The question of a solution

It came to my attention that the latent cynicism of my last post may not be the best way of critiquing the efforts of media companies to produce documentaries on the topic of climate change, however objectionable their needs for sensationalist anthropomorphisms are.

I take it for granted sometimes that the science behind global warming is irrefutable. Indeed, this is precisely the source of my anxiety and despair over the whole "promise of a solution" or optimism that many folks seem to dress their wounds with. If we realize the extent of the damage we've caused, of the warpath that industry follows, and the worldwide failure to agree on practical and timely measures, then despair, shame, and anger are indeed perfectly normal reactions. I would hesitate to take any human that claims to understand the issue but lacks these qualities seriously-- even more so for environmentalists. The capability of bearing these emotions tells us that there is something there worth fighting for-- something that is not a simply human concern, but is intrinsic to our human nature at the level of sense, a pain that cannot be rationalized or justified on the basis of our cultural conditioning. I tell myself that because I feel these things I am not just a human, I am an animal, and my concerns and my rage are connected to that of all living beings that endure the present circumstances together.

At the other end of the spectrum is our hope: that which we look forward to-- described by some as 'that which we cling to in the darkest hour'. But hope is a position that assumes defeat. Writer and activist Derrick Jensen defines it as "a longing for a future condition over which you have no agency; it means you are essentially powerless." We ought not hope for a solution, since it assumes a position of dependence on the cause of the problem we are fighting. In other words, the solution is not found in a wish, plea, or bargain, but in action.

But if hope is altogether frivolous, and cynicism only antagonistic, what types of solutions are viable to the endgame of a solution we are seeking? How do we approach people that are skeptical of the science, and convince them to act, or better yet, feel in a way that makes them indelibly environmentalists?

Browsing my facebook feed often feels like a chore, and I partially avoid it (as it is obviously a palliative for social life) but today I came across a relevant article, titled "Need to talk to a climate denier? Here's how", that lists several communication tactics that environmentalists from all backgrounds could benefit from. I would leave the reader to find them out on their own, but for myself I would add one last: emphasize in communicating with people that the facts themselves are not enough: teach them to trust their own innate connection to an environment-- be it the fenced area of a backyard of a house they grew up in, their favorite countryside vista, or quiet spot by the river. Give them the perspective that they sorely need, and ask them, is it worth it to doubt that change is coming?

If you want to read more of Derrick Jensen's article, "Beyond Hope", follow the link here:
https://orionmagazine.org/article/beyond-hope/