I hate talking about the environment. It’s all about weather, and weather is almost the most boring subject I can think of, short of end tables. But all the other things I like to talk about are sort of contingent on having a place for them to happen, like a planet, and a thing in or on that place to do the happening, like people arranged in a civilization. These are not likely to be around much longer.
This morning as I made my weekly pass through the news preparatory to sitting here, I found what were hailed as good news and bad news. The good news was that for the third year in a row carbon emissions were flat. Yay! So “good” in this case refers to another instance of not more worse. OK, well, we’ll have to enjoy that, I guess.
The bad news is that last month the Arctic Ocean — which is supposed to be getting colder this time of year on account of the season, and the sun having set for the winter’s night — got warmer. So much that it’s been 20 degrees centigrade warmer than usual. That’s 36 degrees Fahrenheit.
Scientists who are watching the situation are linking it to some sort of shift in the jet streams. Something about jet streams that usually would keep Siberia warm are veering over the Arctic. Whatever. Any explanation that makes them feel good.
The important thing is, we’re watching the climate go nuts, and we don’t have any way to stop it going nuts but to get greenhouse gasses down, and that will take years, and we just elected someone who doesn’t care, who even promises to dismantle agencies that were trying to help.
Let me emphasize the nature of the impasse we have here. The climate is being changed drastically in ways we couldn’t even predict 10 years ago. All we could say then was that if you keep heating the planet there is liable to be a point at which there will be chaotic consequences. The temperature won’t just smoothly rise everywhere. There will be whole unexpected new weather patterns.
If we can’t stop the global warming, we also can’t adapt to it fast enough. It is not possible for everyone now living in California to escape to Alaska and take the fruit trees with them. We are heading for disaster.
To anyone who understands all this, what we are facing is a bunch of maniacs intent on committing global suicide in the interest of maintaining an industry that is already on the way to closing down. The reality is equivalent to one vast slow motion suicide bombing, perpetrated by the industry. It is an act of violence of global proportions.
So what do you do? Protesting doesn’t work. Look at the Dakota pipeline. They send armies of militarized police forces in on you from all directions if you just march carrying signs.
So, people who want their planet and civilization to remain in existence are faced with two stark options. They can let it go and sit back and watch the end, satisfied in the knowledge that they protested loudly, so it’s not their fault. Or, they can ratchet up the protesting to the next level, which is civil disobedience.
Into this situation comes Republican State Sen. Doug Ericksen. He wants to make acts of civil disobedience felonies if they impede the industry. He characterizes them as acts of “economic terrorism.”
The terrorists are the companies that are refusing to cooperate with efforts to stop and reverse the climate change, without regard for the consequences to the planet and its people. And Ericksen is abetting their terrorism.
Questions to crank the heat up more:
Given that the incoming president is a certified bully, does that mean that bullying is now the law of the land? Should there be a law against impeding acts of bullying, on the grounds that to do so terrorizes bullies?
Since bullies won the election, isn’t impeding bullies in fact a rejection of democracy? Or could there be something wrong with the premise of this question?
Choose your answer very carefully, because it may come back and hit you in the face.