Before joining in the national political sport of name calling, backbiting and sloganeering, the first question that one should clinically address is: Are human activities responsible for the observed increases in world temperatures over the past century? (There is no real question that the earth is warming. Some really competent members of the human race, now with the help of earth-orbiting satellites, have gotten very good at measuring temperature.)
I am not qualified to answer that pivotal question. I am not even in the game. To really be “in the game,” one must actually examine historical data, read volumes of pertinent technical literature, develop and test one’s own mathematically based hypotheses and, finally, publish the results of one’s models in peer-reviewed scientific literature where it can be challenged and, possibly, refuted. (From a strictly scientific standpoint, those who cannot or will not sacrifice the time required to formulate the problem in this fashion might be considered dilettantes, somewhat like the loud and shirtless fans criticizing the action at a football game.)
Instead, in our democratic society, even with questions of this magnitude and complexity, we are inclined to put them to a public referendum. Pundits abound. Scientific illiteracy is no barrier. Even the third graders at elementary school may voice their opinions for the media.
For a politician, a decisively held opinion on the matter of global warming is essential. (Often, for self-described conservatives and others dreading the economic impacts of mitigation, the answer to an anthropomorphic warming component is a genetically ingrained and resounding “No!”)
Still, some concerned scientists and engineers have joined together to give the matter serious thought. After consideration, the American Chemical Society (at 129,000 members, the world’s largest scientific society) published their study group’s consensus in an ACS policy statement entitled, “Global Climate Change.”
In calling for the development and application of technology to “cost-effectively (most ACS members are keenly aware of the costs of energy and materials production) protect the climate,” the ACS policy statement argued that “deploying these technologies would reduce energy costs, increase productivity, improve the U.S.’s energy independence, improve air and water quality, and reduce environmental hazards, in addition to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.” (Considering the multiple ancillary benefits, one might imagine that government sponsorship of the application of these technologies would be welcomed even were greenhouse gases not reduced.)
Addressing the probable impact of human activities, the ACS policy statement concluded: “The overwhelming balance of evidence indicates that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is the prudent and responsible course of action at this time.” Moreover, “ACS believes that public and private efforts today are essential to protect the global climate system for the well-being of future generations.”
However, pursuing a prudent and responsible course of action in America is difficult because, when facing a national policy involving a change in lifestyle (particularly, conservation), many US citizens do not respond as “Americans.” Some super-elevate the economic interests of their state; some consider solely those of their city; others, still more narrowly, of an individual business or university; while the meanest among us defend our interests alone.
To the besieged administrator who adopts his primary accounting stance as “defender of the university budget” (rather than the future economic welfare of the nation), it might seem reasonable to not only oppose any measures which threaten to increase the financial burdens on the university, but, further, to argue that the problem is debatable – and may not even exist.
It has always struck me as especially odd that many of those who most enjoy the prosperity brought by modern technology (and who also have faith that future technological developments will overcome current material and sociological problems, such as those created by uninhibited population growth), will turn to vilify that community of technologists when confronted with a message they prefer not to hear.
That seems a lot easier to do when you are not in the game.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.