Chapter 2 of Eaarth by Bill McKibben focused primarily on the economy of the world, and how it has lead to the disastrous global changes we are seeing today. Larry Summers put the American government’s views of economic growth as truthfully as possible when he said that they “cannot and will not accept any ‘speed limit’ on American economic growth. It is the task of economic policy to grow the economy as rapidly, sustainably, and inclusively as possible.”(47). It is exactly this type of attitude that got us where we are today. It is no longer viable and feasible to have a continuously growing economy, especially a rapidly growing one. “We don’t just need a bailout. We need a reboot. We need a build out. We need a buildup. We need a national makeover.”(50). One thing that really struck me as honestly just stupid, is that the government is constantly trying to say that the cost of cleaning up this planet, for looking for and implementing clean means of energy production, is too expensive. Yes, it is expensive, the cost for curing this world is astronomical. However, the cost for damage and repairs to cities that are being ravaged by storms year after year, storms that are not going to stop happening (they are a permanent fixture of this new Eaarth) cannot possibly be less expensive in the long run. We are already spending billions of dollars trying to protect the southern states from hurricanes. Hurricanes that are just getting worse as the planet warms and sea levels rise.
It seems like every chapter of Eaarth alerts me to new and terrifying facts about the state of the world. This time it was the new strain of Death Mosquito that has made it’s horrific debut in Bangladesh. The really sad thing is that the people who live in Bangladesh’s capital, Dhaka, have contributed almost nothing to this global state of warming. This new mosquito, Aedes aegypti, carries dengue fever, a disease that is affecting millions and can be fatal to the young, old, and weak. If the rising temperatures and stagnant water are contributing to the spread of disease, who knows what is to come. We might soon have a “The Thing” type case on our hands, where the melting of ice in the arctic releases untold horrors from ages ago. This might be as exciting as a shape shifting alien, or immensely dangerous and unsettling as a long dead disease.
Getting back to the economy and how humans seem to care more for it than the health of others, the Club of Rome was a group of “European industrialists and scientists”(90) that published a book that detailed what would happen if we continued on our course of polluting the Earth. It is called Limits to Growth and was published in 1972, McKibben put it very poetically with a cute little rhyme that goes, “They foresaw this planet Eaarth, and if we’d heeded them we might have prevented its birth.”(91) In this book the authors came to three conclusions, the second of which really made me stop and think:
“2. It is possible to alter these growth trends and to establish a condition of ecological and economic stability that is sustainable far into the future. The state of global equilibrium could be designed so that the basic material needs of each person on earth are satisfied and each person has an equal opportunity to realize his or her individual human potential.”(92)
Now, think of how artistically rich the world is as a whole, and imagine the artistic, musical, poetic, and literary advances that could be made if everyone had the time and means to create. Imagine how scientifically advanced we as a species would be if everyone who wanted, could become scientists and mathematicians, theoretical physicists! The idea sent shivers up my spine. McKibben goes on to say that “you can’t really model the world on a computer”(92) as the Club of Rome had tried to do. But then again there is evidence that the whole universe is a computer simulation. (This article is a very interesting read.) And if it is, why wouldn’t you want to take care of what someone else took the time to program for you?
I agree completely with you. I don't understand how the government says it is too expensive to move to cleaner energy, when the current climate we live in is causing all of these natural disasters that will cost even more in the long haul! Yes we will have to spend a lot of money up front to change our ways, but it is completely necessary.
ReplyDeleteWhen I read McKibben's example of a ecologically and economically stable environment I pictured something completely different from what you saw. I am probably just interpreting his words to an extreme because I do that, but I imagined a world with no progress, no profit, and no increase in knowledge. McKibben talked a lot about how constant growth was impossible and could only lead to a catastrophic collapse. Scientific advancement takes resources, energy, and money, which are all things that are difficult to create in a world battling climate change. Then again, perhaps I just read to much science fiction...
ReplyDeleteTo be honest I think I am just overly optimistic sometimes. What you say about stagnation makes sense now that you mention it, a nice lovely world filled with happy, creative people was just what my mind jumped to when I thought of everyone's basic needs being met. I realize that isn't exactly realistic in this new world.
DeleteI think it's important that you brought up the expense of cleaning up the world, and how most government feels. It strikes me as sad that in their eyes public health is "too expensive." I also think it's unfair that so many politicians have investments in these fossil fuel companies and yet their viewpoints aren't disregarded as biased. How do you let someone who is profiting off of dirty energy make decisions about it?
ReplyDeleteIt bothers me deeply that once again the government and many other people just focus on the cost of things in terms of money and not actual problems being created. Clean energy makes so much sense, and as new technology comes out it becomes more realistic. However, it always goes back to what is the cheapest and quickest, which is very disheartening.
ReplyDeleteFrom an economical viewpoint, I feel like we are between a rock and a hard place. If we continue as is the economy will likely collapse from the costs of combating the damage received from global warming. However, if we implement changes now the economy also has a chance of going bottom up. In my opinion it is not practical for our society to "go green" at this point. As was stated in chapter one, we do not currently have a replacement for oil that is even close to being as efficient and until this is not the case we shouldn't make huge changes. Changing now would be like Charles Ingalls buying a model T and then realizing that there isn't a gas station within 100 miles of Walnut Grove; riding a horse makes a lot more sense.
ReplyDelete