Lost Tool of the Environmentalist: FEAR
Whatever happened to fear? It seems that, as a motivator for positive change, it has gone out of vogue. Indeed, in eco-blogs (David Roberts, the quite capable Grist.org staff writer who sometimes forgets that the fight for a sustainable world is apolitical and nonpartisan, recently penned a five-part series entitled Fear and Environmentalism that, like too many writings of the “eco-elite,” is rooted in the topical thought-trends of this same elite, shows little knowledge of the history of popular movements, and makes a number of egregious, errroneous generalizations) and articles all over the web, I read that scaring people is taboo. Instead, we are to focus on the positive, move ahead with proactive goals and implement creative changes. Don’t get me wrong, these are all important strategies, but the fact is that thus far they have resulted in incremental advances over the span of several decades. In the meantime, the levels of all-things-nasty keep climbing, climbing, climbing and our world continues to slide right on over the edge. We need to dig deeper. We need to freely employ motivators that directly engage genetic response mechanisms, that activate the universal code built into every cell of the human body. The Toyota Prius, over which we are currently going gaga, is heralded as one of the great “positive” steps. A terrific advance, it gets less than 80% of the mileage the Geo Metro achieved twenty years ago at nearly double the inflation-adjusted cost (”But it has airbags, a nav unit and a CD player” the pro-Prius camp replies, as if any of these things does anything to help stave off climate change). If the Prius, and it’s continued promotion of the same old auto-centric society represent positivity, give me fistfuls of fear any day.
It was fear not hope, that I feel after reading books by our greatest thinkers, people like Lester Brown, Lovelock, Kunstler, Lovins, Leggett, among others. While not entirely pessimistic, these writers clearly illustrate the dire scenario that is, without a doubt, our collective near-term future. For those of you familiar with their work, I ask you: Is it a future to be afraid of or a future to be desired? Would you rather have every last person on earth fear this future or embrace it? What do you think would be the result of the former? Of the latter?
It was fear not hope, that compelled the United Nations to create the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change back in 1988. It was fear, not hope, that led the majority of the world’s nations to immediately pledge to halt or reduce carbon dioxide emissions following this panel’s first Scientific Assessment Report. The initial wave of fear of human and economic devastation that swept over world governments following this report led to the Kyoto Agreement and every major environmental agreement since.
It was fear not hope that pushed oil lobbyists and their partners-in-crime, the U.S. government to neutering the text of this report, squashing the Kyoto Protocol, and it is fear that keeps them active in blocking proposal after proposal on global environmental action.
Here’s my theory of why we fear fear: I blame it on G.W. Bush. Who else? The Bush camp’s six years of fear-mongering likely has much to do with this current aversion. Yet, it disheartens me to see that eco-intellectuals cannot or will not disassociate two entirely different campaigns and their strategies. Fear has been employed by great leaders, groups and movements throughout history. Fear is one of the primary human motivators and while we so often drape the word with negative connotations (one of the left’s weaknesses is its hyper-sensitivity to words, a sensitivity that shows very little regard for etymology, nor historic usage), it can instigate rapid and positive change like nothing else.
Climate journalist Elizabeth Kolbert, sums things up far better than I am capable. In an interview with Grist.org, Kolbert has this to say about the fear that hangs over all of us: ” I have kids. And I have a hard time imagining their futures. That is very painful. But even for me, do I imagine absolute disaster for the world during the course of their lifetimes? I’m not sure I do. I hold out hope we will avert that. It’s a heavy number as a parent. And it’s a heavy number for kids. Kids are increasingly aware of it; my kids certainly are. It hangs over them. Of course, when I was growing up the threat of nuclear war hung over us. I suppose it’s been a while since kids have grown up in a carefree world.”
