Bill McKibben, who broke on to the national scene about ten years ago with his devastating account of "The End of Nature" (featured in The New Yorker) remains one of most incisive writers on enviro issues in this country today. Part of his skill is his ability to face hard facts, but still find alternatives to utter despair. His eloquent Changing the Climate piece in The American Prospect, in response to a much-discussed essay called "The Death of Environmentalism," is model of thoughtfulness that continues to reverberate in my mind.
On the one hand, McKibben argues that the enviro movement pretty much ground to a halt in the early 90's with the wide-spread realization that if we did not stop emitting carbon dioxice we faced global warming and the prospect of being forced to change our entire way of life. Nobody knows how to deal with that, and it's crippling us with guilt and indecision.
On the other hand, McKibben goes on to say:
The useful thing about global warming is that its causes are so large and deeply rooted that it almost forces us to begin thinking on a similar scale. It’s not “environmentalism” that will solve this issue; it has its hands full trying to keep the administration from clear-cutting the national forests and ransacking the Arctic in search of yet more carbon.
No, the political force that finally manages to take this issue on is the political force that also understands and helps to nurture the deep-rooted and unsatisfied American desire for real community, for real connection between people. The force that dares to actually say out loud that “more” is no longer making us happier, that the need for security and for connection is now more important. Such a challenge might conceivably come from unexpected quarters. Christians, including evangelical conservatives, have begun to speak about global warming as a real issue for anyone concerned about the integrity of creation. The anti–SUV “What Would Jesus Drive?” movement actually scared Detroit, something the green groups have never managed.
The invaluable site "Gristmill" brought up a good example of this convergence--a story in Newsweek about how it turns out that traditional cities (which demand walking and talking, not driving and calling) are far healthier for us humans than the suburbs.
Other risk factors aside, people in densely populated places graced with sidewalks and shops had the lowest rates of diabetes, hypertension, heart disease and stroke. And the rates rose steadily as communities became more spread-out and less walkable. Statistically, a person living in Boston or San Francisco was healthier than an identical person in Atlanta or San Bernardino.
Can we get a clue? How long will it take? These are the questions that come to mind...
