Wild Ones- Second Half of Butterflies and Birds

I thought the ending notes of the book were very depressing. I have so mad sad faces in my notes from this book! There seemed to be such a sense of cynicism among almost all the conservationists who had been working on the projects for long periods of time. They all started out so enthusiastic and just ended up hopeless. I think this has to do with the shifting baseline idea and how despite all their efforts, they still aren't seeing the wildness of their youth. There just seemed to be so many setbacks in each of the stories, the cranes refusing to migrate, destruction of the dunes to see a whale, the video of the starving polar bear cub. There also seems to be a bad outlook on human nature. The backpack of rocks metaphor was really depressing; we can never escape the negative qualities of being human. We always carry that weight with us.  It's hard to see the "weirdly reassuring" aspect of this story. Even Mooallem believes that there is no chance for the wildness to continue and that future generations will curse us for our destruction. But he says at least they know that things were better.

The personal connection of the conservationists to their work and the amount of effort that people are willing to put forth is maybe the reassuring part, but still all I can think of are the sad endings. For example, George put so much work to get the crane Tex to lay eggs. After all that work he was worried about people making fun of him, but then Tex died. This was very sad, to put all that work into a project and form a personal connection to your work, to have it end abruptly. Another example, is the story of Gibbs and her husband looking at the cranes. All they wanted to do was look at the natural beauty together in their old age as he was getting Alzheimer's. This story was very adorable and touching. It is reassuring that people care so much and despite all the negative qualities of humans, we are still working. But I'm not sure this is enough to feel good about our future.

I know in our discussion last week, many people wanted more ecological and biological detail. Why should we care about these species. But I do think the main point of this story is not the animals themselves or why they are important ecologically speaking, but how people view the animals. There is a conservation bias in people and it is important to see how you can get the public behind conservation. I think it is important to understand how people view animals and how that can be used to help them. Although this is inevitably a small picture approach it may be useful in driving big picture changes. In the end though, the wildness that we see today is changing, and as more and more environmental problems creep up, it is hard to see the end of human intervention in keeping animals alive. It is hard not to want to give up or know what the point is but hopefully the future holds some positive outlooks for biodiversity. 

Wild Ones- Bears and Half of Butterflies

So far Wild Ones by Jon Mooallen is very reminiscent in style of The Sixth Extinction. The book is similarly divided into case studies, but has more depth into each and less breadth. Mooallen similarly puts himself into each situation and not only describes the science but also his interactions with the scientists and their history and personalities. The story flows much better and less dense than the previous two reads, and I think would be very accessible to the public.

Many themes seem to be present so far in the book. The first of which seems to be the disconnect between the fantasy we have of animals, and the reality. The first few chapters of the butterfly section haven't delved into this much, but this idea was very prevalent in the intro and the polar bear chapters. It was interesting to see how the cultural views of polar bears has changed from viscous beasts, to cuddly vulnerable creatures. This view seemed to greatly upset the people in the town of Churchill who actually interact with the bears. I like the idea that Mooallen is trying to bridge this disconnect by going to see these species. I also like how the inspiration for this is his daughter. As much as I love the Disney versions of animals (who doesn't love the Lion King) they do seem to glorify certain animals over others. Even educational TV like Animal Planet and Nat Geo seem to sensationalize nature, and in my opinion this has gotten worse over time. I think it is important to get that connection by looking a wild animal in the eye and developing a healthy respect for the animal. I know many people who paint certain predators in a savage light, but that bias is not conductive to understanding the biology of the animal.

Another common theme is charismatic mega fauna. Of course the polar bear is a better spokesperson for climate change over a wolf spider. People have a fascination with animals that they can relate to, mostly mammals and birds. I thought it was interesting that the butterfly seems to "transcend" other insects in this respect. We see butterflies as beautiful and worth saving, but not other "creepy-crawlers." Most people wouldn't bat an eye at the extinction of most insects, but the lose of the polar bear would be seen as a tragedy. It's hard to get past this inherent bias in us, and I'm not sure how we as conservationists can overcome this in the public sphere. I like that we can use a charismatic megafauna to attack a broader issue, but as Mooallen suggests, the media has been oversaturated with polar bears and the message is getting lost. I think using multiple species as examples and not just the classic polar bear could help with this, but still it might not be enough.

