'The most fortunate generations' 21 November 05

because its imagery stirs our emotions to better comprehend what we do not want to believe. It is less painful to be in denial and enjoy our present amenities than to work more diligently on behalf of future generations.

The poet reminds us of the awesome responsibility on our shoulders to create a better outcome. Failure brings to us the shame the poet intended for us to feel and which he encourages us to avoid.

If we can only heed the warning and manage to win the day in the end, then, by contrast, there could be no greater feeling of accomplishment.

The poet would direct us to avoid shame and to do our best even in the face of discouragement, fear of failure, and knowing that our future success is always an uncertainty even with our best efforts.

For me I know that I cannot say I have given my very best so avoiding guilt may be elusive for me. I am sure many of us who post on this blog may feel a similar inadequacy. I wish I had the answers but I only have a few ideas, suggestions, and insights which may lend support toward solution.

With that said, saving the planet from ourselves was never meant to be an easy task. Despite all the emotions of despair and fear, I believe we need to find strength in each other to cope with our present anxieties. There is still hope and I can only offer these facts:

1. We have a problem to solve.

2. The major damage has not happened yet.

3. Solution may still be possible.

4. We are alive to enable solution.

5. We are not alone.

Again, we need to find strength in each other. I feel it is important to embrace a vision of hope and faith.

I think the best vision to have is to believe that the next century will be a better world than the one we know and to strive to make that become a reality.

All the best,

Dan

Some months back someone wrote, where are the artists & writers & opera composers for the huge & important issue of global warming?

We have our poet now…I’m sending this on to everyone…

But there are some differences. Then it was Hitler & his cronies who were responsible. For ordinary Germans it may have been sins of omission (assuming they knew). For our generation, we are all guilty, the developed nations more than the rest. GW is a sin of comission.

Genocide is a most despicable act against humanity by the active choice of sadists. Sadly, despite the acknowledged sins of the holocaust and commitments made by the world body to never again allow it to happen, it has happened by corrupt peoples and governments in Africa, Europe and Asia. All while the UN, supposed protector of human rights, stands by and does nothing.

The assumption of this poem is that people are “choosing” to destroy the hope of future generations by effecting the climate today. I don’t think most people are making any such choice but are simply living from day to day. To compare societies life style today with what was done in WW2 is like comparing apples with oranges and is not synonymous.

Third world countries are trying to better their own society through manufacturing and production, and in the process, with growing economics are also growing climate emissions. However, to be consistent on the lowering of GHG’s the necessary circumstance would be for countries (of all flavors) to stop economic growth and even decline. Greens would have to acknowledge this unsavory position for to grow economically is also to produce higher GHG’s (an evil correlation).

Those third world countries would have to go backwards in growth and manufacturing because to move forward would mean higher GHG rates. Thus, ideas such as the Contraction-Convergence and selling of GHG’s vouchers from poorer countries to countries who are already producing and economically viable ensure that the poor countries would remain that way as they could not afford to sell the GHG’s emission vouchers and also grow in economic capacity simultaneously. This (economic inactivity) would ensure GHG production would remain stable or better yet decline. And it would also ensure they remain third world and be safe users of this fragile, fragile climate which sustains the balance of lie… I mean life.

This is such a moving poem!

As a teenager growing up in Germany, I spent much time asking people the Why question. Why, for example, were some of the older generation of my family Hitler supporters (some even 40 years later). And for most I spoke to, it came down to the economy (you couldn’t fob a German teenager in the 1980s off with “I had no idea Hitler was going to be a mass murderer”!). “Well, that we with the Jews wasn’t nice, but you must remember that he put 6 million people back into work. He got Germany out of the depression” (of course it was one Jewish person later murdered for every person given a job and money, and millions more condemned to death in the war, but still the ‘economic miracle’ seemed a valid excuse for many even decades later, as to why they at supported fascism).

Lynn very charitably suggested that Germans only committed the sin of omission. My view is, overall, a lot less charitable. Older Germans I spoke to saw that Hitler lifted Germany out of the depression, made it a well-off economy while the rest of Europe and the US had little or no growth, and he built those motorways (by building a giant war machine, of course). Short-term gain, short-term greed, look at the GDP, look at the trappings of economic ‘progress’, economics without ethics.