Here, Kolbert neatly points out the flipside of fear: Hope. The great social commentator and poet Rob Base famously wrote, “Joy and pain, like sunshine and rain.” So, too, are hope and fear forever twined. Like Kolbert and millions of others, I fear for the future of my children and subsequent generations. Ask yourself, dear reader, if you are fearful to some degree of the future. Does this fear not compel you to make adjustments in your life, to educate yourself, to do what you can to provide the greatest amount of hope for yourself and others? Of course it does. Let us not deprive ourselves of an incredibly powerful tool. Applied correctly and in the right doses, fear of a parched, polluted and barren world may help ensure that such a world never exists.
(Coming Soon - Lost Tool of the Environmentalist: FURY)
++
The most significant book you’ve read or I will buy it back from you at full purchase price: Lester Brown’s Plan B 2.0Â Trust me on this one, just order it. You’ll thank me later.
Tags: Ruminations
The problem with invoking fear around environmental issues is that it is demonstrably not an effective catalyst for change. Fear is a great human motivator, when it is immediate, present, visceral, personal, and (ideally) physically instantiated and right in front of you. People react to things that produce that kind of fear; that\’s what kept us alive long enough to breed throughout pretechnological history. The reaction may or may not be useful, but that\’s a different question.
On the other hand, threats that are abstract, much bigger than individaul scale, and in the nonspecific future seem to invoke a generalized anxiety without actually generating a measurable response. This is not really surprising, since humans did not evolve to cope with this sort of fear. Pretechnological humans rarely encountered threats that would have produced that sort of fear, and usually couldn\’t do anything about it anyway even if they did. The problem is that our environmental crises pose a threat of precisely this nature.
If we\’re going to use fear as a motivating force, then it needs to be perceived as immediate and intensely personal if we want it to result in action. I\’m not sure this is a good strategy in the first place, since frightened people tend to do dumb things. But I do feel quite certain that feeding the generalized environmental anxiety isn\’t helping us any.
I would also disagree with your implication that environmentalism has, historically, focused on a positive and hopeful message. In my experience, the exact opposite has been true: environmentalism has historically been about fear and response to specific threats (Silent Spring, etc). Only relatively recently, with the advent of thinkers like Lovins (not a fear-monger, in my experience, unlike the others on your list) and McDonough, has there been a significant and positive vision presented for an alternative future. Visions of this sort has not gotten nearly enough traction outside of the eco-intelligensia, IMO. I\’m pretty sure that if you surveyed a bunch of \”average Americans\”, you would find alot of concern about the environment, but very little notion of how to respond to the threat.
When someone is confronted with a threat they don\’t understand, they tend to do nothing, or at least nothing useful. On the other hand, when someone is confronted with a opportunity for something better, many of them are motivated to seek that better end. Certainly the positive vision carrot should be backed up with the stick of imminent climate disaster. But just waving the stick will confuse people at best, and alienate them at worst.
Green Engineer -
I hear and respect what you’re saying. Let me respond to a few of your points.
I do not mean to infer that The Movement has historically focused on a positive, hopeful message, nor that such a message is not vitally important. Instead, I mean to suggest that lately this tactic seems to be trumping all others instead of being a healthy part of a mixed tactic approach.
Lovins I included in my list not because he uses fear-mongering in his writings, but because if one reads between the lines of his message and understands what is at stake is we fail to act accordingly, one can easily become fearful of the future.
Your points that fear generally provokes immediate response to immediate threat are well taken and important. I guess that I’m thinking about a different type of fear, the one that Kolbert discusses - the hanging cloud of fear that is not so immediate, that never dissipates. There is fear of mortal and imminent danger and then there are the fears that we face when we consider our future. Fear of failure, fear of age, fear of security loss - these types of more generalized fears that compel us toward daily action in many arenas. Could it be that the term “fear,” as I use it, could be replaced with “worry?” It could be, but I’m not convinced as the way I feel, when I think on such things as our global future seems to transcend mere worry and anxiety.
Again, I do not intend to promote the notion that fear should be used as the only stick, as you say. To do so would, I agree, rapidly confuse and alienate. But dismissing fear altogether out of the arsenal seems altogether unwise. In fact, it would be the equivalent of turning our back on the achievements of Rachel Carson and so many others who dedicated themselves to raising our awareness by any means necessary.