I just loved the thought that a John Jeremiah Sullivan and a Stacey Clarkson James are platonic friends and passionate conservationists. Until they drove a gas guzzling Jeep 9 hours, simply to hand deliver a printed book on paper to someone’s second home in the woods, while visiting their own second home in the woods. Not to mention she and husband both flying to Amsterdam to oversee the printing process! How Davos of them!
This is why environmentalism is a tough sell to the working class in general. Most working class people have never even been on an airplane. They can’t afford the fares. They’re understandably reluctant to listen to lectures about limiting consumption from someone who just flew in from wherever, probably first class if not on a private jet. Talking about conservation measures that directly effect things like energy prices, food prices, etc. that have greatest impact on the lowest classes simply sounds like noblesse-oblige and it turns people off. Working class folk are more likely to listen to a wildly unkempt mountain man living in the wilderness with no academic achievements, books, websites, or even basic education simply because he as least practices his own beliefs. Climate change is a theory that the burning of fossil fuels is warming the planet. I’m inclined to believe the theory. Where I part ways with the alarmists is when they declare it an apocalyptic crisis that requires drastic changes to society and/or top-down command economics. That data, such as it is, comes from computer modeling techniques, which are not falsifiable over a reasonable time scale on their own, but that are similar to other models that gave us wildly incorrect projections on other falsifiable claims, like casualties from natural disasters or COVID death projections. Climate change policy, unlike climate change science, is an excuse for multinational corporations and other globalist organizations and supporters to siphon more power away from local communities and people in general. I’ll maybe think about buying into climate change hysteria when the elites pushing it give up their SUVs, yachts, and private jets, but we know that isn’t happening.
Modeling is most developed in weather prediction. They’ve made great strides. Two days out, maybe four. Next month is still a complete mystery.
So I’m not sure how the climate modelers can claim to be so accurate.
Given that you say most working class people have not been on a plane, I assume you American. Almost all working class people in Britain have been on a plane and most go on regular overseas holidays. I understand that historically most Americans have not even held passports but this is not the case in Europe at least.
Your supposition is correct. It’s a matter of perspective. America is huge, about 3/4 the size of the entire EU. When we go on vacation, we are usually just going to another state. Where I live, it would take two days minimum of driving all day to even reach the nearest border. My brother actually went to Jamaica for his honeymoon, which is about as much as the average person can realistically afford. The Caribbean countries all have resorts that cater to Americans and the exchange rate makes it a lot easier. Again, the most expensive part is the airfare. My mother has been to Alaska and Hawaii I believe but she had to save up for a while to do it. The millions of Americans that don’t have passports and are mostly content to live and die in one place don’t really want to be lectured about the effects of consumption on the environment from somebody who’s hopping around the globe regularly, or even traveling around the US by airplane, because most of use air travel seldom to never, and it doesn’t take an aeronautical engineer to know that airplanes run on fossil fuels. I’m dead serious when I tell you a lot of Americans would take environmental activists more seriously if they religiously stayed in one place and did all their crusading over the Internet. That would demonstrate a level of personal commitment to the cause. We may not be well educated, well traveled, or cosmopolitan, but when a person’s actions don’t match their words, we tend to doubt the words.
The new science deniers are the ones who believe man made climate change is the only source. But don’t look to models for estimates of future temperature. The models can be made to say whatever they like.
Have you seen where they live? Public transport options = 0
Ardath Blauvelt
8 months ago
Imagine city children who have never seen the Milky Way, or more than a couple of stars.
Martin Butler
8 months ago
Sounds tragic. Unfortunately there are too many who love to underplay the way we are slowly and surely destroying our planet so wouldn’t expect too much sympathy here. We’ll be onto the horrors of ULEZ in no time.
Not sure that’s fair. I think there’s good understanding that we are causing massive environmental damage through plastics, deforestation, other habitat reduction, pesticides and on and on and on.
The problem is that these issues are always lumped in with climate change – an hysteria based entirely on modelling. The solutions to the two things are fundamentally different but only the “let’s tear down capitalism with unrealistic energy demands” crowd make the news.
Well I think that’s a little unfair too. Few want to tear down capitalism merely to put some sort of control on the giant corporations who seem bent on business as usual despite all the promises. I agree it’s certainly not all about climate change.
Unfortunately I detect a tendency to label concern for the environment (across the board) as somehow ‘woke’ which means it can be dismissed in the same breath as the absurdities of transgender self ID.
Whether we like it or not, governments have to be the main drivers for environmental protection, it’s not going to happen through individual choice, which means such action can easily be dismissed as top down nanny-statism. Which is a pity.