A third theme that seems to be common in this book is the idea that these animals can no longer exist without human intervention. This has created a lot of cynicism in some of the scientists trying to help. One of the lepidopterists. Powell, has gone so far as to say "what is the point." It is disheartening to know that the butterflies can't exist unless we continuously and artificially alter the landscape, and the polar bears cannot exist without the possibility of supplemental feeding. This reminds me of the phrase "you are alive but are you really living." Yes the species still exists but are they really living. This was an idea that was hard for me to grapple with. I don't want to see these species go extinct, but it sad to think that they would be completely dependent on humans.

A final thing that struck me in the book was the fact that many of the people who love the polar bears the most, were climate deniers. I couldn't understand this. How can you deny the thing that is causing the extinction of a species you claim to love. I enjoyed that Mooallen referred back to the mammoth story we read about in The Sixth Extinction. Extinction is a hard thing to grasp and it is hard to believe that these species could possibly cease to exist.

This Changes Everything Part 3

The last section of the book is mostly about how things are beginning to change and how we should take them further to fully address climate change.

I was struck by how hopeful the last section was. I was expecting more of "what we should do," not "what is happening." It did give me some hope reading about Blockadia and the working with Indigenous groups to stop drilling and use green energy. This hope seemed so wildly different from the feeling of impeding doom from the introduction and first section. However, the hope was mitigated with the conclusion stating how we still have much more radical shifts to make. But it is heartening to see that we are making progress, even if we need more.

We discussed earlier whether this book was a call to revolution or not. I guess it depends on what you define as a revolution. The book is without a doubt a call to action, urging for grassroots resistance to fossil fuel companies. But to me revolution conjures up images of chopping off heads with a guillotine to overthrow a government, which is definitely not what is called for here. What I think is more important is not to necessarily change our entire economic system and government, but rather to change our ideology. It's not capitalism per say that is the problem, but the idea of non-regulation and exploitation. We can still use the land, but do so regeneratively and avoid greed. However, this could be more difficult than a bloody revolution... I also liked how she stated that it is a moral problem and not an economic problem. Yes going green may not be the best for the economy, but it is morally right. I did enjoy the analogy to slavery, although that was still a difficult change to make and involved bloodshed. I know as scientists we try to stay away from the moral side of things, but perhaps we should in this case.

Overall I did really enjoy this book. The flow was much better, even though it was still heavy with detail, and a long read. I did enjoy the personal touches Klein adds to her story, especially the section on fertility. This humanizes the author with an experience that many people can relate do (hits the gut, not just the brain.) Although Klein does seem very radical in the intro and conclusion, the main body of the book doesn't contain much of her radical ideas. I feel like if you remove the intro and conclusion you could ALMOST get a conservative person to agree with her ideas (I'm trying to be optimistic here which goes against my instincts.) We've said many times as a group that we wouldn't give these books to our conservative family members, and I have agreed, but maybe we should just to see how they react and if these books would actually resonate with them.

This Changes Everything Part 2

Although we are not meeting to discuss the book this week due to Fall Break, I decided to post a blog anyway since the book is nicely divided into three parts.

The second part of the book focuses on the "Magical Thinking" solutions that have been thought of and how they have all failed. This section tended to be a very frustrating read. It seems that people want quick and easy fixes that don't get to the root of the problem, emissions. It was so infuriating that people care more about the money than saving the earth. It was also upsetting the bias towards Western countries over those that are poorer, but have not contributed to the problem.

