Not entirely certain we still have the power to do so, but we did at one time. We still have the power to choose renewable power sources when available, and pushing for them where they are not, push locavore dietary habits, limiting our carbon footprint. Problem is these things are 1) more expensive and 2) less convenient. And not sure where medicine comes into the equation, honestly.
1 Like
You know, this week and next week, one of the key points I’m trying to hammer home for my students is the generational divide between boomers and the silent generation, where the boomers (and to a lesser extent, I think lots of Gen Xers, some millennials, too) have an inherent distrust of institutions, especially the government (for not NO reason, either, if you think about the era the Boomers and early Gen Xers grew up in). Silents, for the most part, believed that a well-funded government can be a positive force in people’s lives - think of the New Deal’s intervention into the depression or the second world war, even stuff like the federal government intervening on behalf of civil rights movement at times (even as there were people in the federal government who sought to undermine them, too).
I wonder if we can have Gen Z more invested in building up solid government structures that are more transparent and that work for them.
Either way, some of the problems that exist in our world can’t be solved by individual actions, but NEED some sort of large scale systems and institutions to work out (climate change comes to mind).
9 Likes
There is a good profile of Julia Olsen, the lead public interest attorney for the plaintiffs, in today’s NYT:
2 Likes
Except other people don’t even matter. All it takes are 5 cynical people to render their cynical judgement.
2 Likes
I’m going to be cynical here and say that, if you want conservatives / Republicans / Trump voters to pay attention and take the issue seriously, say that it’s in the Constitution. In the first place, it’s not like they’ll fact check it. Second, the Constitution is one of those “sacred yet unread” texts, like the Bible. It carries weight.
3 Likes
“The constitution guarantees all Americans the right to life, liberty, and property.”
No, it doesn’t. You might be thinking about the Declaration of Independence. Which would seem to be a pretty crucial distinction to make before wading into a court of law.
1 Like
No. That is utter bollocks. Climate change cannot be solved by consumer choice.
“We” (you and I) are not responsible for climate change. The culprits are a small number of super-rich industrialists who have spent the last 30 years funding a massive propaganda campaign that has undermined everything that we (you and I) can do as individuals, along with everything that we (you and I) can do through representative democracy.
That the disinformation campaign exists has been well documented (see for example papers and books by Oreskes and Conway). What we still haven’t internalized is that the whole “we are all responsible” bullshit is part of that disinformation campaign. They want us to think that, because it lets them off the hook.
7 Likes
While I actually do agree with most of what you said here, I also feel that ducking any personal responsibility promotes a helpless victimhood that leaves us pretty hopeless. We need to do what we can where we are, economically, politically, whatever. I refuse to be helpless.
2 Likes
A similar case was brought and won recently here in the Netherlands. I’m not sure there are many parallels between these cases (different legal system, appointed judges to name just two obvious differences) but there’s at least some hope. Then again, the extremely partisan judges in the US are likely to pick party over planet. Let’s hope not.
6 Likes
The fifth amendment says no person shall “… be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”
The fourteenth amendment emphasizes that the individual states are also forbidden from depriving any person in their jurisdiction of “… life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”
I suppose you’re right that the constitution doesn’t explicitly say the governments must defend life, liberty, and property, but saying that they cannot abridge those rights is pretty close.
8 Likes
This is excellent! Let’s use all the tools we have at our disposal to effect change.
But really the most important thing is to create a sustained, broad-based public movement. Polls consistently show that the environment is not even among the top issues that Americans are concerned about. That has to change if a climate crisis is to be averted.
3 Likes
Of course we have a personal responsibility to act - it’s our planet! But largely that means understanding the reasons why very little progress has been made on addressing climate change for the last thirty years, and banding together for political action to remove the barriers. We need to choose political leaders who refuse to be bought by the fossil fuel industry.
Worrying about our own personal footprints is largely ineffective (in part because it’s something only the relatively well off have the luxury to do anything about).
1 Like
Agree to disagree. Small actions have consequences in the aggregate. This is true politically, which is why voting is so important even though my own personal vote is unlikely to have much impact. This is true economically, as boycotts and changes in buying patterns have demonstrated over the years. I choose to be empowered to make those tiny differences, but I also realize it is a choice. And yes, it is generally a prerogative of the well to do, but honestly, our whole country would, globally, count as well to do. Act locally to the best of your ability. It is all you can do. If enough make that choice, it will make a difference.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