What is a ‘realistic’ rate of change – with relation to energy demands for example – is very much a matter of opinion. But those who react with outrage to any slight change to their ‘way of life’ need to get real.
Fair enough. You are right government needs to be involved and that climate change is a woke cause therefore often generates a knee jerk reaction. As Simon says, we need a term for environmental concern outside AGW.
I’m writing this from the top of Catbells, which is all the reminder one needs of the need to protect our environment… and is a ridiculous place to conduct an online conversation!!
The problem is not whether global warming is real or not. It’s not even whether global warming is man made. The problem is that governments have banished scientific discussion – only those who say the right things get the money.
I am a scientist and I have read book after book on climate change – both sides of the argument – and I truly don’t see any evidence of it being man made. But politicians are not clever enough (as in not scientists or not having time) to do the reading. So, a whole raft of scientists who could come up with brilliant ideas are being ignored – unless they change sides and sacrifice their integrity.
We need a quick and easy umbrella term for those of us that deplore human ruination of the natural environment and are at the same time skeptical of anthropogenic climate change.
Here here! Sign me up. Perhaps we call ourselves S.O.A.C.C.ers?
Paul Hemphill
8 months ago
Sad that an article praising fireflies can provoke a predictable chorus of cynics arguing about the climate change argument. Right now we are enjoying our brief firefly season here in our forest in northern New South Wales. Quite magical – they look like faeries trooping through the woods. There are 25 firefly species in Australia. https://lesleyballantyne.com/australian-fireflies
Simon Neale
8 months ago
Lake Michigan, in an eerie little crescent of absolute climatic perfection
Is eerie Michigan superior?
Malcolm Webb
8 months ago
I am not sure that street lighting provided by 500 ( presumably dying) insects crammed into a glass jar is particularly “ Utopian”. – but the supply chain must have been interesting to behold. It is also not clear to me effect this year’s supposed “Climate horrors” had on these creatures in the Appalachians – but I agree that fireflies are fascinating and no doubt the book is too.
Nanda Kishor das
8 months ago
A beatiful review of a beatiful book! Would love to get my hands on one.
Dumetrius
8 months ago
That is a pretty part of America.
Used to be served by the ‘Ironton’ bit of the bright orange Detroit, Toledo & Ironton Railroad.
I just loved the thought that a John Jeremiah Sullivan and a Stacey Clarkson James are platonic friends and passionate conservationists. Until they drove a gas guzzling Jeep 9 hours, simply to hand deliver a printed book on paper to someone’s second home in the woods, while visiting their own second home in the woods. Not to mention she and husband both flying to Amsterdam to oversee the printing process! How Davos of them!
This is why environmentalism is a tough sell to the working class in general. Most working class people have never even been on an airplane. They can’t afford the fares. They’re understandably reluctant to listen to lectures about limiting consumption from someone who just flew in from wherever, probably first class if not on a private jet. Talking about conservation measures that directly effect things like energy prices, food prices, etc. that have greatest impact on the lowest classes simply sounds like noblesse-oblige and it turns people off. Working class folk are more likely to listen to a wildly unkempt mountain man living in the wilderness with no academic achievements, books, websites, or even basic education simply because he as least practices his own beliefs. Climate change is a theory that the burning of fossil fuels is warming the planet. I’m inclined to believe the theory. Where I part ways with the alarmists is when they declare it an apocalyptic crisis that requires drastic changes to society and/or top-down command economics. That data, such as it is, comes from computer modeling techniques, which are not falsifiable over a reasonable time scale on their own, but that are similar to other models that gave us wildly incorrect projections on other falsifiable claims, like casualties from natural disasters or COVID death projections. Climate change policy, unlike climate change science, is an excuse for multinational corporations and other globalist organizations and supporters to siphon more power away from local communities and people in general. I’ll maybe think about buying into climate change hysteria when the elites pushing it give up their SUVs, yachts, and private jets, but we know that isn’t happening.
Modeling is most developed in weather prediction. They’ve made great strides. Two days out, maybe four. Next month is still a complete mystery.
So I’m not sure how the climate modelers can claim to be so accurate.
Given that you say most working class people have not been on a plane, I assume you American. Almost all working class people in Britain have been on a plane and most go on regular overseas holidays. I understand that historically most Americans have not even held passports but this is not the case in Europe at least.