I was hopeful that the CEO of Virgin, Branson, would actually do something with his proposal, but I knew there would be a but, and of course, there was. It amazes me that people haven't held him accountable for his promise and allowed him to just continue with emissions. I agree with Klein that it seems even the best intentions go away when money is involved. I believe Branson was on the right track with his promise and if followed through by him and other companies, there would be no need to fix pollution with pollution. Perhaps government regulation would fix this problem, but at the moment does not seem like it will happen soon.

Personally, the idea of geoengineering to stop climate change just seems like a terrible idea. First of all, this would just treat the symptoms, warming, and not the cause, emissions. Furthermore, it appears that it will do more harm than good. Although I do agree with Klein that if faced with people dying on the streets I would gladly agree with the SRM plans, but we are not at that point. I like to think that there is still a chance that we can change and not rely on these drastic solutions. I don't like the idea of putting earth on "life support" and completely relying on technology to sustain our way of life. There is something beautiful about an organic landscape, but these fixes will drastically alter the landscape. You will not be able to escape human's meddling with the environment when you are literally blocking out the sun. I couldn't believe that people found this less intrusive than using high efficiency light bulbs. It seems like there would be no greater government obtrusion.

Now that Klein has outlined what is currently being done and why it is failing, I am interested in seeing how she proposes we fix the problem. The first part of the book was very radical and did not seem practical so I am interested in seeing how everything will come together in the final chapters.

This Changes Everything Part 1

Naomi Klein's This Changes Everything is a god book to read following Merchants of Doubt. It seems to tackle similar issues of dealing with the public's doubt of climate change, fear of socialism, and issues with the free market that was portrayed by Singer and Sietz. The prose of this book is much easier to get through in this book, although the anger inducing sections are still apparent in this piece. For example, it was hard to read about the Heartland group saying that we should let poorer countries fend for themselves with climate change while we just all buy air conditioners. However, this book does call into question our beliefs and notions about how to handle climate change and the opportunities that the solution presents.

Like the previous book, Klein directly blames Republican free market ideology for the current state of the environment. Governments are so obsessed with economic growth through the attainment of resources that we have decimated the planet. Klein encourages a complete overhaul of the current system to fix climate change, not just buying electric cars and putting up a few windmills. It is really striking how radical Klein appears to be here. And yet she admits to her ideas being radical. I can't imagine people actually being supportive of the radical changes in economic systems. Instead of changing people's opinions, this book might just be used by people like Singer and Sietz to prove their points about green is the new red. I can already hear the neigh sayers calling Klein a hysterical communist using terms like social justice and redistribution of wealth. How dare she claim that the rich are to blame not the lazy poor. It's sad to think that many people on the right will view this work as liberal propaganda and not the eye opening read that I find it to be.

Although Klein does blame the right for many of the environmental problems, she doesn't leave the left free of blame. This is where I find this read much less biased as Merchants of Doubt. She has mentioned about Obama's failure to go green as well as the left wing policies in South America still living an extractivism lifestyle. She calls into question not just right wing policies, but the ideology most people have about buy, buy, buy, I want, I want, I want. We all seem to over consume our resources regardless of our political affiliation. For the world Klein wants to be a reality to succeed, it is not just the right that has to change its ways, but all Western culture.

Another thing I call into question is the feasibility of the changes Klein states that we need to make. Even though she makes really good points, people resist change, especially and complete shift in ideology that they have supported for their entire lives. Also with the fossil fuel companies being as powerful politically and monetarily, it's hard to see governments being able to control them. They have too much lobbying power. She seems to be an idealist and think that making a radical change in our economic structure will fix all our problems. Although it looks good on paper, will her steps really fix the economic inequalities the way she says it will. It almost seems too good to be true. Although I think it would be worth it to save the environment, I'm not sold that everything will be as smooth and utopian as she seems to think.

Overall so far I am enjoying this book much better. It is long and slow at some points, but is still much easier to read. There have been some personal moments from Klein, such as her visiting the tar pits in Canada and her wish for her son to have the same experiences she has had. The style of writing does make it more accessible due to her journalistic background.