Speaking at a literary festival in Bhutan, the American novelist Amitav Ghosh recently predicted that Himalayan regions, for no fault of their own, will face a catastrophe as climate change takes hold. So chilling was Ghosh that the local paper reported – only half in jest – that a disturbed audience had to be soothed by a subsequent talk by Buddhist monks.
Ghosh, who has lived in New York since 1990 and is now an American citizen with a USA passport, is best known for his historical novels, and is promoting now his new book, The Great Derangement: Climate Change and the Unthinkable, born out of the Berlin Family Lecttures series of 4 one hour lectures at the University of Chicago last October 2015.
One of its central themes, very much controversial and totally wrong, is that Western novelists, artists and filmmakers, including himself, have largely ignored climate change – “the great derangement” of the title – simply because it seems too far-fetched and terrifying. Of course, Ghosh, now in his early 60s and sporting an always-ready smile and a handsome shock of white hair, is wrong about novelists: since the 1960s, Western novelists have been writing about climate change, and Ghosh was very wrong not to go more into depth about this. Instead, he hardly gives the item much ink at all in his 167 page essay.
But does it really make a difference if authors write about climate change? “Making a difference isn’t the point; the point is to examine the meaning of the arts. If we believe that the arts are meant to look ahead, open doors, then how is this huge issue of our time, absent from the arts? It’s like death, no one wants to talk about it,” Ghosh said in Bhutan.
He is deeply critical of the global carbon-dependent economy, and believes we need to return to traditional methods of agriculture. He talks about the current drought in western India, partly caused by a shift to water-hungry crops, which has caused thousands of farmers to migrate to the cities.
“The desires of people everywhere are now to do with carbon. That farmer in India, who once knew how to cultivate drought resistant crops like millet and barley, he is better equipped to dealing with climate change than your city dweller eating rice. Meanwhile, you and I are going to be dead in the water.”
The book traces the paths to development taken by India, China and the west. Ghosh is a supporter of climate justice – which looks at the historical responsibilities of nations for climate change, and is quite clear that India and China deserve reparations for choosing more sustainable paths – India by choosing a spartan Gandhian model of development for years, China by choosing the one child policy, even at the cost of inflicting great suffering. Meanwhile, the west pursued a consumerist, carbon-intensive economy, unimpeded. He is also scathing about the Paris climate deal, which he calls “tepid” in its approach to climate justice, and leaves poor nations dependent on the charity of richer nations.
But he is also critical of India’s current mulish stance on climate change: refusing to compromise on growth until climate reparations are made. Instead, he thinks India needs to do both. “It is pretty clear from the Paris agreement that climate justice is not going to happen. We need to keep that issue alive, work for it, but also work towards preventing a catastrophe. When the great wave comes, are you going to say, hey don’t take me, I am Indian?
In the book, Ghosh grimly predicts a “politics of the armed lifeboat” where the poor of the global south will be left to their doom while the rich go on unscathed. Nevertheless, he also wonders if the poor may well be more resilient.
“In 2003, the European heatwave caused 46,000 deaths,” he muses. “When the power goes out in New York, there is a crime wave. When the power goes out in India, several times a day, no one even notices. It’s quite possible the middle class will be the most affected, and the really poor and rich will survive.
Worryingly, Ghosh has few solutions to offer. In the book, he hopes religious figures will get involved in climate change, governments having failed. “I am not sure there are solutions. The problem is of such a scale that we are dwarfed by it,” he said.
COMMENTS:
1. It's sad that Dr Ghosh wants to be ''proscriptive'' about what kinds of fiction should be deployed for talking about this subject. While the sections on climate change geo-politics and history are brilliant analyses,Ghosh's idea for fostering the conditions for novelists to tackle global warming impact issues only in ''serious mainstream literary circles'' is too proscriptive and silly. Has he never heard of genre novelists? So this otherwise brilliant book is a near-total fail in the section about climate novels written by ''genre'' writers. The author did not do his homework on this and his prejudice toward genre novelists does not serve him well. There have been sci-fi and speculative fiction and eco-fiction and cli-fi novels about climate change issues from the early 1960s to today, and Amitavji, always smiling in his photographs, does not seem to grasp this point. In India, not one literary critic challenged him on this. But literary critics and reporters in North America and the UK will be sure to challenge him on this. His view of what constitutes "literature" is antiquated and prejudiced. Hopefully, after living in Brooklyn for over 25 years he knows that genre novelists from Ballard to Turner to Atwood to Robinson to Vandeermeer have been writing about climate change for over 50 years, and yet he pretends in this book that only ''literary fiction'' by so-called serious VIP novelists can tackle global warming issues. So I give 2/3 of the book five stars for its brilliance and 1/3 of the book one star for its dismal failure to see contemporary genre literature for what is: a happening form of human communication for both writers and readers. Which is why I found it curious that Ghosh more than once brings up the matter of 'serious fiction' and its upturned nose.To bring up climate change in a novel, Ghosh writes, 'is in fact to court eviction from the mansion in which serious fiction has long been in residence; it is to risk banishment to the humbler [low-class] [genre] dwellings that surround the manor house.'But why take serious fiction so seriously? After all, its conventions don't have a monopoly on human imagination. The lines between categories of fiction are blurry at best, and if something called science fiction or climate fiction can better accommodate what is urgent, then maybe we should let it.
