you can search the television news and our

mainstream press almost in vain for anyone even willing to speculate

that the increase in Xtreme weather events which has brought us

multiple massive hurricanes in Florida, a prolonged drought in the

southwest, Europe's burning summers, Brazil's first South Atlantic

hurricane ever, the storm of the century on Canada's east coast, and

Japan's worst season of typhoons in memory might have anything to do

with global warming.

 

So the idea of warming has perhaps remained too far north, too

distant, too Discovery Channel for most Americans to have to take

seriously. But what if you skip the iconic and move closer to home by

focusing on the bigger scientific picture? What about the latest

studies, reports, and conferences? Well, you want those, we got 'em.

Dime a dozen, in fact, and one scarier than the next.

 

In a new study published in the prestigious British scientific

journal Nature, to take but one recent example, researchers from some

of Britain's leading universities used computer modeling to predict

that global warming might prove " twice as catastrophic as previously

thought, flooding settlements on the British coast and turning the

interior into an unrecognizable tropical landscape. " The Earth, the

study found, was " far more sensitive to increases in man-made

greenhouse gases than previously realized. " The study's worst-case

scenario, a rise in average global temperatures 11C greater than

today, according to Professor Bob Spicer, of the Open University,

would be " unprecedented in the long geological record of the Earth.

'If we go back to the Cretaceous, which is 100 million years ago, the

best estimates of the global mean temperature was about 6C higher than

present.' "

 

Or what about the new report, " Meeting the Climate Challenge, "

just issued by the International Climate Change Task Force, co-chaired

by a Tony Blair confidant, Stephan Byers, and U.S. Senator Olympia

Snowe of Maine:

 

" The countdown to climate-change catastrophe is spelt out by a

task force of senior politicians, business leaders and academics from

around the world - and it is remarkably brief. In as little as 10

years, or even less, their report indicates, the point of no return

with global warming may have been reached... And it breaks new ground

by putting a figure - for the first time in such a high-level document

- on the danger point of global warming, that is, the temperature rise

beyond which the world would be irretrievably committed to disastrous

changes. These could include widespread agricultural failure, water

shortages and major droughts, increased disease, sea-level rise and

the death of forests - with the added possibility of abrupt

catastrophic events such as 'runaway' global warming, the melting of

the Greenland ice sheet, or the switching-off of the Gulf Stream.

 

" The report says this point will be two degrees centigrade

above the average world temperature prevailing in 1750 before the

industrial revolution, when human activities - mainly the production

of waste gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2), which retain the sun's

heat in the atmosphere - first started to affect the climate. But it

points out that global average temperature has already risen by 0.8

degrees since then, with more rises already in the pipeline - so the

world has little more than a single degree of temperature latitude

before the crucial point is reached. "

 

As Bill McKibben, author of The End of Nature, wrote for the

on-line environmental magazine Grist.org, in one of a series of

provocative reports from a recent Vermont meeting on the state of (or

end of?) environmentalism as we know it: " In one sense, [the task

force report is] nothing new: yet another document from moderate world

leaders calling for urgent action and imploring the U.S. to join with

the rest of the developed world to get something done. File it with

similar reports from the National Academy of Sciences, the Nobel

laureates, all the rest. "

 

And he's right too. Another sober conference or peer-reviewed

scientific paper or multinational report sounding alarms and sirens

you didn't previously even know existed - and ho-hum, it's neither

news here - did this latest one make a single front page in America? -

nor perhaps would it matter if it were. The global-warming crisis is

so wide-ranging, so dire, so necessarily based on elements of

guesswork (so much of it being set in a future world that we have

little basis in human experience for understanding), so aimed at our

well dug-in, difficult-to-replace, fossil-fuel-burning way of life, so

threatening and yet not individually affecting (if you have no Inuit

neighbors) that perhaps turning away is almost the only understandable

response. The question is where exactly to turn.

 

After all, a new national report from The Wildlife Society

whose authors represented universities, environmental groups, and

hunting organizations " paints a bleak picture for the wilds of North

America if global warming continues. " It suggests, among other things,

that on a warming continent, many plants and animals may have trouble

keeping up with the changes. Nature magazine has estimated that, based

on global-warming scenarios, more than a million " discrete forms of

life " might be extinct worldwide by 2050. And then, of course, there's

the probable loss of coral reefs globally in warming and acidifying

ocean waters. (Perhaps, though, the bleached, lifeless reefs will

still have their charms for tourists - like so many undersea

Pompeiis.) And don't get me started on the way the warming is

affecting animal food chains, spreading drought conditions, causing

the loss of forests, creating conditions for extinction cascades, or

the possibility that " runaway global warming " might one day be

triggered - all subjects brought up by one set of scientists or another.

 

Even the past, it seems, offers no comfort. As Guy Gugliotta

of the Washington Post wrote recently, scientists are now positing

that " the Great Dying, " " the biggest mass extinction in Earth's

geologic history " which took place 250 million years ago and wiped out

90% of ocean species and 70% of those on land, may have been caused by

a pre-human form of global warming rather than an impact from an

asteroid or comet.

