November 9th, 2005
Role of Brain-Dead Gasbags in Global Climate Change
I’ll start off my post-declaration blog with a topic that’s probably fairly safe, as my ire about it was not sparked by anyone I know. The instigator in this case was a documentary I saw snatches of, a week or so back, on PBS. I don’t generally watch PBS (though my girlfriend inflicts it upon me every chance she gets) and this program was a good example of why I eschew it. Because, probably in an attempt to forestall the right wing’s periodic tantrums about using public funds to promote such a radical agenda, PBS’s programming has become either disgustingly centrist and status quo, or some weird mishmash wherein you can just see the producer standing off to the side in an anxious tangle, thinking, “Even though global warming is a scientific fact, better make sure the narration is ambiguous by saying things like, ‘If we accept global warming as a scientific fact…’ Oh, and it probably wouldn’t hurt to hire a spokesmodel as the narrator either, since the sexual exploitation of women offends no one.”
So anyway, this stupid documentary was about global warming, and aside from having a conventionally attractive long-shiny-haired little-black-dress-clad spokesmodel as the narrator repeatedly proclaiming CYA statements like the above, it irritated me because of its ongoing assumption that global warming and climate change can be taken care of without any of us actually doing anything different. The two examples that stand out most glaringly in my mind:
1. An interview with some suit-stuffer at Ford Motor Company talking about hybrid SUVs. The key comment was something along the lines of, “With our great new product line, consumers can pull up to the pump just like they do now! This technology won’t make anyone change what they’re doing!”
2. A discussion of some “scientist” who’s creating “carbon sink trees” which look like giant waffle irons on giant poles. The idea here is that these fake trees can extract and store much more carbon from the atmosphere than regular trees, so that we can all keep driving our gas-guzzlers and running our air conditioners when it’s 70 degrees outside.
Now I’m not a scientist, and I haven’t done even one iota of research, but even I can see that both of these ideas are bogus. Sure, hybrid cars use less gasoline. That’s true. But how are they made? Where do the materials come from? Mines? Plastic factories? And are the mines and plastic factories run on hybrid technology also? Ah. Thought not. No, hybrid cars are sourced and constructed the same way as regular cars. Even if they used recycled materials (which the suit-stuffer didn’t say anything about), what are the costs of processing the materials so they can be reused? And with what energy source would such processing be done? So as a transitional technology, hybrid vehicles may be useful, but they are in no way going to lead to independence from fossil fuels, manufacturing pollution, and earth-damaging resource extraction, because they won’t impact car-dependent lifestyles and driving habits.
Ditto for the carbon sink “tree” idea, with some other scathing comments–for one thing, these things are butt-ugly. No, I take that back; I don’t think I’ve ever seen a butt that’s anything like as ugly as these things are. They’re giant, metal grids on metal poles (think the giant poles made of bolted sheet metal that they use for the biggest electrical towers) as tall as five-story buildings. And IMHO, one of the things that contributes majorly to the soulless angst in this culture, is the ugliness of so many things, and our willingness to put up with it in exchange for earth-destroying modern conveniences. But here’s a thought–how about planting actual trees? They’re really pretty, they give shade and shelter and food to animals including humans, and if we were reasonable about our habits, they’d probably absorb our carbon just fine. Or even better, how about not cutting down any more of the trees we already have? How about driving less? But, why would we do that, when we can use more energy and more resources to make giant hideous metal monstrosities to blight the landscape while soaking up whatever effluent we feel like putting out? Hug this, EarthFirst!
No, folks, I’m sorry to break it to you, but any kind of real sustained change for the better, be it environmental clean-up or social justice, requires those of us who are privileged by the current system to give something up. We will be returning to this metaconcept as it relates to sexism and classism in future posts, but for now I will leave you with this thought: In light of recent natural disasters around the world, it may behoove us to notice that, while perhaps more patient, nature is ultimately way, way less forgiving of patriarchal stupidity than, say, feminists have been. Sure, we want the raping and torture and abuse to stop, but as of yet we haven’t destroyed any cities or drowned thousands of people in a day. So if I were you–yes, you, there, in the Expedigator, paying $90 to fill your ridiculous gas tank–I might consider wising the hell up.