01
Gosh Ghosh, you've missed out on a massive body of books, films and art dealing with climate change, post-apocalyptic worlds and our present predicament.
If you want a high-quality point of entry, try these.
Forster's prescient "The Machine Stops".
The Machine Stops
Atwoods's Oryx and Crake:
Oryx and Crake
And a few world leaders discussing climate change:
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/e5/2f/7e/e52f7e11f561aa910b3ff2582cff20bc.jpg
If you want a high-quality point of entry, try these.
Forster's prescient "The Machine Stops".
The Machine Stops
Atwoods's Oryx and Crake:
Oryx and Crake
And a few world leaders discussing climate change:
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/e5/2f/7e/e52f7e11f561aa910b3ff2582cff20bc.jpg
7.
45
''One of its central themes is that writers, artists and filmmakers, including himself, have largely ignored climate change.''Well, I've spent a decade writing about climate change, and I'm in contact with many others who are far more dedicated than I am.
There's also a significant problem about using climate change as a device in fiction; one can write about it obliquely, setting a novel in the present and charting either political, moral or economic fractures of society, but it's hard to keep the narrative focus on something that hasn't really hit us anywhere as near as it's going to.
In which case, one is left writing 'sci-fi' - because anything set in the future tends to be relegated to this genre (my own first novel, Cities of Refuge, has to survive in this genre simply because it's set in a near future UK devastated by climate change, but it limits my audience because so many people are turned off by sci-fi). In turn, anything that includes future climate change is necessarily going to be dystopian, itself a worn and cliched genre of fiction that is rarely mainstream.
Art must reflect the society it lives in, and perhaps the future society it would like to live in. It is hard however to make sustained inroads into public consciousness through novels, painting, theatre and other creative forms. We may be moved by creative works, but climate change requires a sustained activism to make a difference, and the arts are rarely a good platform for sustaining political and social change because the longevity of its impact is often short, topical and too quickly forgotten.
2.
78
This could be a really interesting thread at the Guardian site in the UK - how media and the arts deals with today's human issues - but no, we have the usual crap- the denial meme: population and 'and you' [rich author{actor, director} flying around etc] non arguments.
and it is tedious- but that is the point, the spamming of climate change threads by deniers is to drown out debate. moderation in all things!
3.
JamesValencia
4.
and it is tedious- but that is the point, the spamming of climate change threads by deniers is to drown out debate. moderation in all things!
3.
JamesValencia
45
Agreed.From my perspective, questions could be:
• How can society's habits change to save itself: answer is live within the earth's annual available resources budget (which, this year, have run out: we're living on credit now).
• How to do this without any loss in standards and while allowing developing nations to reach the same: Not possible, I think. So drop that one.
• How to do this without excessive hardship: Defined, I'd suggest, as "drop in life expectancy". I'd pick that beceause it's existentian and objective as opposed to lifestyle preference.
Answers here: changes in the world economy maximising the value of immaterial things: services and so on. Enable exchange, and from that, access to essential resources for all. In short "replace manufacturing as a income stream with immaterial services" - that's an idea which needs adjustement and development.
• How to make this happen: Politics is the first avenue. Elect politicians going down this road. If they don't exist, then start movements.
And cling on to the thought: This can be done, it's been done in the past, and movements have fundamentally changed how society and exchange work, such that there is now some measure of minimum income and health care and education for all.
A movement for sustainable living is needed, and should replace "sustainable development" which, I'd suggest, already capitulates slightly to the "Infinite Growth" philosophy in assuming that infinite development is something to aim for.