Your supposition is correct. It’s a matter of perspective. America is huge, about 3/4 the size of the entire EU. When we go on vacation, we are usually just going to another state. Where I live, it would take two days minimum of driving all day to even reach the nearest border. My brother actually went to Jamaica for his honeymoon, which is about as much as the average person can realistically afford. The Caribbean countries all have resorts that cater to Americans and the exchange rate makes it a lot easier. Again, the most expensive part is the airfare. My mother has been to Alaska and Hawaii I believe but she had to save up for a while to do it. The millions of Americans that don’t have passports and are mostly content to live and die in one place don’t really want to be lectured about the effects of consumption on the environment from somebody who’s hopping around the globe regularly, or even traveling around the US by airplane, because most of use air travel seldom to never, and it doesn’t take an aeronautical engineer to know that airplanes run on fossil fuels. I’m dead serious when I tell you a lot of Americans would take environmental activists more seriously if they religiously stayed in one place and did all their crusading over the Internet. That would demonstrate a level of personal commitment to the cause. We may not be well educated, well traveled, or cosmopolitan, but when a person’s actions don’t match their words, we tend to doubt the words.
Owning a passport and flying to another country on holiday is a rather common occurrence in the UK… even for “working class” people.
The new science deniers are the ones who believe man made climate change is the only source. But don’t look to models for estimates of future temperature. The models can be made to say whatever they like.
Have you seen where they live? Public transport options = 0
Imagine city children who have never seen the Milky Way, or more than a couple of stars.
Sounds tragic. Unfortunately there are too many who love to underplay the way we are slowly and surely destroying our planet so wouldn’t expect too much sympathy here. We’ll be onto the horrors of ULEZ in no time.
Yes, there’s definitely more to this than just increasing light pollution.
Not sure that’s fair. I think there’s good understanding that we are causing massive environmental damage through plastics, deforestation, other habitat reduction, pesticides and on and on and on.
The problem is that these issues are always lumped in with climate change – an hysteria based entirely on modelling. The solutions to the two things are fundamentally different but only the “let’s tear down capitalism with unrealistic energy demands” crowd make the news.
Well I think that’s a little unfair too. Few want to tear down capitalism merely to put some sort of control on the giant corporations who seem bent on business as usual despite all the promises. I agree it’s certainly not all about climate change.
Unfortunately I detect a tendency to label concern for the environment (across the board) as somehow ‘woke’ which means it can be dismissed in the same breath as the absurdities of transgender self ID.
Whether we like it or not, governments have to be the main drivers for environmental protection, it’s not going to happen through individual choice, which means such action can easily be dismissed as top down nanny-statism. Which is a pity.
What is a ‘realistic’ rate of change – with relation to energy demands for example – is very much a matter of opinion. But those who react with outrage to any slight change to their ‘way of life’ need to get real.
Fair enough. You are right government needs to be involved and that climate change is a woke cause therefore often generates a knee jerk reaction. As Simon says, we need a term for environmental concern outside AGW.
I’m writing this from the top of Catbells, which is all the reminder one needs of the need to protect our environment… and is a ridiculous place to conduct an online conversation!!
The problem is not whether global warming is real or not. It’s not even whether global warming is man made. The problem is that governments have banished scientific discussion – only those who say the right things get the money.
I am a scientist and I have read book after book on climate change – both sides of the argument – and I truly don’t see any evidence of it being man made. But politicians are not clever enough (as in not scientists or not having time) to do the reading. So, a whole raft of scientists who could come up with brilliant ideas are being ignored – unless they change sides and sacrifice their integrity.
We need a quick and easy umbrella term for those of us that deplore human ruination of the natural environment and are at the same time skeptical of anthropogenic climate change.
Here here! Sign me up. Perhaps we call ourselves S.O.A.C.C.ers?
Sad that an article praising fireflies can provoke a predictable chorus of cynics arguing about the climate change argument. Right now we are enjoying our brief firefly season here in our forest in northern New South Wales. Quite magical – they look like faeries trooping through the woods. There are 25 firefly species in Australia.
https://lesleyballantyne.com/australian-fireflies
Is eerie Michigan superior?
I am not sure that street lighting provided by 500 ( presumably dying) insects crammed into a glass jar is particularly “ Utopian”. – but the supply chain must have been interesting to behold. It is also not clear to me effect this year’s supposed “Climate horrors” had on these creatures in the Appalachians – but I agree that fireflies are fascinating and no doubt the book is too.
A beatiful review of a beatiful book! Would love to get my hands on one.
That is a pretty part of America.
Used to be served by the ‘Ironton’ bit of the bright orange Detroit, Toledo & Ironton Railroad.