After a few years, of course, it was all over, and millions of Germans found themselves bombed out, often hungry, widowed, and condemned for the worst mass murder imaginable. And many were never forgiven by their own children and grandchildren.

Long before I read this poem, I was hearing those same voices whenever I read about the argument that we cannot damage economic growth just to save the planet, other species, our children.

Almuth

Jimbo,

It would be wrong to compare, say, the CEO of ExxonMobil with Hitler (since for Hitler, mass murder was a declared intention, not a byproduct of his policy). It would not, in my opinion, be wrong to compare the average German Nazi supporter with today’s average business as usual at all costs advocate.

We cannot be certain what history would have been like without Hitler. But there is a good chance that, without Hitler, Germany in the mid-1930s would have been a pretty poor, depressed country with declining GDP and little wealth creation. Like, for example, Britain. Could a peace-loving, democratic government have given Germany economic growth in the mid-1930s? Quite possibly not. Still we all agree that Britain, at a huge economic cost, chose the right path when Germany did not – because it was morally right, right for humanity and right for the world. 60 years later, none of us really care about the GDP comparison between those countries at the time!

Almuth

My reaction to the poem was anger. So much so that I fired off an e-mail to Mark complaining that the poem was ill considered and counter productive. And that’s a moderate summary of what I said. I fear there is more heat than light being created here. I’ve now read the poem several times and considered the responses.

I’ve been involved in (UK) political action -specifically the Anti-Nazi League – which challenged far right groupings. One lesson I learned from those times was to be very careful with the terms Nazi and fascist. You emphatically do not spray these terms around in an ill considered fashion. Accusing anyone of being a Nazi or fascist is one of the most serious accusations you can level at any human being. The Holocaust was … beyond words.

Now I admit that poetry is not my strong point. Give me a logical, clear, coherent argument any day. But is Brian Levison saying, or implying, that fossil fuel users are Nazis? If so we are all guilty! If his point is to explain that future generations will look back and criticise us for extravagant and reckless fossil fuel consumption then, yes, he is right. But to draw an analogy with ordinary Germans being caught up with Hitler and his ideas is just bizarre.

Almuth, and I recognise this is “close to home” for you, has said, “It would not, in my opinion, be wrong to compare the average German Nazi supporter with today’s average business as usual at all costs advocate.” This begs more questions than it answers. What level of knowledge are we to assume the supporter had? And as for the present day advocates of unfettered free market forces, while they are profoundly mistaken and make my blood boil I would not label them fascists.

Jimbo was surely correct in his second paragraph when he said “The assumption of this poem is that people are “choosing” to destroy the hope of future generations by effecting the climate today. I don’t think most people are making any such choice but are simply living from day to day. To compare societies life style today with what was done in WW2 is like comparing apples with oranges and is not synonymous.”

The last paragraph of the poem is outrageous. Read it again! Brian Levison says “ … we will have betrayed our children and grandchildren as surely as if we had lifted them with our own hands and placed them on the transports for Auschwitz, Birkenau.” Are we being accused of direct hands on extermination? What absolute nonsense!

And can anyone explain what the Monbiot quote has got to do with the content of the poem?

Douglas Coker

So Germans today have less to be ashamed of than Americans do. I think Europe has learned a great many lessons over the centuries.

America, on the other hand, learned that through genocide & theft it could take land from the Native Americans & build a big, prosperous nation. We learned there is always more land and resources to take, with force & genocide if necessary. And that’s the way to come out ahead, win the game, or whatever it is we’re trying to accomplish.

But as Jimbo suggests, most Americans are not really aware of what’s going on. The media have been deafeningly silent on GW – except for a few pro-con sippets here & there. I’m not sure what will happen once the bulk of Americans really become aware. When I become aware of GW in 1990, it was a real decentering blow to me. I grieved over the victims and my contributions to their harm for months until I was able to start finding ways to reduce my GHGs.

