猫咪社区

Klein does not advocate such fundamentalism, but that faith hides just below the surface of the Green New Deal, jumping out in 鈥淎 Message from the Future with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez,鈥� which Klein champions in On Fire. Written by U.S. Rep. Ocasio-Cortez (the most prominent legislator advancing the Green New Deal) and Avi Lewis (Klein鈥檚 husband and collaborator), the 7.5 minute video elegantly combines political analysis with engaging storytelling and beautiful visuals. But one sentence in that video reveals the fatal flaw of the analysis: 鈥淲e knew that we needed to save the planet and that we had all the technology to do it [in 2019].鈥�

First, talk of saving the planet is misguided. As many have pointed out in response to that rhetoric, the Earth will continue with or without humans. Charitably, we can interpret that phrase to mean, 鈥渞educing the damage that humans do to the ecosphere and creating a livable future for humans.鈥� The problem is, we don鈥檛 have all technology to do that, and if we insist that better gadgets can accomplish that, we are guaranteed to fail.

Reasonable people can, and do, disagree about this claim. (For example, 鈥�,鈥� proclaims the Nature Conservancy, and we can have a 鈥渇uture in which catastrophic climate change is kept at bay while we still power our developing world鈥� and 鈥渇eed 10 billion people.鈥�) But even accepting overly optimistic assessments of renewable energy and energy-saving technologies, we have to face 聽that 鈥淎 Message from the Future鈥� promises for the United States, let alone the entire world. The problem is not just that the concentration of wealth leads to so much wasteful consumption and wasted resources, but that the infrastructure of our world was built by the dense energy of fossil fuels that . Without that dense energy, a smaller human population is going to live in dramatically different fashion.

Welcome to the third rail of contemporary political life. The question that the multiple, cascading ecological crises put squarely in front of us is, 鈥淲hat is a sustainable human population?鈥� That question has to be split in two: 鈥淗ow many people? Consuming how much?鈥�

It鈥檚 no surprise that political candidates ignore these questions, but progressive writers and activists should not back away. Honestly engaging these issues takes us well beyond the Green New Deal.

On the second of those questions鈥斺�渃onsuming how much?鈥濃�擪lein frequently highlights the problem, but with a focus on 鈥減rofligate consumption.鈥� She stresses the need to:

• 鈥淪cale back overconsumption鈥�
• Identify categories in which we must contract, 鈥渋ncluding air travel, meat consumption, and profligate energy use鈥�
• End 鈥渢he high-carbon lifestyle of suburban sprawl and disposable consumption鈥�
• Reject capitalism鈥檚 faith in 鈥渓imitless consumption鈥� that locks us in 鈥渢he endless consumption cycle鈥�
• Make deep changes 鈥渘ot just to our energy consumption but to the underlying logic of our economic system鈥�

No argument with any of those statements, especially because Klein rejects the notion that simply improving efficiency will solve our problems, a common assumption of the techno-optimists. But challenging 鈥渙verconsumption by the comparatively wealthy鈥� focuses on the easy target: 鈥淭he bottom line is that an ecological crisis that has its roots in the overconsumption of natural resources must be addressed not just by improving the efficiency of our economies, but also by reducing the amount of material stuff that the wealthiest 20 percent of people on the planet consume.鈥�

My goal is not to defend rich people or their consumption habits. However, constraining the lifestyles of the rich and famous is a necessary but insufficient condition for sustainability. Here we have to deal with the sticky question of human nature. Klein rightly rejects capitalism鈥檚 ideological claim that people鈥檚 capacity to act out of greed and short-term self-interest (which all of us certainly are capable of doing) is the dominant human trait. Human nature also includes the capacity to act out of compassion in solidarity with others, of course, and different systems reward different parts of our nature. Capitalism encourages the greed and discourages the compassion, to the detriment of people and planet.

But we are organic creatures, and that means there is a human nature, or what we might more accurately call our human-carbon nature. As 听辞蹿 聽puts it, life on Earth is 鈥渢he scramble for energy-rich carbon,鈥� and humans have gotten exceedingly good at grabbing lots of carbon. Not all cultures go after it with the same intensity, of course, but that scramble predates capitalism and will continue after capitalism. This doesn鈥檛 mean we are condemned to make the planet unlivable for ourselves and other creatures, but public policy has to recognize that we not only need carbon to survive but that most people鈥攊ncluding most environmentalists鈥攍ike the work that carbon can do for us when we burn those fossil fuels. And once we get a taste of what that carbon can do, it鈥檚 not easy to give it up.

As Klein points out, curbing our carbon-seeking is not merely a test of will power and matter of individual virtue; collective action through public policy is needed. I believe that requires a hard cap on carbon鈥攍imits that we can encourage people to accept through cultural advocacy but in the end must be imposed through law. A sensible approach, called 鈥�,鈥� has been proposed by Larry Edwards and . In a forthcoming book, Cox will expand on a cap-and-ration strategy that could help in 鈥�,鈥澛燼 follow-up to, and expansion of, his earlier book that made .