 

And as for the American future, the National Intelligence

Council, a " center of strategic thinking within the US Government

reporting to the Director of Central Intelligence, " recently included

pressure on our government due to climate change ( " There is a strong

consensus in the scientific community that the greenhouse effect is

real and that average surface temperatures have risen over the last

century... " ) among various fantasy scenarios in the futures its

experts cooked up; while in 2003, the Pentagon issued a futuristic

global-warming study under the apocalyptic subhead Imagining the

Unthinkable (pdf file), a friendly nod to 1950s nuclear strategist

Herman Kahn's famous work on nuclear weaponry, Thinking the Unthinkable.

 

The study suggested the possibility, based on the then-latest

global-warming research (less frightening than the present batch),

that " abrupt " climate change was possible and might cause a

" significant drop in the human carrying capacity of the Earth's

environment, " which is a polite way indeed to write: Death!

Destruction! Mayhem! Chaos! Such a development could, the report's

authors concluded, " potentially de-stabilize the geopolitical

environment, leading to skirmishes, battles, and even war due to

resources constraints... Unlikely alliances could be formed as defense

priorities shift and the goal is resources for survival rather than

religion, ideology, or national honor. " Amid all this, the Pentagon's

thinkers of the unimaginable and imaginers of the unthinkable came to

believe that our country would, in fact, have a leg up in such a

future world, but only, of course, if the Pentagon were gloriously funded.

 

The Quagmire of the Present

 

But enough, no? The past, the future, the northern and

southern reaches of the planet, outlying islands, Xtreme weather, the

struggling flora and fauna... you might think this kind of news

cascade (however diminished and disconnected in the American media)

would have a certain effect on the greatest fossil-fuel burners on the

planet. But while the native peoples of the north plead for their

future; while polar bears starve and coral reefs whiten; while

Europeans struggle to take modest steps toward controlling

global-warming minus the United States; while even the Bush

administration's chosen man for the chairmanship of the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri,

tells an international conference that " very deep " cuts in

greenhouse-gas pollution must happen fast or " we are risking the

ability of the human race to survive " ; while the Chinese and Indian

economies are on a fossil-fuel based upward trajectory; while

under-funded scientists and environmentalists look for alternative,

non-fossil fuel methods or wonder whether, caught in the Scylla and

Charybdis of planning for a catastrophe, even nuclear power might not

be a better path than our present one; while political leaders

elsewhere, including Bush ally Tony Blair of Britain, worry about how

much warming is already " built into the system " and unavoidable given

what's gone into the atmosphere in the past three decades; the

fossil-fuel-besotted Bush administration ignores the whole matter or

does its best, which is pretty good, to slow down or undermine any

multinational planning or progress whatsoever on global warming; our

media acts as if it's largely a problem of distant climes; and most

Americans simply chug on with their lives, buy their SUVs, and go

about their business.

 

It's strange, isn't it, that various government agencies have

plunged into the regular production of the sorts of futuristic

scenarios that were once left to awed journalists, sci-fi writers,

utopians, and cranks; and yet we, as a nation, find ourselves in a

kind of quagmire of what once would have been un-American

futurelessness. It used to be said that we were a nation that never

looked back, but never that we were a nation that dared not look

forward. And yet here we are.

 

Denial is a bizarre thing. The mechanisms by which we look and

yet don't look, know and yet refuse to know, by which the melting

north and the SUV go together without contradiction, by which a full

presidential campaign unfolds without even a discussion of global

warming and no one of any import considers that out of the ordinary or

worth commenting on are - at least to me - reasonably mysterious. And

yet, even though our demobilized media has done a dreadful job of

connecting the dots on global warming (as on so much else), you can't

primarily blame the media for this. After all, people usually know

much that the media doesn't tell them.

 

Take oil, for instance. As I've often said, if Iraq had been

the world's capital of video games, the media would have been flooded

with stories about the effects of the invasion, war, and occupation on

children's lives and on the video biz. But since Iraq is only sitting

on a sea of oil and we all know that oil was a simple-minded left-wing

explanation for the invasion/war, oil has mostly not been part of the

media discussion. (Try to recall the last time you saw a major piece

in the mainstream press or on TV about oil, Iraq, and the Bush

administration.) Nonetheless, if you went out and polled Americans on

why we're in Iraq, I'd be willing to bet you that significant numbers

would put oil somewhere near or at the top of the list (and a lot of

them wouldn't be war critics either).

 

When it comes to global warming, I suspect most Americans also

" know " more than they are credited with knowing. So what to make of

the general state of denial on the subject in word and deed, in

conversation and life-style? (Even readership at this site goes down

whenever I raise the topic.) There are undoubtedly several factors to

consider. One certainly must be the scale and scope of global warming.

It is, of course, planet endangering. It imperils our future in ways

that previously only nuclear weaponry did. It involves entering new

conceptual territory. Its time-scale, even in the worst (and so

speediest) of scenarios, stretches beyond a single human life and off

the charts into - yes, the Pentagon's not wrong here - the

unimaginable. And despite its potential dangers, our lives here in

North America go on, fossil-fuel burning SUVs and all, pretty much as

if nothing were really happening. In other words, it's in part a case

of not quite needing to imagine the unpalatable, not to say

inconceivable. That's certainly one quite natural form of denial.

