My writings - and those of others.
Eco Anxiety and Climate Grief
In a discussion a year ago before we were all locked down, one participant expressed the view that there was little we could do about climate change and we should grieve and accept the death of many things we now take for granted. Another expressed how she was trying to do make small changes in her personal life – like using laundry detergent processed in small sheets. I wondered whether small changes mattered in the face of their impact and thought we should get better at lobbying. All these expressed our anxiety. We’re now more likely to be anxious about new spikes in the virus or access to vaccines, but these feelings are still there.
Some practitioners of mental health are doing something about it. A recent New York Times article reveals some interesting examples. One practitioner noticed how her students were reacting when they said they were losing sleep or constantly worried about the effect of climate change. Another remarked that hearing activists report on current issues left her in tears. In the last five years anxiety has doubled from 13 to 26 perc cent, according to research conducted jointly by George Mason University and Yale.
One scientist, Britt Wray, decided to do something about it. She started a weekly newsletter called GenDread. She offers practical advice and asks questions of her readers about what should be the priorities – moving them from depression to focusing on realistic actions they might consider. She also recognizes that negative emotions also can relate to denial and can serve as an invitation to wake up. Using a common Covid-19 mantra, she minds us that we are in this together.
Most of us have experienced eco-distress. I have it when I buy food in supermarket plastic containers – and as a single person, find that I throw out far too much packaging and food waste. I’m even experimenting with a food box order, where portioned ingredients create less waste and packing materials are recyclable. I’m reminded that my anxiety is minor and that the mental health professional remind us that serious anxiety or depression needs therapy.
One such therapist works with anxious Americans in workshops – but also counsels India farmers who have real threats to their crops caused by changes in weather patterns that threaten their livelihood. This is a good reminder to us affluent North Americans how privileged we are in avoiding the brunt of the problem so far. She notes that some of her American participants are moved to volunteer.
We can also learn from our First Nations people who express their grief with a much closer recognition of their unity with the land – taken from them by settler first by seizing it and then creating practices that destroy it.
Dr Wray reminds us that supporting one another can reduce our stress. The sense that we are in this together creates hope – and studies support this. Her own hope was well demonstrated when, after dealing with her own anxiety, she and her husband decided to bring a new infant into our challenged world.
A friend also sent me a link to the site of a European writer who is tackling the mental health and spiritual dimension of these problems as well. you can find them here.
The Climate Change Challenge
President Biden’s returning to the Paris Climate Accord, halting the Keystone Pipeline project and putting new restrictions on oil and gas production is good news; but it is only the beginning of a long challenge for the leader who has vowed to become the climate president. As he vows to cut fossil fuel emissions, the oil and gas industry is immediately mobilizing to challenge any changes. Executive orders are immediately viewed as job killers in an already over stressed economy. Biden counters that new production in areas like electric cars will create and replace jobs. Last year was the hottest ever recorded. Environmentalists say that the challenges have never been greater. The US has to be a partner in climate change with the world.
It’s easy to be focused on one’s own country, so I was interested in a modeling in the New York Times this morning that allowed me to look at the primary risks for Canada. It is well worth looking at the model which presents the insights modeled by the company Four Twenty Seven with comments placed on top of maps of the areas.
The chart posits that our major climate hazard in Canada will be flooding - followed by wildfires, water stress, cyclones and sea level rise. These could affect 60% of the population. Our gross domestic product and agriculture could also be affected by at least one of the hazards.
We won’t be alone - 90% of world populations will be threatened. Some of the figures are staggering and defy imagination. In the first 18 years of this century, 165 billion people were challenged with flooding. It will be even greater by 2040.
Climate change has unequal effects. The poor suffer most and economic inequality increases. Other factors, like population density add to the discrepancy and food shortages and infrastructure decline, lead to mass migrations. Rich countries like ours are not immune from the challenges The Covid - 19 pandemic has brought home the lesson that we are all connected and the lesson is immediate. The climate pandemic is much more serious but easier to deny.