• How can society's habits change to save itself: answer is live within the earth's annual available resources budget (which, this year, have run out: we're living on credit now).
• How to do this without any loss in standards and while allowing developing nations to reach the same: Not possible, I think. So drop that one.
• How to do this without excessive hardship: Defined, I'd suggest, as "drop in life expectancy". I'd pick that beceause it's existentian and objective as opposed to lifestyle preference.
Answers here: changes in the world economy maximising the value of immaterial things: services and so on. Enable exchange, and from that, access to essential resources for all. In short "replace manufacturing as a income stream with immaterial services" - that's an idea which needs adjustement and development.
• How to make this happen: Politics is the first avenue. Elect politicians going down this road. If they don't exist, then start movements.
And cling on to the thought: This can be done, it's been done in the past, and movements have fundamentally changed how society and exchange work, such that there is now some measure of minimum income and health care and education for all.
A movement for sustainable living is needed, and should replace "sustainable development" which, I'd suggest, already capitulates slightly to the "Infinite Growth" philosophy in assuming that infinite development is something to aim for.
4.
12
It's all rather sad, as we watch great species like; elephants, tigers, lions, rhinos... all on the verge of extinction in the wild and we can't, despite our wealth and sophistication, save them; so what are the chances of averting runaway, catastrophic, climate change? Well, at this stage probably rather slim to non-existant. We should really have begun thirty years ago. It's too late now. We're on course and momentum can't be ignored. If we stopped all emissions right now temperatures would still keep on rising for decades. This is, to put it mildly... unfortunate for the coming generations who will curse us for our blindness and lack of real action, before it was too late to avert the worst, which is where we are now.
Unlike the passengers on the Titanic, we actually know there's an iceberg up ahead wating for us, yet we haven't slowed down or changed course, perhaps we believe we can just ram through it? This must say something profound about the nature of our culture and economy.
5 Flagella
Unlike the passengers on the Titanic, we actually know there's an iceberg up ahead wating for us, yet we haven't slowed down or changed course, perhaps we believe we can just ram through it? This must say something profound about the nature of our culture and economy.
5 Flagella
23
Our outward driven species is out of control, consuming ourselves to extinction. So if you try telling this voracious, predatory species that both production and reproduction does great harm to this little vale of tears and you will be burned as a witch.
6.
6.
12
Q. Who is responsible for this Climate Change?
A. UK/West
Q. How are they responsible ?
A. Started the Industrial Revolution
Q. Why?
A. Greed
Q. Where did they get the money and resources to fuel the Industrial Revolution?
A. Looted the wealth of East
Q. Who was using Coal for the past 200 years and polluting the most at present ?
A. UK/West
Q. Will the Climate Change have worst effects on UK/West?
A. No.
Q. Why?
A. Because fuck geography
Q. Who will it affect the most?
A. Africa, Middle East and East
Q. Who should take the responsibility, fix the industry and pay for the damage?
A. UK/West
Q. Will they do it?
A. No
8...9..10... more at GUARDIAN WEBSITE
A. UK/West
Q. How are they responsible ?
A. Started the Industrial Revolution
Q. Why?
A. Greed
Q. Where did they get the money and resources to fuel the Industrial Revolution?
A. Looted the wealth of East
Q. Who was using Coal for the past 200 years and polluting the most at present ?
A. UK/West
Q. Will the Climate Change have worst effects on UK/West?
A. No.
Q. Why?
A. Because fuck geography
Q. Who will it affect the most?
A. Africa, Middle East and East
Q. Who should take the responsibility, fix the industry and pay for the damage?
A. UK/West
Q. Will they do it?
A. No
8...9..10... more at GUARDIAN WEBSITE
12
Yes the literary World is always very keen to consign anything that isn't character or language driven to a genre to be ignored but I don't see a fundamental reason why it is impossible to write a literary novel starting from a point in the future where a climate change event was more advanced than now, it is the sort of thing that Ian McEwan does.
What would be really interesting would be a literary novel about our thought processes in evaluating or ignoring risk.
What would be really interesting would be a literary novel about our thought processes in evaluating or ignoring risk.
01
"It is hard however to make sustained inroads into public consciousness through novels ..."
It is through vanity publishing and, likewise, fan fiction. But for quality work nothing could be further from the truth.