I agree the poem was not about Hitler – but about the common people who supported Hitler, perhaps not knowing. And how much worse we all are today – Americans, Europeans, the developing world, our entire generation. But, of course, those who contribute more GHGs per capita have more to reduce. But even the lowly villager in India can also do things more efficiently & conservatively—get more bang for the rupee.

In a way all killings are by-products of people trying to get something else – money, etc. Even intentional killing out of hatred is likely due to people trying to regain some sense of superiority they feel the victim stripped them of, or some such self-help justice motive.

and that as a result future generations for a very long time to come will be unlucky in their much lower material lifestyle & shorter life-expectancies, if you figure moderate to worst case GW scenarios, including runaway GW. That’s the Auschwitz & Birkenau we are sending our future generations to.

There’s already a calculation of 160,000 people killed each year by GW – a figure that will very likely escalate over time, maybe to 1 million a year, maybe eventually to half a billion per century. Someone may have some guessimate stats on that (but any amount of killings is untenable).

They say our CO2 emissions last 100 years. David Archer (see http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=134 ) says that up to 1/4 could stay in the atmosphere up to 100,000 years. It’s the harm that keeps on harming.

To be brutally frank, we are killing people. It’s just that the “bullets” take a much longer time to find their targets.

Many more than 6 million will die – and many more of us are the killers (not just supporters of killers), so I don’t think the poem is way off. Ultimately our situation now seems much worse to me than the Nazi era. Even though more direct & gruesome killing methods used then are more disgusting than killing through environmental harm, the results are the same. The big difference, I guess, is that we aren’t killing out of hatred. And that is an important difference. But we do know, unlike the common people in Germany. We’ve been forewarned, and we can still make choice to reduce GHGs.

I tried to use the slogan “SKiP – Stop Killing People” in the church evironmental committee I started, but the nun in charge said it would turn people off, and that we should say, “Save the Earth” instead. But that’s not being quite honest. People then think it’s an appeal for charity, an option, a choice among many charities to which they can contribute (this is beginning to sound like Lomborg). But “Save the Earth” doesn’t get many people in my world involved in taking action. They’ll just claim they “gave at the office.” I don’t know what will work, if honesty is off-bounds.

Another poem might start, “Caught in this web of killing, wriggling to be free.” That’s sort of how I feel.

I’m with Douglas on this. I think the use of the Nazi analogy has little to do with the situation we are in with regard to Global Warming. If we want to look for analogies, there are plenty in Jared Diamond’s book “Collapse”.

However, Monbiot’s quote does certainly resonate. I sometimes get blown away by thinking that we all live in momentous times. Given how old the earth is, how long life has existed on the planet, how long our ancestors were around – it seems pretty extraordinary we happen to be alive when the world is in the balance.

Just take one example, 100 years ago the population of the planet was only around one quarter of what it is today. It is inconceviable that it will grow four-fold in the next 100 years.

I believe humanity needs to work together to make some momentous decisions over the coming years. I don’t think comparing ourselves, or others, to Nazis is relevant to this.

Ethics is a funny thing. Imagine that our immediate ancestors hadn’t had quite so many children. Let’s say there were only a million of us on the planet instead of 6+ billion. Then the “high-life” that we are currently following would not be unethical. We could all drive SUVs around without damaging the planet. The same thing could not be said about what the Nazis did where the acts they committed were unethical at an individual level.

Not that I think the analogy is appropriate, but the artist is doing his job.

Best,

D

Okay, I accept your point that using this poem in the British context is probably inappropriate. You are reading the accusation ‘fascist’ between the lines, and so will, no doubt, many others. Particularly since our government has a habit of using Hitler and fascist analogies to justify whatever war they want to participate in. Those terms are just too loaded.

Which is a real shame, because I can easily read the poem and put myself into the mindset of an ordinary, well-meaning German in 1933 who may have voted for a fascist party not because he was a fascist but because he accepted the risk of something pretty bad happening in future (telling himself ‘maybe Hitler won’t be so bad as he makes himself out to be in his book’), because it was the only way he could see to keep or get a job and a decent salary. And that ordinary German still thought later that his economic self-interest motives were okay, even though he was horrified by the Holocoust.

