As any conservationist knows, working to make a difference in the face of climate change is a battle that takes courage, passion, and patience. Good news is sparse, progress is slow, and yet the Earth is changing faster than ever.
This week, an in the New Yorker shamed conservationists for being seduced by the 鈥渢ragicomedy of climate activism.鈥 After dismissing the issue as a 鈥渞eady-made meme,鈥 Franzen argued that caring about climate change in the future prohibits people from taking smart conservation actions now.
鈥淗as climate change made it harder for people to care about conservation?鈥 Franzen asks. Readers, journalists, and activists alike answered with a resounding 鈥渘o.鈥 (Read 探花精选's takes here and here.)
Here are some of the strongest responses:
鈥溾 by Joe Romm, Climate Progress
Romm, founding editor of Climate Progress, crafted a blistering, incredulous response that disrupts Franzen鈥檚 flawed rhetoric:
鈥淚n his next piece, Franzen will argue the Surgeon General鈥檚 dire science-based prophecy that cigarette smoking is dangerous to your health could lead smokers to indifference toward obeying traffic lights because, like, why bother?鈥
鈥淚t鈥檚 dismaying to see Franzen whine that climate action requires we 鈥榖light every landscape with biofuel agriculture, solar farms, and wind turbines,鈥欌 Romm continues. 鈥淚t鈥檚 climate inaction that will . And yes, Franzen brings up the hoary complaint about wind turbines killing birds. What about the vastly larger number of birds that are ?鈥
鈥溾 by Karl Mathiesen, The Guardian
Mathiesen鈥檚 piece reflects the concerns of several other bird conservationists. 鈥淚 mean he鈥檚 talking nonsense,鈥 Mark Avery, former conservation director of the Royal Society for Protection of Birds, tells Mathiesen. 鈥淎ll the evidence suggests that climate change will be very harmful to birds.鈥
Mathiesen also contends that Franzen is flirting with climate change denialism by denying the usefulness of scientific modeling.
鈥溾 by Lindsay Abrams, Salon
Abrams parries the idea that the battle to stop climate change is hopeless.
鈥淪till, Franzen is at once overly optimistic about adaptation鈥攅lsewhere, he argues that climate change is no existential threat, but 鈥榡ust the same old story writ larger鈥欌攁nd a bit too dismissive of mitigation: The climate struggle, he essentially argues, is a lost cause. Few would argue with his assertion that conservation work carries more immediate results and, to the individual who undertakes it, can be more rewarding. But most would agree that it鈥檚 also too soon to stop trying to reduce our contribution to the problem.鈥
鈥,鈥 by David Roberts, Grist
Roberts briefly acknowledges the misguided nature of Franzen鈥檚 essay, and then dives into a larger point: Climate change is a complex concept that is difficult to understand. As a result, he argues, many people have a Climate Thing鈥斺赌that one tidbit of info or argument that they read somewhere, or heard somewhere, the thing that somehow resonated with their own concerns and beliefs. It鈥檚 the thing they latched onto, the thing they know about climate, like the proverbial blind people surrounding the elephant. They build on it and it becomes their Climate Thing.鈥 These so-named 鈥淐limate Things鈥 make it tough for people to get on board with climate action (Franzen鈥檚 Climate Thing, it seems, is birds).
Roberts continues:
鈥淧eople naturally need some sort of entr茅e, some way in, some angle that reduces the brain-frying complexity and ambiguity to manageable proportions. They will adopt whatever Climate Thing reaches them first or most powerfully, whatever latches on and helps ease the cognitive strain, whatever speaks to their experience.
That will often yield a frustrating kind of tunnel vision, as evidenced in Franzen鈥檚 essay. But it鈥檚 too easy for climate hawks to slot such people into the enemy camp and meet them with derision and mockery. Lots of them just haven鈥檛 heard a better, more resonant story yet!鈥
We agree that better storytelling is essential to helping people understand climate change and find the motivation to act. That鈥檚 why we devoted an entire issue of 探花精选 to birds and climate change.
鈥,鈥 by David Roberts, Grist
A few days after publishing his original piece, Roberts wrote a follow-up that reconsiders what a Climate Thing ought to be. He walks readers through a careful, logical progression to realize that surfacing each person鈥檚 Climate Thing might help more than it hurts. Climate change is complex and unwieldy, so finding the small way climate change touches your own life could make climate change relatable and understandable. Uncovering people鈥檚 Climate Things might yield enough passion to energize the movement against climate change, Roberts argues.