There鈥檚 no simple answer to how much energy and material resources we can consume without undermining the ecosystems on which our own lives depend, but I鈥檓 confident in saying that it鈥檚 dramatically less than we consume today, and that reducing aggregate consumption鈥攅ven if we could create equitable societies鈥攚ill be difficult. But that鈥檚 the easy part. Much more difficult is the first question鈥斺�渉ow many people?鈥�

On the question of population, On Fire is silent, and it鈥檚 not hard to understand, for several reasons. First, the Earth has a 聽for any species but it鈥檚 impossible to predict when we will reach it (or did reach it), and failed attempts at prediction in the past have made people wary. Second, some of the , which has tainted even asking the question. Third, while we know that , it鈥檚 difficult to imagine a noncoercive strategy for serious population reduction on the scale necessary. Still, we should acknowledge ecological carrying capacity while pursuing social justice and . Progressives鈥� unwillingness to address the issue cedes the terrain to 鈥�,鈥� those who want to use .

The Green New Deal is a start, insufficiently radical but with the potential to move the conversation forward.

There鈥檚 no specific number to offer for a sustainable human population, but I鈥檓 confident in saying that it鈥檚 fewer than 8 billion, and that finding a humane and democratic path to that lower number is difficult to imagine.

The fact that these questions are troubling and/or impossible to answer does not mean the questions do not matter. For now, my answer鈥攁 lot fewer people and a lot less stuff鈥攊s adequate to start a conversation: 鈥淎 sustainable human presence on the planet will mean fewer people consuming less.鈥� Agree or disagree? Why or why not?

Two responses are possible from Green New Deal supporters: (1) I鈥檓 nuts, or (2) I鈥檓 not nuts, but what I鈥檓 suggesting is politically impossible because people can鈥檛 handle all this bad news.

If I am nuts, critics have to demonstrate what is unsound about the argument, without resorting to the clich茅 that 鈥渘ecessity is the mother of invention鈥� and the faith-based claims of the technological fundamentalists.

If I am not, then those Green supporters face a quandary. When mainstream Democrats tell progressive folks that the Green New Deal is doomed to fail because it is not politically viable at this moment, supporters counter, appropriately, by saying that anything less is inadequate in the face of the crises. Those supporters argue, appropriately, that the real failure is supporting policies that don鈥檛 do enough to create sustainable human societies and that we need to build a movement for the needed change. I agree, but by that logic, if the Green New Deal itself is inadequate to create sustainability, then we must push further.

The Green New Deal is a start, insufficiently radical but with the potential to move the conversation forward鈥攊f we can be clear about the initiative鈥檚 limitations. That presents a problem for organizers, who seek to rally support without uncomfortable caveats鈥斺�淪upport this plan! But remember that it鈥檚 just a start, and it gets a lot rougher up ahead, and whatever we do may not be enough to stave off unimaginable suffering鈥� is, admittedly, not a winning slogan.

Back to what I think Klein is right about, and eloquent in expressing:

Because while it is true that climate change is a crisis produced by an excess of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, it is also, in a more profound sense, a crisis produced by an extractive mind-set, by a way of viewing both the natural world and the majority of its inhabitants as resources to use up and then discard. I call it the 鈥済ig and dig鈥� economy and firmly believe that we will not emerge from this crisis without a shift in worldview at every level, a transformation to an ethos of care and repair.

The domination/subordination dynamic that creates so much suffering within the human family also defines the modern world鈥檚 destructive relationship to the larger living world. Throughout the book, Klein presses the importance of telling a new story about all those relationships. Scientific data and policy proposals matter, but they don鈥檛 get us far without a story for people to embrace. Klein is right, and On Fire helps us imagine a new story for a human future.

I offer a friendly amendment to the story she is constructing: Our challenge is to highlight not only what we can but also what we cannot accomplish, to build our moral capacity to face a frightening future but continue to fight for what can be achieved, even when we know that won鈥檛 be enough.

One story I would tell is of the growing gatherings of people, admittedly small in number today, who take comfort in saying forthrightly what they believe, no matter how painful鈥� , yet do not let their grief overwhelm them.

What kind of person wants to live like that? I can offer a real-life example, my late friend . He once told me, in a conversation about those multiple, cascading ecological crises (a term I stole from him, with his blessing), 鈥溾�� He was neither depressed nor irrational but simply honest. Koplin, a Depression-era farm boy who had been permanently radicalized in the 1960s, felt that grief more deeply than anyone I have known, yet every day he got up to work in his garden and then offer his time and energy to a variety of political, community, and arts groups that were fighting for a better world.

Klein speaks of this grief in On Fire, in what for me were the most moving passages, often involving her young son鈥檚 future in the face of this 鈥減lanetary death spiral鈥�:

There is no question that the strongest emotions I have about the climate crisis have to do with [Toma] and his generation鈥攖he tremendous intergenerational theft underway. I have flashes of sheer panic about the extreme weather we have already locked in for these kids. Even more intense than this fear is the sadness about what they won鈥檛 ever know. They are growing up in a mass extinction, robbed of the cacophonous company of so many fast-disappearing life forms. It feels so desperately lonely.

The escape from loneliness, for me, starts with recognizing that Koplin鈥檚 鈥渟tate of profound grief鈥� was not only wholly rational but also emotionally healthy. When told that even if this harsh assessment is correct, people can鈥檛 handle it, I agree. No one can handle all this. Koplin couldn鈥檛 handle it every waking minute. I don鈥檛 handle it as well as he did. At best, we struggle to come to terms with a 鈥渂leak and austere鈥� future.

But that鈥檚 exactly why we need to engage rather than avoid the distressing realities of our time. If we are afraid to speak honestly, we suffer alone. Better that we tell the truth and accept the consequences, together.

This article was originally published by . It has been republished here with permission.聽