Here are some of the perceptions of Americans about climate change identified by PRRI (Public Religion Research Institute), a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to conducting independent research at the intersection of religion, culture, and public policy. I will try to find comparable information re Canadian perspectives later.
Americans rank climate change last on a list of important issues. Only five percent of Americans say climate change is the most important issue facing the U.S. today.
When asked which environmental problem is most important for the current administration to tackle, nearly 3-in-10 (29%) Americans point to air, water, and soil pollution. One-quarter (25%) of Americans say climate change is the most pressing environment problem, while a similar number (23%) identify water shortages and drought. Fewer Americans cite the shrinking of wilderness areas and animal habitats (11%) or endangered species (4%) as the most critical environmental issue.
Americans are significantly more likely to believe that people living in poorer developing countries will be harmed by climate change than they are to say that they personally, or U.S. residents as a whole, will be negatively affected by climate change.
Less than one-quarter (24%) of Americans believe that they will be personally harmed a great deal by climate change, while 30% say climate change will affect them a moderate amount. More than 4-in-10 Americans say climate change will have only a little (23%) or no impact (22%) on them personally.
The Climate Change Concern Index—a composite measure that combines perceptions about whether climate change is a crisis and whether it will have adverse personal effects—finds that nearly 3-in-10 (29%) Americans are very concerned about climate change, 21% are somewhat concerned, 29% are somewhat unconcerned, and 21% are very unconcerned.
Close to half (46%) of Americans say that the earth is getting warmer and that these changes are primarily the result of human activity. We characterize this group as climate change “Believers.”
One-quarter (25%) of Americans believe the global temperature is rising, but say the change is due to natural fluctuations in the earth’s environment or are uncertain about its cause. We describe this group as climate change “Sympathizers.”
Finally, more than one-quarter (26%) of Americans say there is no solid evidence that the earth’s temperature has been rising over the past few decades. We call this group climate change “Skeptics.” Skeptics were asked to share, in their words, why they believe the earth’s temperature is not increasing. Answers varied considerably, but the most frequently cited reason (33% of all open-ended answers) was that they have not noticed a change in the weather around them.)
Climate change Believers are substantially more likely to than Sympathizers or Skeptics to score high on the Climate Change Concern Index.
Clearly what we believe counts - the challenge is to determine what it is base on
Plastics - Everywhere
Bill McKibben has noted this week in the New Yorker that we have to stop burning things - and notes that trading wood for oil based material may create as many problems as it was thought to solve. That may be a topic for another time. He goes on to discuss the prevalence of plastics in our lives.
Who knew the extent? He interviews Judith Enck, who tells him:
“Microplastics can be found in everything from drinking water to soil to beer to table salt to a cup of tea. In fact, we’re all ingesting roughly a credit card’s worth of plastic each week. Stunningly, scientists recently found plastics in human placentas.”
Enck, who formerly worked in the Obama administration, is a visiting professor at Bennington College and the president of Beyond Plastics, It starts by framing the plastics trifecta - focusing on the three most prominent single use products that can be replaced - and suggest that citizens in the US approach all levels of government to ask for their banning. Canadians can take note. See if you can guess the three most villainous pollution products. They have even created a sample bill to send to legislators, making the case that single use banning is less effective than looking a bans for one product individually.
This is a really good site. Go to it and take advantage of all the resources it offers. There are a number of concrete actions that citizens can take - from writing tea companies to asking food delivery companies to hold the plastic in their packaging. Individual actions are good - but they have to be supported by going to the source of the polluters and telling them what we think.
Never Underestimate - Science Moms
I was originally made aware of the importance of climate scientist Kathryn Hayhoe through the University of Toronto’s School of the Environment lecture series in 2019 where they claimed this outstanding woman as one of their own. A Canadian by birth. Hayhoe began her studies here before becoming the Political Science Endowed Professor in Public Policy and Public Law in the Department of Political Science, a director of the Climate Center, and an associate in the Public Health program of the Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences at Texas Tech University.
