60. Climate
Memo Mondays, January 31, 2022
Disbelief in Science Because of Distrust or Ideology?
“Science Historian Naomi Oreskes:
Science Doing Fine; Rejection Is Due to Ideology, Not Distrust” by Kendrick
Frazier. Skeptical Inquirer (Jan.-Feb.
2022).
https://skepticalinquirer.org/2021/12/science-historian-naomi-oreskes-science-doing-fine-rejection-is-due-to-ideology-not-distrust/
Excerpt: As for climate change,
many scientists think mistakenly that resistance is driven by uncertainty;
however, “That’s a misdiagnosis.” Eighty-eight percent of Democrats think
climate change is a threat, but only 31 percent of Republicans do. “So,
something else is going on; it’s not a matter of scientific facts.”
Political polarization about climate change began around 1990
and has steadily worsened since then. As she showed in Merchants of Doubt, the
major factor explaining that is ideology.
It is “market fundamentalism, fear of government regulation of business,” plus
the assertion that regulation is a gateway to communism (an argument still used
today). This was all part of Cold War anxieties. The whole anti–climate science
agenda was pushed strongly by fossil fuel interests.
Of course, there is hypocrisy and “misdirection” in that regard,
she pointed out: Fossil fuels are heavily subsidized by governments. In fact,
she noted that fossil fuels are the second most heavily subsidized industry,
after agriculture. Studies a few years back showed that the world spends $5
trillion on energy subsidies, and that figure now is up to $7 trillion. . . .
So, she asked, what does [ideology] mean for those of us
concerned about science? We need to remember four things:
1) The vast majority of Americans do trust science.
2) Facts do count to most who do trust science.
3) Scientists need to provide good quality information in
formats the public can understand.
4) With those motivated by nonempirical concerns, outreach must
acknowledge their concerns….
--Biden
should declare the climate catastrophe a national emergency (see Biden and
climate)
--Contrast
Lynas, Our Last Warning, on the dark truth about temperature and
resistance, to Fonda’s optimistic account of 4 mos. Of resistance.
Fonda, What Can I Do? My Path from Climate Despair to Action. 2020.
I omitted my notes from the CMM entry
ASHLEY DAWSON, EXTREME
CITIES: The Peril and Promise of Urban Life in the Age of Climate Change. Verso, 2017. (Includes an underlying critique of
“resilience”: “the
vogue for resilience . . .dovetails with dominant neoliberal views concerning
the role of the state….” 170).
Introduction: Extreme City
The opening
pages described Hurricane Sandy, followed by the context of cities around the
world threatened by climate chaos, for
cities are the cutting edge of the “coming climate chaos.” Cities house the
majority of the billions, contribute most of the carbon, are vulnerably sited
on bodies of rising water and vulnerable to deadly heat waves. The effects of climate change will be of most
consequence to cities. (1-6).
Chapter 4, “The Jargon of Resilience”
Basic
alternating structure throughout: A.
Strategies of Adaptation. B. Dawson’s
Critique “heightened by social injustice.”
For example from p. 157 at the end of the chapter’s intro.:
“This chapter explores discourses of resilience as they are
applied to the extreme city. I focus on
the Rebuild by Design competition”
in NYC org. by Rockefeller Foundation and HUD.
“Resilience has become the dominant jargon for addressing
the manifold crises of the extreme city without fundamentally transforming the
conditions that give rise to these crises.”
The next section describes the 6 RbD awards. First the “BIG U,” the 10-mile long berm to
defend the southern tip of Manhattan.
Then the “limits of the BIG U”:
It creates ”a false sense of security” because its height is fixed
possibly too low; it displaces danger into the future and to other physical
locations; etc. All of the plans pay too
little attention to equity in general and poor neighborhoods specifically. “’
history has not shown that capitalism protects poor people.’”
The third section (169-) repeats the chapter’s title with
one addition: “The Jargon of ‘Resilience’” (and definitions pp. 156-7). It opens with other major national resilience
initiatives by Rockefeller (100 Resilient Cities), HUD, DHS, World Bank, books
by Judith Rodin, Holling, Zolli, and the diverse meanings of the term. Critique begins immediately. “Part
of the power of the term resilience lies
in the sheen of hope it offers. . . .But above all, the vogue for resilience
has to do with how it dovetails with dominant neoliberal views concerning the
role of the state….”(170). A quick
history of the term follows, a sketch of the UN’s Our Common Future report, then
more critique; e.g., the popularizers of “resilience” (e.g. Rodin) “are clearly
not allowing for the possibility of …collapse of particular systems.” He opposes Judith Rodin, who doesn’t explore
“root causes” but only disasters, which are inevitable to which we can only
adapt; Rodin emphasizes adversity as an opportunity for profit; and is
addressing “transnational business elite and their multinational
corporations.” The decades of globalization and urbanization are not natural but “are
the produce of an increasingly unrestrained capitalism, involving neoliberal
efforts to abolish public regulation and to throttle the public sector while
empowering private sector forces….”
Dawson paraphrases Naomi Klein: “efforts to reduce carbon emissions have
failed so dramatically precisely because of the hegemony of neoliberal
doctrines that skewer all regulatory efforts.
The discussion of ‘resilience,’ just like the concepts of sustainable
development that preceded it, obscures [the] root causes of global instability
and suffering….”
There’s much more in this other rich chapters, weaving the
history and evaluation of “resilience.”
The World Book
Encyclopedia Editorial Process (1972)
Climate inaction, injustice worsened by finance fiasco
Jomo Kwame Sundaram. Mronline.org (1-27-22).
KUALA LUMPUR: Many factors frustrate the
international cooperation needed to address the looming global warming
catastrophe. As most rich nations have largely abdicated responsibility,
developing countries need to think and act innovatively and cooperatively to
better advance the South.
No comments:
Post a Comment