But mainstream British thinking seems to divide 1930s Germans into evil fascists or poor, ignorant, duped ordinary people, and against such a background a comparison between those times and climate change today makes no sense at all.

I agree with Jared Diamond that the outcome (ecocide and the collapse of human civilisation, or adaptation to the limits of the planet, which will mean a huge adaptation in terms of our life styles and economies) ultimately depend on the values our society chooses to hold on to, not on technology. And to me raising climate change as first and foremost a moral issue, not a technocratic one seems one of the most important things we can do.

I read about a recent joint project between climate scientists in Oxford and British authors, who were taken to the Arctic to look first-hand at climate change there. The aim was to motivate well-known authors to write about climate change. I haven’t seen the result yet, but I like this idea. We need novels and a big anthology of poems which will move and motivate people, and everybody can then choose the text they find most appropriate and moving!

Almuth

Are the works of Yeats, the Browinings, Sandberg, Shakespeare, Monet, Van Gogh, Picasso, Beethoven, or even Dali and Stravinsky shocking? I believe that the purpose of art is to communicate feelings and to explain new ways of seeing.

Cubism, Impressionism and other new forms of art may be shocking but the shock is the new form itself, not the subject of the particular piece. Early Impressionist paintings and the Firebird Suite were shocking because of their departure from previously accepted norms.

There are exceptions; Guernica shocked us because of what it revealed about the viciousness of the Nazi methods and soul, but the majority of the population shared the outrage. Levison apparently did not understand Picasso’s message; most of us did.

Look at the responses to the posting of this poem. They show that Brian Levison is a failed artist because his work is only shocking. It alienates but does not touch the audience. His work does not explain anything to anyone because his metaphor is so far beyond belief. Though, I am sure, there is a small coterie of smug and self-important intellectuals (?) who think that Levinson’s work is significant.

I do find it shocking that once again, through his endorsement of Levison’s screed, Mark Lynas has revealed the six-sigma deviation of his radical worldview and no one appears shocked.

even if the Nazi analogy may not be a perfect one. The impact to future generations may be relevant to the kind of suffering which may occur so in that light I think it still may be relevant enough and that is how I thought about it in my mind.

I totally agree with your thoughts about world population Peter and it is often never mentioned and yet this may be the most significant variable. In fact, one could make a case that the energy efficiency gains we made were largely offset to increases in our own population. The concern about China and India has more to do with population than their development since even a modest increase in lifestyle is multiplied by billions of people.

No matter what we think may help solve this problem, population aspects must be addressed or there is no way we will succeed. Since procreation is at the heart of any species including humans, this is a hard thing for any society to control. Even with China’s efforts, they still are growing in population.

And economic growth with a declining population may be necessary as part of any solution focus. I appreciate your thoughts Peter and maybe this topic is worthy of further exploration. How can we stabilize world population and even reduce it and still maintain a level of economic growth?

Even with all things remaining the same;

Less people = Less consumption and less emissions and

More people = More consumption and more emissions

All the best,

Dan

Like always, it is you who contradict yourself and provide useless analogies.

By your own stated beliefs, the poem accomplishes exactly what you said was “the purpose of art”.

Did you not say this:

“I believe that the purpose of art is to communicate feelings and to explain new ways of seeing.”

Based on your OWN expressed criteria, the poem absolutely and without question accomplishes every aspect of your own beliefs of what the purpose of art truly is! So why argue against it when it meets your own criteria?

This poem clearly communicated feelings in a new and unique way by using unique imagery of the artist’s “choice” to communicate the magnitude of the suffering he believes will happen with the onset of GW/CC.

The fact that many people dislike his use of Nazi metaphors is something else and, as usual, so irrelevant to your own stated criteria of what you think the purpose of art truly is!

I rest my case! Your contradictions are again self evident!

Sigh!

Dan

I said that your claim that the purpose of art is to shock was silly. It was.