But never underestimate the power of a woman – and a mom – and also a scientist. She has brought the three together as the lead in a new initiative to help us guide the next generation in the important area of climate change. After meeting a young mother frightened about the world of the future for her child, Hayhoe realized they had a common situation and concern. Her approach is creative – channel fears into action. Talk to your family and friends about it – but even more importantly, become an advocate in the places where you have agency – local schools, local governments, churches and local agencies and other levels of government.
Hayhoe recruited five other prominent women scientists and a funding body to begin a ten million dollar educational project designed to educate and empower mothers – grandmothers like me can also join in. It will pay for advertisements featuring the women scientists that will run nationally and follow with ads focusing on states in the US where climate change is already showing significant effect. It’s a long term project that is expected to last for five years and you can read about it here. Its website site includes helpful resources and starts the process with outlining myths and facts.
In a “half the sky” framework, moms matter to politicians and advertisers. Both can tap into their existing concern for climate change. What this project gives them is some straightforward ways to act. Moreover, they will have confidence in the leadership of woman scientists providing them with talking points and the ability to debunk common myths. Among them:
Climate change isn’t settled science.
Climate change is a natural phenomenon.
Climate change is way off in the distant future.
It might get bad but we can handle it.
There is still time to address it (but not too much).
You might check your own response to these statements and see if you are clear on the facts. Next you can view the resources – some for moms and some to share with their children as well as TED talks. There is a sign up sheet for Americans and a similar one for Canadians and other parts of the world would be useful.
The final reminder is that individual small steps are important – but significant action involves government legislation. We have to have the right information and we have to urge those in positions of power to act on it in important and positive ways. Exploring these materials is a really worthwhile way to spend some time during our current lock down.
The Coming Decade's Work
Bill McKibben has changed the narrative from the incredible events of the past week that have been termed surreal – and only now have to be recognized as all too real.
The good news that a black man from the American south finally can be elected to the Senate was swamped by a riot and what to do about it as well as increasing hospitalizations and deaths from the pandemic. At the same time we forget that we are now we have passed the half way mark for dealing with the climate crisis.
The following were milestones:
Prior to 1990 scientists and oil companies study the effects of climate change
1988: James Hansen testifies to US congress
1990: Climate change is recognized as a problem by the public1992: The Rio Earth Summit initiates attempts to deal with it as an international problem
2050 becomes the target year for carbon neutrality
McKibben goes on to say that the 1990s and the first decade of the 21st century were basically a waste of time in addressing the issue. Oil companies and politicians united to make nothing happen and the Copenhagan conference in 2009 failed, as did the US Cap and Trade legislation in 2010.
But after that evidence was hard to ignore. We could not ignore rising temperatures, fires and floods. Solar energy and wind power developed and became cheaper. Activism started from the ground up and politicians now had another force than oil companies. The Paris Conference in 2015 had new commitment internationally. The US president didn’t help but momentum was there.
It has to continue. Scientists tell us that to keep on track we have to cut emissions by half by 2030. Moving the goal posts simply won’t do. That means several changes
An end to new fossil fuel infrastructure – which McKibben says may include the closing down of Alberta’s tar sands
Retrofitting of buildings to make them more energy efficient
Changes in transportation – including how we move ourselves
Stopping of Deforestation
Less use of carbon in food production Elimination of tax support of fossil fuel industries
These things have to happen now – and everywhere. There are some positive changes, including the diminished size and strength of many oil producing companies, the growth of electric cars, and positive responses from governments, especially the incoming Biden team. It’s the next 500 weeks that have to make the difference.
There is encouraging news. United by dealing the pandemic, cities of the world are uniting to work together as well as pressuring other levels of government to act. You can find out more about the organization here and watch the brief video below.