 

A second factor would be the imperial one: We live in the

heartland of the planet's last great imperial power. Our empire, such

as it is, is based on fossil fuels. Ours is a fossil-fuel lifestyle

and a pretty good one at that. Americans, it seems, would have much to

lose from a global-warming-preoccupied planet. Life-style, jobs,

well-being - all may be at stake in a nation that's also visibly

growing more conservative. In addition, many Americans perhaps

identify with imperial power (even if not thought of that way) - it's

certainly been the case in the " homeland " so many times before in

history - and with the fun and games it offers. (As I write this on

Super Bowl Sunday, I'm planning to break soon to join an estimated 100

million other Americans at TV sets absorbing what the radio news this

morning called " the greatest sports event of the year " and, of course,

the world of good living its famed ads so exuberantly celebrate.)

Perhaps denial comes naturally in the Homeland.

 

A third factor that runs through my mind has to do with a

sense of futurelessness which I believe first began to descend ever so

invisibly upon Americans in the wake of the atomic bombings of

Hiroshima and Nagasaki and which, almost six decades later, has left

many of us, including the young, unable to imagine a future beyond our

own lives. This, in turn, plays into a sense of helplessness in the

face of something as large and seemingly intractable as global warming.

 

Nonetheless, you would think that even those who doubted the

reality of global warming might still care to make a kind of Pascalian

bet on preparing for the worst. I mean just-in-case-thinking isn't so

crazy. Imagine where we might be, for instance, if for the last, lost

15 years since global warming first reared its ugly head, Americans

had actually poured massive amounts of R & D money into various

alternative-fuel quick-fix solutions. (After all, once we felt

ourselves endangered, no matter how inaccurately, by Saddam Hussein's

regime, we were ready to pour multibillions into an invasion and

occupation pretty much without blinking a national eye.) And aren't we

the quick-fix nation? Didn't we think of ourselves, not so long ago,

as the ultimate can-do society? After all, were Americans to come up

with real alternative-fuel solutions to the human future, wouldn't we

control matters globally far more effectively than by simply arming

ourselves to the Pentagon's institutional eyeballs? Under those

circumstances, the threat of global warming might even have - gasp -

produced not job losses but jobs, new industries, who knows what.

 

Instead, it's quite clear that, faced with various scary

scenarios, we've become a can't-do nation; that conservatism has

really meant a kind of conceptual hunkering down when it comes to

anything but the present moment; and that an increasingly fierce

imperial holding-on when combined with a sense of futurelessness and

helplessness has consigned the environmental movement to the antlers

of a dilemma. Some maverick environmentalists even claim that the

environmental movement as it's existed since the 1970s needs to think

the unimaginable and die so that a new movement capable of a different

kind of politics, one more ready to deal with the varieties of denial

Americans are now enmired in, might be born. It's a dilemma that Bill

McKibben in a series of articles at Grist.org has described vividly

indeed.

 

But just when you despair, there's always some weird, small

glimmering of movement. In the Sunday Washington Post, for instance,

Blaine Hardin wrote The Greening of Evangelicals, a fascinating piece

that read in part:

 

" Some of the signatories [of an evangelical environmental

statement] are to meet in March in Washington to develop a position on

global warming, which could place them at odds with the policies of

the Bush administration, according to Richard Cizik, the association's

vice president for governmental affairs. Also last fall, Christianity

Today, an influential evangelical magazine, weighed in for the first

time on global warming. It said that 'Christians should make it clear

to governments and businesses that we are willing to adapt our

lifestyles and support steps towards changes that protect our

environment.'

 

" The magazine came out in favor of a global warming bill -

sponsored by Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Joseph I. Lieberman

(D-Conn.) - that the Bush administration opposed and the

Republican-controlled Senate defeated... Unusual weather phenomena,

such as the four hurricanes that battered Florida last year and the

melting of the glaciers around the world, have captured the attention

of evangelicals and made many more willing to listen to scientific

warnings about the dangers of global warming, [Rev. Ted] Haggard

[president of the 30 million-member National Association of

Evangelicals] said. "

 

After all, the fate of the Earth shouldn't really be a

political issue. It's all of our children and grandchildren and

great-grandchildren whose lives and welfare are at stake. As for me,

I'll disagree with evangelicals on many matters, but if any want to

work to stop global warming, believe me, I'll just say, let's boogie.

 

Tom Engelhardt, who runs the Nation Institute's

Tomdispatch.com ( " a regular antidote to the mainstream media " ), is the

co-founder of the American Empire Project and the author of " The End

of Victory Culture, " a history of American triumphalism in the Cold War.

 

-------

 

 

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is

distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior

interest in receiving the included information for research and

educational purposes. t r u t h o u t has no affiliation whatsoever

with the originator of this article nor is t r u t h o u t endorsed or

sponsored by the originator.)