The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewTom Engelhardt Archive
John Feffer: Splinterlands 2.0
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

If you happened to notice, news reports on a study in the science journal Nature about the globe’s oceans warming faster than even most climate scientists had imagined should have been eye-opening and potentially devastating news. In another world, that study would certainly have made headlines across the country as the midterm elections bore down on us. We are, after all, talking about the greatest crisis humanity has ever faced. Yet its impact was essentially nil and no wonder. In the election season just past, Donald Trump was blocking the view when it came to almost anything else happening on this planet. And climate change? Well, we have the president’s own word that, even if it isn’t a hoax, it might not be “manmade” — and, in any case, is likely to “change back again” sooner or later (give or take a million years). So, to quote Mad magazine’s Alfred E. Neuman: “What, me worry?”

No surprise, then, that the fossil-fuel-stoked nature of our changing planet wasn’t a significant national issue in election 2018, as it hadn’t been in the presidential campaign two years earlier. (There was not a single question about it in any of the three presidential debates that year.) True, in these midterms, a Washington state carbon tax that would have funded clean energy and air programs was shot down by the voters, thanks in part to the huge sums that the oil industry — in particular, BP America, Phillips 66, and Marathon Oil Corporation’s Andeavor, all with refineries in the state — sank into the campaign against it. Also true, some local House candidates raised climate change as an issue and generally won. Still, compared to immigration or health care this election season, the warming of this planet and what it portends for our children and grandchildren was on par with fear of zombies.

For those paying attention, this is frustrating indeed. Still, as TomDispatch regular John Feffer suggests today, the situation is simply too serious to let the frustration of it all — including the fact that our president and much of his party aren’t just climate-change deniers but enthusiastic aiders and abettors of the phenomenon — discourage those focused on doing something about it. And Feffer himself is a good example of that ongoing effort. This is publication day for his striking new dystopian novel, Frostlands (the sequel to his hit novel Splinterlands), and it has climate change directly in its crosshairs. Strange to say, but he’s proof of the adage (which I just invented) that in dystopia there lies hope. In that context, check him out on the “escape room” that we all now find ourselves in, whether we care to notice or not.

(Republished from TomDispatch by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Science • Tags: Global Warming 
Hide 3 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. AWM says:

    “The sun is entering one of the deepest Solar Minima of the Space Age,” wrote Dr Tony Phillips just six weeks ago, on 27 Sep 2018.

    You should know we are still in the middle of an Ice Age.

  2. Global warming is already irreversible. The question remains how bad it will be, with the increase in sea level one of the most adverse consequences for the human race.

    It is reasonable to ask how much we can do today reduce the harm that will be done to future generations. The problems in debating this matter are not only that climate predictions are not yet settled science, or that fossil fuel lobbyists have deep pockets and are not always honest.

    Proposals to limit global warming sometimes amount to shutting down the carbon economy. Even worse, some activists present the matter as a moral crusade. This is not a helpful way to approach a problem that is not moral in nature but scientific, economic, and political.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Tom Engelhardt Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Eight Exceptional(ly Dumb) American Achievements of the Twenty-First Century
How the Security State’s Mania for Secrecy Will Create You
Delusional Thinking in the Age of the Single Superpower