It is through vanity publishing and, likewise, fan fiction. But for quality work nothing could be further from the truth.
01It's sad that Dr Ghosh wants to be ''proscriptive'' about what kinds of fiction should be deployed for talking about this subject. While the sections in his new essay collection on climate change geo-politics and history are brilliant analyses, Ghosh's idea for fostering the conditions for novelists to tackle global warming impact issues only in ''serious mainstream literary circles'' is too proscriptive. Has he never heard of genre novelists? Sci-fi? Eco-Fiction? Spec Fic? Cli-Fi? So his otherwise brilliant book is a near-total fail in the section about climate novels written by ''genre'' writers. The author did not do his homework on this and his prejudice toward genre novelists does not serve him well. There have been sci-fi and speculative fiction and eco-fiction and cli-fi novels about climate change issues from the early 1960s to today, and Amitavji, always smiling in his photographs, does not seem to grasp this point. In India, not one literary critic challenged him on this. But literary critics and reporters in the UK and North America will be sure to challenge him. His view of what constitutes "literature" is antiquated and prejudiced. Hopefully, after living in Brooklyn for over 25 years he knows that genre novelists from Ballard to Turner to Atwood to Robinson to Vandermeer have been writing about climate change for over 50 years, and yet he pretends in this book that only ''literary fiction'' by so-called serious VIP novelists can tackle global warming issues. So I give 2/3 of the book high marks for its brilliance and on 1/3 of the book low marks for its dismal failure to see contemporary genre literature for what is: a happening form of human communication for both writers and readers. Which is why I found it curious that Ghosh more than once brings up the matter of 'serious fiction' and its upturned nose.
To bring up climate change in a novel, Ghosh writes, 'is in fact to court eviction from the mansion in which serious fiction has long been in residence; it is to risk banishment to the humbler [low-class] [genre] dwellings that surround the manor house.'
But why take serious fiction so seriously? After all, its conventions don't have a monopoly on human imagination. The lines between categories of fiction are blurry at best, and if something called science fiction or climate fiction can better accommodate what is urgent, then maybe we should let it.
01What I don't understand is:
http://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/176127/the-great-derangement-by-matt-taibbi/9780385520621/
How can two books have the same title?-
12Ghosh, best known for his historical novels, has been travelling the world...
And that's part of the problem!
Using some of his book royalties to buy a tablet or laptop so he can use skype instead would lend more credence to his claim to be so concerned, rather than logging hundreds of thousands of miles every year jet-setting.
78This could be a really interesting thread- how media and the arts deals with today's human issues- but no, we have the usual crap- the denial meme: population and 'and you' [rich author{actor, director} flying around etc] non arguments.
and it is tedious- but that is the point, the spamming of climate change threads by deniers is to drown out debate. moderation in all things!
45Agreed.From my perspective, questions could be:
• How can society's habits change to save itself: answer is live within the earth's annual available resources budget (which, this year, have run out: we're living on credit now).
• How to do this without any loss in standards and while allowing developing nations to reach the same: Not possible, I think. So drop that one.
• How to do this without excessive hardship: Defined, I'd suggest, as "drop in life expectancy". I'd pick that beceause it's existentian and objective as opposed to lifestyle preference.
Answers here: changes in the world economy maximising the value of immaterial things: services and so on. Enable exchange, and from that, access to essential resources for all. In short "replace manufacturing as a income stream with immaterial services" - that's an idea which needs adjustement and development.
• How to make this happen: Politics is the first avenue. Elect politicians going down this road. If they don't exist, then start movements.
And cling on to the thought: This can be done, it's been done in the past, and movements have fundamentally changed how society and exchange work, such that there is now some measure of minimum income and health care and education for all.
A movement for sustainable living is needed, and should replace "sustainable development" which, I'd suggest, already capitulates slightly to the "Infinite Growth" philosophy in assuming that infinite development is something to aim for.
And all in all: Read what little is left of Epicurus.
12Also: if everyone ignored the counter-productive posts such as you describe, they would not matter. What matters is when angry responses turn them into a pile of comments which clutters the page. Such as the two below - ignore them.
If there's an interesting debate, the reverse happens, and they are sidelined as little one-comment hiccups in the conversation :)
Back to this sustainable living thing: I kind of think the "sustainable development" phrase is a mistake since it propagates the idea that infinite growth is possible.
I'm not quite certain, though, because it's possible to "develop" in an immaterial sense. Writing more books, telling new stories, singing new songs, and so on. So I wouldn't be too bothered on that point.