I said that Levison failed to communicate with most of his audience because his metaphor, comparing those who disagree with his belief system about climate to the Nazis was so abhorrent that most reader reacted with an emotional rejection of his entire poem. Levison failed because he chose tried to shock us rather than communicate with us. I also said that the responses on this site showed that to be correct. You may have taken his message to heart, but most did not.

His use of that metaphor was not, “something else”; it was the sine qua non of his failure. It was so far beyond the pale that most of us could not believe that anyone who used such imagery could possibly have anything of value to communicate.

It is self evident that you do not understand what we are discussing.

I think I am right, Wasn’t that a painting about the Spanish Cival War. I dont think it had anything to do with the Nazi’s.

Also, art is not about being shocking. It is about process. People get too confused and try to read far too much into this stuf. Just sit back and enjoy it.

Laters Ian.

Just to say, I don’t mind the poem, and if it works in inspiring people, like Dano said, it’s doing it’s job.

But a part of me does feel that it is losing its impact because, in my opinion, the analogy isn’t great.

This weekend I have just read Jeremy Leggett’s “Half Gone” and it has re-energised me as to the terrible threat of Global Warming. I am not usually one for conspiracy theories, but in this case, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the oil companies and other extremely powerful interest groups (in autos, power, OPEC etc.) have been to blame for the situation we are in – and likely to be the major obstacle to saving the planet. I’d like to see art compare some of these guys to villians in history (Nero?). Maybe these guys believe their own propaganda??

Actually, there is one part of the Nazi analagy that does work for me, and it is that to the end of the lives, many leading Nazis didn’t believe that they had done anything wrong. Maybe that is something in the human psychology which will refute anything if they have an overwhelmingly strong wish to believe in something?! Let’s hope this doesn’t happen here – or that new people take over these organisations. These organisations are likely, also, to be an important part of the solution, if they can understand what climate scientists etc. are saying.

Hope you are well, Dan.

Peter

Facing reality is not an option!

Just because a lie is believed does not make the lie a truth! In order to win, we must understand the reality of the problem and meet it squarely with a plan which will work. And we are not even close to being able to achieve this at any conceivable level and the stakes are so very high. It is impossible to succeed if our focus is not reality based.

The Nazi machine needed supporters to keep it going. It needed people who did not have the extreme courage to say “no”. They had to have people who would deny their own awesome responsibility and look the other way as if to say that it is not I but the other “chap” who is at fault.

In that light, when we use energy unwisely or buy vehicles with high fuel consumption, or do not try to conserve at least, then we also enable the more visible “villains” in a way by our own choices.

When we do not try to share our truth with others when opportunity presents itself or when we do not attempt to correct someone who may be misguided, then maybe we are avoiding our own personal responsibility which may be desperately needed to keep a growing problem from becoming even more difficult to solve.

So, there are so many things to think about when considering the moral aspect to this problem.

Peter, the poem is doing a great job simply because of all the great dialogue occurring on Mark’s blog. Hence the “shock value” is working. It has created this interesting moral debate. Would that not be correct to say?

I guess the main idea throughout is the idea of a moral dimension to our collective responsibility toward the future. Having a value of responsibility toward the future is a worth-while value to have in our current times since we still may have a chance to succeed.

Yes, I am doing well and thank you so much for asking. I hope you are doing well.

I do have some anxiety and how can any normal person escape that? The anxiety comes from the idea that we already have enough problems to overcome and we do not need any more advice from those who believe in their own lies.

On a personal level, the intense drama is already playing out before our own eyes. We have some of our own citizens in the National Guard who returned from Iraq (oil war) to come back to find their home destroyed by Katrina (climate problem) and then had to help others who lost their homes!

Is this the beginning of a great paradigm shift? No one can ever avoid reality. It will make its presence known.

No one ever said saving the planet was meant to be an easy task. I support your renewal of spirit.

Best wishes,

Dan

Facing reality is not an option!

Just because a lie is believed does not make the lie a truth! In order to win, we must understand the reality of the problem and meet it squarely with a plan which will work. And we are not even close to being able to achieve this at any conceivable level and the stakes are so very high. It is impossible to succeed if our focus is not reality based.

