That is Dr. Ayana Elizabeth Johnson, pictured above. If you click the link to her name, you'll find yourself on Dr. Johnson's personal website, where she describes herself as follows:
Dr. Ayana Elizabeth Johnson is a marine biologist, policy expert, writer, and Brooklyn native. She is co-founder of the non-profit think tank Urban Ocean Lab, co-founder of the climate initiative The All We Can Save Project, and co-creator of the podcast How to Save a Planet. You’ll find her at the nexus of science, policy, and communication, focused on climate solutions.
I became acquainted with Dr. Johnson thanks to her conversation with David Marchese, published in The New York Times Magazine. One relatively new feature in the magazine is a column called, "The Interview." David Marchese acts as "co-host," and it was he, and not the other "co-host," Lulu Garcia-Navarro, who spoke with Dr. Johnson. The transcript of the Marchese-Johnson interview was titled, "This Scientist Has an Antidote to Our Climate Delusions." As the "host," Marchese's words are bolded, with Dr. Johnson's words shown in regular type. When The Times published the Marchese-Johnson interview, it turned out that the "interviewer" (Marchese) ended up feeling like he was the one being interviewed:
There is this soft denial of the climate crisis that is extremely widespread, including for someone like myself. Describe your soft climate denial.
Well, I think I understand the scope and the horrifying scale of our climate future. But if that’s true, why don’t I do more than compost? I don’t know. Why?
I’m supposed to be asking you these questions! It’s going to be much more informative for the audience, actually, hearing you. Because we’re all in that same boat.
This goes to the heart of one of my first questions. What motivates behavior? The small steps of personal responsibility and accountability I’ve taken in response to the climate crisis have been the result of feelings of anger and despair. Anger can be very motivating.
Over the last 10 years, there has been more anger and fear and fury about what’s happening than ever, and that is coterminous with the biggest changes we’ve seen in terms of pro-climate policy, in terms of public awareness, politicians actually acknowledging that this is a problem. This, to me, suggests that anger works. Fear, too. They didn’t get people to stop smoking by saying, Think of how healthy you’ll be if you don’t. They got people to stop smoking by saying, This will really hurt you if you continue. My inclination is to think that the same logic applies in climate. This is all tangential to the question you asked me, which is, Why don’t I do more? I think I honestly find the climate crisis too big and too heartbreaking — and also, I’m comfortable.
Dr. Johnson, I think, was right to suggest that hearing from Marchese about why Marchese doesn't do more is a lot more informative for the public than hearing from Johnson about why all of us should do more. As Johnson says, we are "all in the same boat," and we all know that the so-called "Climate Crisis" is real, and will wreak ever-greater destruction as time passes. So, what is most helpful might well be less what we hear from the "experts," and more what we might learn from other smucks, just like ourselves.
Check out the picture immediately below, for example, showing tornado damage in Texas. The tornado that caused this damage occurred only a few days after the Marchese-Johnson interview was published. Marchese is not doing very much to combat Global Warming, he says, because Marchese believes that what's happening is simply "too big and too heartbreaking."
That picture certainly makes the case for "big and heartbreaking," don't you think? But what does Dr. Johnson suggest, for those having the same kind of feelings that Marchese expresses? Once again, the column in The Times lets Marchese express why he just can't seem to rouse himself to action, and makes it seem that he is less the "interviewer" than the one being "interviewed."
I feel like I’m being David Downer: I just saw a study that said if we follow the most plausible possible path to decarbonization by 2050, the amount of carbon emissions already in the air will result in something like $38 trillion worth of damages every year. That’s baked in. A future like that is going to involve sacrifices. Whether we choose to embrace it as a sacrifice or reframe it like, No, we’re actually helping — What is it that you don’t want to give up?
Now, there is a telling question? Here is what Dr. Johnson ultimately recommends: Prioritize the "First R" in that well-known environmental advisory: "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle." In other words, pay attention to the following word. There are lots of ways to do it, Dr. Johnson, says, and it's the key to doing something meaningful:
(2) - https://abcnews.go.com/US/2-dead-after-apparent-tornado-tears-texas-sheriff/story?id=110570176
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your comment!