McKibben's ultimate goal is a cry of activism and awareness, but today's discussion instead provided a sense of melancholy motivation. He mentioned over 20 years ago that the earth is slowly succumbing to silent environmental catastrophes such as a .6 billion tons of methane being released by our oceans a year. As scary as this was and is, practically no one seemed to budge. I believe there are several reasons for this. Global warming produced no immediate crisis, the world we know today is materialistic, technological and thus industrious, or vice-versa, and so the funding and influence necessary to spur and enact global change continues to be controlled by the market. In light of technological advancements and growing awareness for the environment, opportunities to create cash-making opportunities while simultaneously 'fixing' the environment are increasing. Today, several companies are looking into technologies for harvesting methane gas as a clean source of energy production. In my personal opinion, I think McKibben, or more specifically those sympathetic to his cause, must learn to influence the all powerful global market dictating the world's cash flows today. The reality painted by McKibben is that the world we know now has been debased by not only an industrious generation, but a civilization bent on industry due to population pressures. I feel that one efficient attack on our environmental issue would be to somehow maximize our potential for tree-hugging dollars (or green cash opportunites - no pun intended) within our industry to help spur funding and influence in the right direction.
-alternatives?
I went to McKibben's speech on Thursday. What struck me probably more than anything he said was the slideshow he presented from the 350 movement - the "global movement to solve the climate crisis." If you weren't sure, the number 350 represents 350 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, the number scientists say we must reduce the level of CO2 to in order to preserve the planet. It struck me that the pictures of the number 350 came from so many different countries, particularly the ones we wouldn't assume to be environmental activists - such as "poorer" countries or third world countries. If only there were some way to band all those countries together, to get the bigger, nonrenewable energy abusing countries like the US on board, maybe something could be done.
ReplyDeleteI actually think your line of thinking is pretty in line with what McKibben was trying to lay out in Eaarth. He understands that climate change all comes back to economics, whether it be the political influence of oil companies or the industrial ambitions of third world countries. I think you might be making McKibben out to be more naive than he really is - he understands that the global market is central to global warming. The issue is just that the greenest option is usually different than the cheapest option.
ReplyDelete