The Nazi machine needed supporters to keep it going. It needed people who did not have the extreme courage to say “no”. They had to have people who would deny their own awesome responsibility and look the other way as if to say that it is not I but the other “chap” who is at fault.

In that light, when we use energy unwisely or buy vehicles with high fuel consumption, or do not try to conserve at least, then we also enable the more visible “villains” in a way by our own choices.

When we do not try to share our truth with others when opportunity presents itself or when we do not attempt to correct someone who may be misguided, then maybe we are avoiding our own personal responsibility which may be desperately needed to keep a growing problem from becoming even more difficult to solve.

So, there are so many things to think about when considering the moral aspect to this problem.

Peter, the poem is doing a great job simply because of all the great dialogue occurring on Mark’s blog. Hence the “shock value” is working. It has created this interesting moral debate.

I guess the main idea throughout is the idea of a moral dimension to our collective responsibility toward the future. Having a value of responsibility toward the future is a worth-while value to have in our current times since we still may have a chance to succeed.

Yes, I am doing well and thank you so much for asking. I hope you are doing well.

I do have some anxiety and how can any normal person escape that? The anxiety comes from the idea that we already have enough problems to overcome and we do not need any more advice from those who believe in their own lies.

On a personal level, the intense drama is already playing out before our own eyes. We have some of our own citizens in the National Guard who returned from Iraq (oil war) to come back to find their home destroyed by Katrina (climate problem) and then had to help others who lost their home!

Is this the beginning of a great paradigm shift?

I support your renewal of spirit.

Best wishes,

Dan

You are correct about the bombing happening during the Spanish civil war. The bombing of Guernica, Spain in 1937. The connection to Nazis is that the Nazi air force did the bombing.

One source (http://www.pbs.org/treasuresoftheworld/guernica/gmain.html), claims that the Nazis were conducting bombing practice, “On April 27th, 1937, unprecedented atrocities are perpetrated on behalf of Franco against the civilian population of a little Basque village in northern Spain. Chosen for bombing practice by Hitler’s burgeoning war machine, the hamlet is pounded with high-explosive and incendiary bombs for over three hours. Townspeople are cut down as they run from the crumbling buildings. Guernica burns for three days. Sixteen hundred civilians are killed or wounded.”

Whatever, the bombing was an atrocity perpetrated by the Nazi war machine in support of their ally General Francisco Franco, the Spanish dictator. I think that the continued support of the Franco Regime by the Western Allies after WWII remains one of the most shameful episodes in recent history.

This seems to leave little room for doubt:

From a team taking glacial core samples

CO2 ‘highest for 650,000 years’

“We find that CO2 is about 30% higher than at any time, and methane 130% higher than at any time; and the rates of increase are absolutely exceptional: for CO2, 200 times faster than at any time in the last 650,000 years.”

“We found a very tight relationship between CO2 and temperature”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4467420.stm

“It’s not possible to stop economic growth just because of nature!” ... I’m just an English teacher in China and the quotation above is what a lot of people here think about on this topic … “the future is China’s” ... “China has to catch up with the rest of the world” ... etc.

History’s examples are repeated here. I guess it’s because it seemed to work and at least brought some Western countries to fortune and wealth … and China wants that too, so why shouldn’t it take the same road to get it?

Copying is a virtue of most of the Chinese people and often you can’t tell the difference between original and fake products only until you try to use them in everyday life! However, who’s going to tell them to stop to go that path? Who’s going to tell them that this path leads them to destruction?

I guess it’s unimportant – why should anyone have the right to slow down another country’s economic growth (say: environmental destroction)? Why should any country slow down or stop trying to grow (say: destrying the environment)? Shareholders don’t like this idea, neither in the West nor the East.

I’m not a shareholder and I’m not an evironmentalist, nor am I any other kind of extremist. I’m just a “still living creature” following my path of teaching English in the economically fastest growing country on this planet.

Gerhard Peter Shanghai 2005