The Best Way to Cool Down (The Earth)
Due to carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels, the Earth is experiencing a rapid warming that is beginning to affect many aspects of the natural world, such as the weather and ecosystems. Increased frequency of natural catastrophes and the extinction of organisms that maintain the balance of the environment could then threaten human civilization. But despite many activists’ attempts to inform the people of this growing danger and encourage them to do something, many remain blissfully unaware of or continue to deny human-caused climate change. This ignorance needs to end, and the solution can be found when we combine the concepts introduced by authors Barbara Kingsolver and Bill McKibben in the writings we’ve gone over to create an impactful book. Once this book is well-established in people’s minds, we can then perform a unified act to get the government to do something.
In my blog “The Warming Planet and the Moral Universe,” I go over the differences between Kingsolver and McKibben’s approaches to environmental activism. McKibben prefers to stand up tall and speak out loud about the actual statistics of the issue, while Kingsolver would rather stay out of the limelight and is more indirect with getting her point across, as she favors writing over speaking. Both have been successful in their endeavors, but what if we combined their ideas? I agree wholeheartedly with Kingsolver when she insists that “…lobbing facts over the wall at the climate-change deniers is useless, especially while we’re also saying ‘Look how stupid they are'” (“The Moral Universe”). This tactic is aggressive and belittling, not to mention annoying! This is why Kingsolver sneaks controversial problems into her books by centering them around relatable fictional characters’ lives. However, the downside to Kingsolver’s tactic is it’s too passive; she compares her books to messages in bottles that she’s sending away, and if people don’t read them it’s fine. But it’s not fine, because the planet is in danger! This brings us back to McKibben’s more assertive option; he has taken it upon himself to educate the country with straight-up facts and nonviolent protest, not holding back. Yet this is where we run into the problem with his idea: he’s guilty of the very “lobbing facts over the wall” that Kingsolver denounces, and McKibben has been accused of using “scare tactics” by many, reducing his credibility. What we truly need right now is a balance between McKibben and Kingsolver’s concepts, something that grabs people’s attention with facts yet doesn’t scream in their faces and make them feel that they’re wrong. This is why I believe a book that tells the truth directly is the answer, and once enough regular people have read it, the marches on Washington can begin. Actually, there is such a book that was once used quite effectively to fix an environmental problem: Silent Spring, by Rachel Carson, about the effects of pesticides on natural processes. This book is what eventually caused the ban of DDT; if one book could have such an effect on a problem in the past, why can’t it happen again?
After that book on climate change is written, for the actual protests to start the movement requires a leader. Or does it? In “From Civil Rights to Megachurches,” Charles Duhigg declares that successful movements must have a leader to “…give people new habits that help them figure out where to go on their own” (100). Followers are provided examples of actions to reflect their beliefs, are inspired to take on leadership in their own communities, and thereby relay the message to even more people. McKibben, on the other hand, believes these minor leaders, or “little-l leaders,” as he refers to them, can rise on their own and are better than all-powerful “Capital-L Leaders.” Why? He writes in his article “Movements Without Leaders” to think of these “little-l leaders” as a “pace line for a bike race” (“Movements…”). Sometimes they lead overwhelmingly, but other times they revert to the back and allow others to lead; then McKibben explains “…[W]hen that happens you not only prevent burnout, you also get regular infusions of ideas” (“Movements…”). “Little-l leaders” don’t dominate movements and allow for greater diversity of ideas. McKibben views this as more democratic, and I agree; a variety of “little-l leaders” can make members of a movement feel more included, therefore we need them more than one overall leader in this fight against global warming.
Note: In my actual essay I will also be backing up and refuting other ideas, but I found that including these parts would make for a very long post, so what’s written here are just some of the ideas I’ll be looking further into in my essay.
Works Cited
Duhigg, Charles. “From Civil Rights to Megachurches.” The Power of Habit: Why We Do What We Do in Life and Business. “Emerging.” Edited by Barclay Barrios, 3rd ed., Balford/ St. Martin’s 2016, pg.85-106
Kingsolver, Barbara. “The Moral Universe.” The Sun, March 2014. Web. https://www.thesunmagazine.org/issues/459/the-moral-universe Accessed 1 Nov 2017.
McKibben, Bill. “Movements Without Leaders.” 350. 20 Aug 2013. Web. https://350.org/movements-without-leaders/ Accessed 1 Nov 2017.
