The article in the url below states the case very well, I think, for the completely inadequate societal/governmental response to climate change so far. The current mass response to COVID-19 clearly shows we are capable of rapid mobilization when we want to (even while recognizing that many political leaders dragged their feet and continue to do so). It is a matter of desire rather than resources or any other possible explanation we have so far offered for not having done more, sooner:
"Had we put as much effort into preventing environmental catastrophe as we've spent on making excuses for inaction, we would have solved it by now. Everywhere I look, I see people engaged in furious attempts to fend off the moral challenge it presents."
The cause, according to the author, is a decoupling of individual action and societal benefit – first, the idea that the problem is too big for any single person can make a difference and/or, second, the idea that burying our heads in the sand is easier than facing up to reality:
"As the environmental crisis accelerates, and as protest movements like YouthStrike4Climate and Extinction Rebellion make it harder not to see what we face, people discover more inventive means of shutting their eyes and shedding responsibility. Underlying these excuses is a deep-rooted belief that if we really are in trouble, someone somewhere will come to our rescue: 'they' won't let it happen. But there is no they, just us."
I am in two minds about the proposed response, however:
"The political class, as anyone who has followed its progress over the past three years can surely now see, is chaotic, unwilling and, in isolation, strategically incapable of addressing even short-term crises, let alone a vast existential predicament. Yet a widespread and wilful naivety prevails: the belief that voting is the only political action required to change a system. Unless it is accompanied by the concentrated power of protest – articulating precise demands and creating space in which new political factions can grow – voting, while essential, remains a blunt and feeble instrument."
In short, and as revealed in the title of the article, the author is calling for revolution:
"Those who govern the nation and shape public discourse cannot be trusted with the preservation of life on Earth. There is no benign authority preserving us from harm. No one is coming to save us. None of us can justifiably avoid the call to come together to save ourselves."
I see the logic in the argument (incremental change is not going to get us there), but am troubled (somewhat) by the implications of the line of thought that is being advanced:
"Every nonlinear transformation in history has taken people by surprise. As Alexei Yurchak explains in his book about the collapse of the Soviet Union … systems look immutable until they suddenly disintegrate. As soon as they do, the disintegration retrospectively looks inevitable. Our system – characterised by perpetual economic growth on a planet that is not growing – will inevitably implode. The only question is whether the transformation is planned or unplanned. Our task is to ensure it is planned, and fast. We need to conceive and build a new system based on the principle that every generation, everywhere has an equal right to enjoy natural wealth."
What I find fascinating about the author's argument, however, is the quantification of revolution – what it would actually take for such a rebellion to occur. What is surprising about it is that the research he quotes suggests that it takes much less than you might think:
"As Erica Chenoweth's historical research reveals, for a peaceful mass movement to succeed, a maximum of 3.5% of the population needs to mobilise. Humans are ultra-social mammals, constantly if subliminally aware of shifting social currents. Once we perceive that the status quo has changed, we flip suddenly from support for one state of being to support for another. When a committed and vocal 3.5% unites behind the demand for a new system, the social avalanche that follows becomes irresistible. Giving up before we have reached this threshold is worse than despair: it is defeatism."
The author takes solace in the recent protests in London by Extinction Rebellion. But, he argues, they cannot be an end in themselves, but must be the beginning of some much bigger:
"The success of this mobilisation depends on us. It will reach the critical threshold only if enough of us cast aside denial and despair, and join this exuberant, proliferating movement. The time for excuses is over. The struggle to overthrow our life-denying system has begun."
Take care
David
David Chandler
© Sage Publications, 2020
Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler5e
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/
Only rebellion will prevent an ecological apocalypse
Only rebellion will prevent an ecological apocalypse
By George Monbiot
April 15, 2019
The Guardian