But I still try and stick to "sustainable living" myself because that does not exclude any new stories or songs, and does not include this assumption of constantly awnting "More !".
There may be a fundamental problem in the human mindset however.
Comparing oureslves to neanderthals, this review mentions two papers which talk of the "ubiquity of trade and exchange behavior as significant in human evolution".
That is, humanity has this deep-seated tendency to trade.
And that tendency to trade includes a deep-seated expectation of "Increase", that is "More": the essence of a trade deal is to "do a good deal", that is, to obtain more after the exchange than one had before.
For both parties to gain.
And that, I've thought for a while, is the root cause of our problem with our place in the environment. While we were hunter-gatherers running about chasing the odd rabbit and living mostly off nuts, berries, and roots, "More!" was OK.
This deep-seated evolutionary trait of humanity is, I fear, something that could condemn society, and either return us to a sustainable and short-lived hunter-gatherer status, or possible lead to our extinction.
I think it's a fascinating thing, anyway, this human trait of "Exchange" and this built in "I expect to gain materially in every exchange".
01p.s. that's me doing my bit to drown out the noise :)
I hope it's interesting.
All I've done in that second huge comment is flag up people's ideas as to why we might be as we are: that is, addicted to "More!" and endless growth.
That is rather pessimistic, because if we have this innate tendency as a species, it may be unavoidable.
Even if some of us, as individuals, take a conscious decision not to always want "More!" - and though I'm a fairly low-maintainance sort of person (for a developed nation that is), I'm not confident I can exclude myself from the camp of those who always want more.
Epicureans, and Buddhists are along those lines: "Repress your wants to live a happy life" says the Buddha, and Epicurus says something similar.
01The middle class is addicted to a role model pretending her advantages in remaining uncritical to neoliberal exploitation.
Without all those little careerists...who pretend to have to do it..for their family,
this dehumanised structure could not go on.
It needs many neurotic people to provide power to a sociopathic system.
12It's all rather sad, as we watch great species like; elephants, tigers, lions, rhinos... all on the verge of extinction in the wild and we can't, despite our wealth and sophistication, save them; so what are the chances of averting runaway, catastrophic, climate change? Well, at this stage probably rather slim to non-existant. We should really have begun thirty years ago. It's too late now. We're on course and momentum can't be ignored. If we stopped all emissions right now temperatures would still keep on rising for decades. This is, to put it mildly... unfortunate for the coming generations who will curse us for our blindness and lack of real action, before it was too late to avert the worst, which is where we are now.
Unlike the passengers on the Titanic, we actually know there's an iceberg up ahead wating for us, yet we haven't slowed down or changed course, perhaps we believe we can just ram through it? This must say something profound about the nature of our culture and economy.-
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
-
12Q. Who is responsible for this Climate Change?
A. UK/West
Q. How are they responsible ?
A. Started the Industrial Revolution
Q. Why?
A. Greed
Q. Where did they get the money and resources to fuel the Industrial Revolution?
A. Looted the wealth of East
Q. Who was using Coal for the past 200 years and polluting the most at present ?
A. UK/West
Q. Will the Climate Change have worst effects on UK/West?
A. No.
Q. Why?
A. Because fuck geography
Q. Who will it affect the most?
A. Africa, Middle East and East
Q. Who should take the responsibility, fix the industry and pay for the damage?
A. UK/West
Q. Will they do it?
A. No
45One of its central themes is that writers, artists and filmmakers, including himself, have largely ignored climate change
Well, I've spent a decade writing about climate change, and I'm in contact with many others who are far more dedicated than I am.
There's also a significant problem about using climate change as a device in fiction; one can write about it obliquely, setting a novel in the present and charting either political, moral or economic fractures of society, but it's hard to keep the narrative focus on something that hasn't really hit us anywhere as near as it's going to.
In which case, one is left writing 'sci-fi' - because anything set in the future tends to be relegated to this genre (my own first novel, Cities of Refuge, has to survive in this genre simply because it's set in a near future UK devastated by climate change, but it limits my audience because so many people are turned off by sci-fi). In turn, anything that includes future climate change is necessarily going to be dystopian, itself a worn and cliched genre of fiction that is rarely mainstream.