Roberts writes:
鈥淐limate is everything, which means everyone touches only a tiny piece of it. Let people care about their birds or their pipelines or their mountains or their tech startups or their research clusters or their permaculture farms. Everybody needs a Climate Thing, a close-by proxy through which they can express their climate concern in a way that has local effects and tangible rewards. It is these proxies, these rich anchors in our lived experience of nature and culture, that inspire us. The important thing is that we鈥檙e all moving our pieces in the right direction.鈥
鈥,鈥 by Michelle Nijhuis, The Last Word On Nothing
Environmental writer (and occasional 探花精选 contributor) Michelle Nijhuis engages in a conversation with High Country News contributing editor Judith Lewis Mernit. The two are on opposite sides, but manage to steer their conversation into a productive discussion. It鈥檚 refreshing to get past the outrage (though there鈥檚 some of that) and realize that the silver lining of this debacle may be greater interest in solving tough environmental problems.
As Lewis Mernit writes:
鈥淔ranzen is spot on when he says that the climate problem has seduced people into thinking there鈥檚 a technological solution to our environmental woes. We want that big silver bullet that allows us to continue living just as we do, only without the consequences. I think that鈥檚 why some people give short shrift to small-scale local conservation projects that are indeed, as you point out about Franzen鈥檚 Costan Rican and Peruvian examples, climate-mitigation projects. Because what local conservation project is not? Every effort to protect your local habitat, to enhance its carbon-absorbing potential, to live more sustainably on what you can produce鈥攂e it energy or food鈥攃loser to home helps lower carbon atmospheric carbon. Even if I go out to pull trash out of the Los Angeles River, or help reseed endemic plants in the mountains lost to off-season fires, those are climate mitigation projects. And that鈥檚 Frazen鈥檚 point, and what I like best about his controversial essay: 鈥橭nly an appreciation of nature as a collection of specific threatened habitats,鈥 he writes, 鈥檆an avert the complete denaturing of the world.鈥欌
If this is the sort of conversation the article has incited, dare we say the ends may have justified the means?
鈥,鈥 by Dan Klotz, National Geographic
The main problem with Franzen鈥檚 piece, Klotz argues, is Franzen鈥檚 pessimism. This pessimism is pervasive even when unwarranted: 鈥Even the despair that Franzen espouses and his central theme鈥攖hat climate change will end life as we know it so we may as well enjoy the party for as long as it lasts鈥攔uns contrary to the stories he tells in the second half of his opus,鈥 Klotz writes.
He continues:
鈥淯ltimately, Franzen鈥檚 pessimism needs to be tossed aside and disregarded. The steps needed to mitigate and adapt to climate change鈥檚 impacts present a very stark picture and require an 鈥榓ll hands on deck鈥 type of solution. But failure to act is a disservice to our children, who will inherit the planet from us. We need to ignore the fiction writers, buck up, and tackle the task at hand. In many ways, this is the American frontier narrative retold for the modern era. It is what we do best, and there never has been a better time for it than now.鈥
鈥,鈥 Rebecca Leber, The New Republic
The headline pretty much says it all鈥擫eber compares some of Franzen鈥檚 claims with those of climate change denialists and finds them remarkably similar.
She writes:
鈥淔ranzen isn鈥檛 a denier; he accepts climate change science. He just doesn鈥檛 necessarily think too-little, too-late advocacy should be a priority, considering the scale of the problem. Even so, his various arguments vaguely resemble what you often hear from politicians (many of whom don鈥檛 accept the science) as reasons for doing nothing.
