https://external.fyhz1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/safe_image.php… the New Yorker contributed y Richard Zurowski
I have selected several paragraphs from a larger article that I recommend you read. I hope by doing this, more people are inclined to read important articles and to read the books they are featuring. In this case “The Unthinkable Earth” by David Wallace-Wells.
The Preparedness Project poses this proposition. If things are as serious as this author tells and if we are witnessing a runaway train (climate change) then shouldn’t we make proper preparations for that time to come? We encourage the fight to stop climate change. However, we recognize the danger of failure to stop climate change or at least having to live with a reduced version of it that would still be detrimental to our wellbeing.
Join us in the fight for climate change reform and preparation for a changed future.
The Other Kind of Climate Denialism
By Rachel Riederer
March 6, 2019, 3:29 PM
David Wallace-Wells’s new book about how climate change will affect human life begins, “It is worse, much worse, than you think.” In superhot cities, roads will melt and train tracks will buckle. At five degrees of warming, much of the planet would be in constant drought. With just six metres of sea-level rise—an optimistic projection—land where three hundred and seventy-five million people currently live will be underwater. Some of the apocalyptic stories aren’t from the future but our recent past: in the Paradise Camp Fire of late 2018, people fleeing the flames “found themselves sprinting past exploding cars, their sneakers melting to the asphalt as they ran.”
In a poignant essay posted on Medium, Mary Annaïse Heglar, who works at the Natural Resources Defense Council, wrote that the climate movement has a lot to learn from the civil-rights movement. Climate change might be the first existential threat leveled at all of humanity, but America itself has been an existential threat to black people for hundreds of years. Describing the calculated violence of Jim Crow, she writes, “I want you to understand how overwhelming, how insurmountable it must have felt. I want you to understand that there was no end in sight. . . . They, too, trembled for every baby born into that world.” The flooding and fires of our changed climate may be unprecedented, but the threat of annihilation is certainly not—in their discussions of climate change, both Wallace-Wells and Salamon refer to their ancestors who lived through the Holocaust. Put in this light, the response of quiet climate denialism—not disbelief in the phenomenon but the choice to bury one’s head in the sand because thinking about it is too unpleasant—is not just untenable but childish. As Heglar writes, “You don’t fight something like that because you think you will win. You fight because you have to.”
Wallace-Wells writes that the past century of fossil-fuel extraction and industrial capitalism has enabled a life style I enjoy—that this very process “made middle-class-ness possible” for billions of people.” Yet, at the same time, it is a system that must be radically overhauled. Modern people have a tendency, he writes, to see human systems as more inviolable than natural ones. And so “renovating capitalism so that it doesn’t reward fossil fuel extraction can seem unlikelier than suspending sulfur in the air to dye the sky red and cool the planet off by a degree or two.” It’s why creating global factories to suck carbon out of the atmosphere might appear to be easier than simply ending fossil-fuel subsidies, he writes. These are the competing truths we have to integrate: a livable world is incompatible with fossil fuels, and fossil fuels made the world we live in.
Decarbonizing the economy will be difficult, but it must be done. It will be hard—but not as hard as surviving the catalogue of disasters that will befall us if we don’t. This is, to my mind, the great strength of Wallace-Wells’s approach to storytelling. The thing to grieve, then, is not the Earth’s habitable climate but, instead, the century of carefree car-driving and reckless deforestation, the years of eating meat with abandon and inexpensively flying around the world—and the massive economic growth that this system has enabled. Overhauling the fossil-fuel economy will represent a true loss, but its sacrifices will be nowhere near the alternative. The process is subject to all matter of difficulties: the problem of collective action, scientific uncertainty, technological challenges, political mobilization, and many others. But to do anything less is to go insane.