Art must reflect the society it lives in, and perhaps the future society it would like to live in. It is hard however to make sustained inroads into public consciousness through novels, painting, theatre and other creative forms. We may be moved by creative works, but climate change requires a sustained activism to make a difference, and the arts are rarely a good platform for sustaining political and social change because the longevity of its impact is often short, topical and too quickly forgotten.
12Yes the literary World is always very keen to consign anything that isn't character or language driven to a genre to be ignored but I don't see a fundamental reason why it is impossible to write a literary novel starting from a point in the future where a climate change event was more advanced than now, it is the sort of thing that Ian McEwan does.
What would be really interesting would be a literary novel about our thought processes in evaluating or ignoring risk.
12Soothed by monks. It's religious nonsense that continues to obstruct meaningful discussion on many important matters not least climate change.
Don't soothe anyone. Shout the horrid truth in people's faces until at least they feel guilty even if they still do nothing about it. Which they won't as solutions are probably too drastic for most to contemplate and we still have no system of creating global action even if they weren't.
01In fact, for a long time, the religions of the east have been warning the world about the effect of the current course of human civilisation. The western religions, just having come out of denial, have also jumped aboard. I have no religion but am happy to admit that, amongst institutions, theirs have been the loudest voices, even if western media has not reported it so.
89It's so true on a local level too. Try getting friends and family to talk about climate change and see what happens! You end up feeling like some kind of pariah. One problem has been that so many resources have gone into fighting the swivel-eyed deniers, who have really skewered the debate.
67Unfortunately I think a lot of people know, deep down, that it is happening but they realise that if they openly accept it's true, then they have to accept that they're contributing to it. They are then faced with a horrible choice; actually reduce their carbon footprint and live life like a loser-hippy or carry on as normal and know they're a repulsive human being. Not surprisingly, most of them just avoid the whole topic.
1011Good man.
(1) Communicating the impacts of climate change is tricky. Spelling out consequences terrifies people and ends up with everyone stopping up their ears and saying "La la la can't hear give me another burger Mr. Barman".
(2) Pussy-footing around saying "If we amend our lifestyles and think a little, sustainable living is possible and endless growth is also possible, don't worry!" then people carry on as usual and say "Alright, we'll save the planet tomorrow, let's get cracking, in good time..."
And I won't waste time on those saying "There's nothing happening at all". Forget them.
Approach (2) of not scaring people is not working. Let's be thankful for those like Amitav Ghosh who are ready to terrify us into changing our ways in order to prevent the extinction of human socities as we know them.
"That's too scary! People won't listen!" some may say. Well people will listen as the consequences start to be felt: It's too late to avoid destruction, but we can minimise it and hope that human society in some form has a chance of survival.
The planet doesn't care: There will be life, and environment, whether people are there or no.
45I often ask smart intelligent people how they think the coming decades will pan out- how we will cope with peak oil, AGW and environmental destruction- and the responses are surprising- sometimes they are unaware what any of that means, some seem to think the government have got it all planned out, some suggest that somewhere scientists are busy working on the problem.
All have never read a blog by a scientist in the field- I watch youtube [yaleclimate etc], read blogs and the matter of fact deep concern expressed is disturbing- but also motivating.
More science in literature and arts would be welcome.
78He is right especially with the media, the MSM have completely let the public down with their coverage of climate change, constantly misinforming and clouding the waters. The BBC are the worst IMO, why do they keep inviting morons like Lord Lawson onto their shows to talk about climate change? The man is an idiot with no qualifications on climate change research and funded by the fossil fuel industry, yet the BBC keep on inviting him on as if he is an expert on climate change who knows what he is talking about. The BBC are embarrassing to be honest they do not deserve the license fee.
23The media is obsessed with 'balance'- I did a tv reality show [!] and the other guy was geeky and loved Dr who and science and the other two [women] were a born again and new age angel believer. 'balance' means conflict and tv loves a good battle between opposing forces.
Sadly the opposing force of science tends to be fringe nut jobs.
12So now as we approach the final methane tipping point, the World comes to it's sense and starts to take the issues seriously --- no. It is beyond our capacity to do what needs to be done. Greed and general self-interest, coupled with ignorance and stupidity will ensure our doom. Enjoy it while you can. It is already too late.-
78Apparently you cannot talk about climate change if you have enough money for a house and taxi,this sort of argument is bullshit.
"Oh look he has some money,so lets not listen to him then"
rubbish.
1 comment:
Using Kaspersky protection for a few years now, and I recommend this product to all of you.
Post a Comment