Senator Marco Rubio and former Senator Rick Santroum that even if they accepted the science, humans won鈥檛 make much of an impact either way by taking action now. 鈥業 don鈥檛 agree with the notion that...there are actions we can take today that would actually have an impact on what鈥檚 happening in our climate,鈥 Rubio said. 鈥楨ven folks who accept all of the science by the alarmists on the other side, recognize that everything that鈥檚 being considered by the United States will have鈥攚ell, not almost, will have zero impact on it given what鈥檚 going on in the rest of the world,鈥 Santorum said.鈥
鈥溾 by Robert Manne, The Guardian
Manne states upfront that he finds Franzen鈥檚 logic to be flawed鈥攂ut he also notes the importance of listening to this perspective (he quotes Ezra Pound鈥檚 point: 鈥淎rtists are the antennae of the race鈥). As he winds through Franzen鈥檚 points, he delicately deconstructs them:
鈥淔ranzen鈥檚 logic is flawed. No one would abandon the fight against racism on the ground that the problem could not be solved by individual acts of kindness to African Americans. But the logic is also revealing. Embedded in the hyper-individualist liberal consumer society, it apparently has not occurred to Franzen that commitment to the struggle against the climate change catastrophe is not about private lifestyle choices but collective political activity, or that rather than arguing that we have no alternative to abandoning hope, an author with his kind of public authority might lend his voice to the cause to which individuals like Al Gore, James Hansen, Bill McKibben and Naomi Klein have devoted their lives.鈥
鈥,鈥 by Shaun Gonzalez, Mojave Desert Blog
Gonzalez takes a broader angle on the climate change vs. conservation debate鈥攈e argues that while climate change is important, it is just part of the broader need to reassess how humans interact with the environment. 鈥淭he ongoing discussion among those concerned about climate change and conservation exposes a fault line in the environmental community that some climate pundits have created with their refusal to recognize that climate change is part of a broader sustainability deficit,鈥 he writes.
Gonzalez notes that he doesn鈥檛 agree with Franzen鈥檚 angle, but that some of the responses have been equally incorrect:
鈥淩oberts, Romm, and some other climate hawks preach to environmentalists as if climate change is some new problem that we do not understand, and accuse environmentalists of being myopically focused on birds or other wildlife. They completely miss the point that it is often environmentalists that see the big picture鈥攃limate change is not the problem, but a piece of a much bigger problem鈥攐ur unsustainable, and often selfish expectations of what this planet can and should provide to humans. We dig up and burn oil and coal with the same feverish and blind ambition that we drain wetlands for subdivisions and office parks, dam rivers for energy and recreation, and bulldoze woodlands for strip malls and highways. Replacing fossil fuel energy with renewable energy is a necessary upgrade to our way of life, but it is ultimately just a temporary patch for what is actually an outdated operating system that will continue to undermine the vibrance of our planet long after the last coal power plant is shut down.鈥
鈥,鈥 by Chris Clarke, Coyote Crossing
Clarke acknowledges some of the flaws of Franzen鈥檚 piece鈥攈is lack of disclosure of his relationship to the ABC, for example鈥攂ut also acknowledges that Franzen鈥檚 piece hits on some concerns about conservation prioritization that Clarke has faced for years. 鈥淭he overwhelming sense of my reaction as I read the essay was this: Finally,鈥 he writes. 鈥淔inally, someone prominent is saying this.鈥
He continues:
鈥淔ranzen鈥檚 main contention is that the overwhelming focus of most of the mainstream environmental movement on climate change has come at a steep cost: a shifting of that focus away from biological diversity issues.
Those of you who have been reading my work for a while won鈥檛 be surprised at my being pleased at this idea鈥檚 hitting the pages of the New Yorker. For a while, the climate change movement has seemed from my perch here in the desert southwest to have abandoned any concern for biological diversity. Those who bring up concerns that renewable energy development might actually harm wildlife or their habitat have been scoffed at, accused of being climate change deniers or (to cite an example from 2011 that my Coyot.es Network colleague still ribs me about on occasion) .鈥
Clarke has years of experience in the field to back up his argument, and his piece detailing these experiences is worth a read.
Twitter users also chimed in:
Let me get this right: the real threat to biodiversity and conservation is people who worry about climate change?
鈥 Michael Pollan (@michaelpollan)
Jonathan Franzen makes sweeping environmental statements that are both irritating and weirdly look-at-me
鈥 John Schwartz (@jswatz)
鈥淚 think he鈥檚 talking nonsense,鈥 says everyone, about Jonathan Franzen: Also, he鈥檚 annoying:
鈥 Laura Helmuth (@laurahelmuth)
Not buying Franzen鈥檚 argument that biodiversity and climate are in a zero-sum competition for attention. Just no.
鈥 Dan Fagin (@danfagin)
Wow. Joe Romm *destroys* Jonathan Franzen鈥檚 New Yorker piece on climate change.
鈥 Phil Plait (@BadAstronomer)
Jonathan Franzen is concerned that all this talk of the iceberg collision is taking precedence over the other problems aboard the Titanic
鈥 Nick Playfair (@nplayfair)