In perusing items from local news releases to national advertising campaigns, we cant help noticing that our River Reporter Climate Change Challenge is only one of what seems to be a veritable spate of pro-green, anti-global warming initiatives that have come out in recent months.
During the 2000 Presidential campaign, Al Gore was warned by his advisers not to discuss global warming—that kind of fringe loony talk, it was deemed, would only put people off. Now Gore has virtual rock-star status talking about nothing else. Some kind of tipping point seems to have been reached, and weve been wondering what created the change.
One possible answer came to us while viewing the devastation wrought by a violent localized storm that took down numerous large trees near Hankins, NY last week. It was only the most recent in a series of extreme weather events the area has suffered, from the three 100-year floods that took place in the space of 18 months to the flash flood in Roscoe, NY only a few weeks ago. What with freak storms and flooding here, record droughts in the American Southwest and Australia and melting permafrost in Alaska, there are now enough people who have personally witnessed the increasing violence of weather extremes that they can no longer be persuaded to believe that nothing is wrong. Anti-global warming advocacy groups (funded largely by ExxonMobil and other corporate energy players) are asking us to choose between believing them or our own two eyes, and we are opting for our own two eyes.
With regard to any public controversy, it is human nature to form our opinions not on the factual or logical merits of the argument but by what makes us comfortable. As long as the consequences of global warming were evident mostly on paper, what made us most comfortable was to believe it wasnt real. But now that we have personally experienced that somethings amiss, the desire for comfort starts working in a different direction. Instead of believing that the problem isnt there, we are disposed to think that it is there—and that we can do something to make it go away.
Thats why the major fallback argument of the anti-global-warming crew is unlikely to gain much traction. This argument concedes that the climate is changing, but claims that human actions are not responsible. That would mean its not something we can slow down. But the we cant do anything so we dont have to do anything argument wont work to increase the comfort level of people sorting through the ruins left by flood, storm or drought. Even if it were true, the deep human refusal to believe that theres any problem that we cant fix makes it a public-relations loser.
The shift between the period when human nature worked against a belief in global warming, to working with it, creates the tipping point.
It is not only with regard to global warming that we have seen such a shift recently. The issue of medical care may be another case in point. The number of people who have been uninsured, are insured but have had coverage denied, or who have been bankrupted by medical costs even though they are insured, is now so high that our own two eyes are telling us something different than the bill of goods the healthcare industry is trying to sell us. And having acknowledged the problem, we will not easily be persuaded that more of the same is a winning strategy. Hence, the inevitable attacks on Michael Moores movie Sicko, an indictment of the healthcare system, by the healthcare industry, are not likely to have the same success as the advertising campaign that deep-sixed the last attempt at reform in 1993.
It would be nice to live in a universe in which fact and reason, rather than a desire for comfort, regularly dictated public opinion. Failing that, however, it is good to know that human weakness is balanced by some strengths that seem to pull us through in the end regardless: a stubborn resistance to being told we dont see something when we do, and our overriding conviction, once we have experienced that something is wrong, that there must be something we can do to set it right. Thats the stuff of which tipping points are made.
[EDITOR'S NOTE: The River Reporter welcomes letters
on all subjects from its readers. They must be signed and include
the correspondent's phone number. The correspondent's name and
town will appear at the bottom of each letter; titles
and affiliations will not, unless the correspondent is writing
on behalf of a group.
Letters are printed at the discretion of the editor.
It is requested they be limited to 300 words; correspondents may
be asked to cut longer letters. Deadline is 1:00 p.m. on Monday.
The Town of Bethel Planning Board effectively silenced the public at the Wednesday evening meeting on June 27. This happened, at least in part, due to the legal maneuvering of attorney Richard Stoloff, who represents the developer who wants to build 28 homes on County Road 115.
It is a cluster development. In essence, each home will sit on roughly a half-acre parcel in close proximity. They need to obtain permission for an easement to do so, as County Road 115 is in an agriculturally zoned district. They are doing so by calling it a conservation development.
I think that we need to look behind the facade to find the real reasons it may be allowed to happen.