RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Romm writes: "Obama's decision to emphasize climate change this week is a sound one, since climate change is certainly the greatest preventable (environmental) threat to the health and well-being of Americans and indeed all of homo sapiens."

 (photo: Alamy)
(photo: Alamy)

Earth Day Should Be Less About Our 'Precious Planet' and More About Saving Ourselves

By Joe Romm, ThinkProgress

22 April 15


n his weekly address on Saturday, President Obama said, “Wednesday is Earth Day, a day to appreciate and protect this precious planet we call home. And today, there’s no greater threat to our planet than climate change.”

Obama’s decision to emphasize climate change this week is a sound one, since climate change is certainly the greatest preventable (environmental) threat to the health and well-being of Americans and indeed all of homo sapiens. But the emphasis on protecting this “precious planet” is less sound.

Affection and concern for our “precious planet” is misdirected and unrequited. We need to focus on saving ourselves.

That being said, there are two messaging problems with Obama’s pre-Earth Day address. For example: “[O]n Earth Day, I’m going to visit the Florida Everglades to talk about the way that climate change threatens our economy,” he said. “Rising sea levels are putting a national treasure — and an economic engine for the South Florida tourism industry — at risk.”

First, yes, the Everglades are awesome and vitally important — but the threat rising seas pose to the economy isn’t through their indirect impact on South Florida’s tourism industry. It’s through their impact on people.

More specifically, the most immediate threat rising seas pose to our economy is the trillion dollar real estate bubble we are in, led by Florida, detailed here. As Harold Wanless, chair of University of Miami’s geological sciences department, said in 2013, “I cannot envision southeastern Florida having many people at the end of this century.” In 2014, he said, “Miami, as we know it today, is doomed. It’s not a question of if. It’s a question of when.”

As Wanless explained to me, we could be facing a rise upwards of 10 feet. And considerably more than that after 2100 — sea level rise exceeding a foot per decade. We’re especially likely to hit the high end of current sea level rise projections if we don’t start we reverse carbon pollution trends ASAP.

So we are in a major coastal real estate bubble. It is a huge bubble and all of us will pay when it bursts — as Reuters revealed with this sobering chart to the right:

There is nothing wrong with talking about the threat climate change poses to the Everglades — it just seems to me one or two steps removed from the more salient threat to the people of Florida and the whole country.

The second messaging problem is that Obama started his address by talking about the economy. Team Obama knows the economic argument is not the one to lead with — the moral argument is. How do I know they know this? Because team Obama finally figured it out two years ago and leaked it to the world around the time of his in his big June 2013 climate speech (see “Moral Majority: Team Obama Finally Embraces The Winning Argument For Climate Action”).

Indeed, Politico published team Obama’s talking points at the time:

Team Obama’s messaging had finally found the winning message: how climate change will impact future generations. The talking points note that this messaging is backed by extensive polling (more details here).

Again, it’s terrific Obama is focusing on climate change during Earth Day week — and other elements of his remarks clearly discuss human impacts. But the media naturally focus on what Obama focuses on, and they travel where he travels. It is too easy to be distracted by the idea of “Earth Day” into mistakenly focusing on the impacts of carbon pollution on the earth and then trying to make a secondary connection between those and impacts on humans.

Back in 2008, I wrote a piece for Salon about renaming ‘Earth’ Day. It was supposed to be mostly humorous. Or mostly serious.

So I’m updating the column once more:

I don’t worry about the earth. I’m pretty certain the earth will survive the worst we can do to it. I’m very certain the earth doesn’t worry about us. I’m not alone. People got more riled up when scientists removed Pluto from the list of planets than they do when scientists warn that our greenhouse gas emissions are poised to turn the earth into a barely habitable planet.

Arguably, concern over the earth is elitist, something people can afford to spend their time on when every other need is met. But elitism is out these days, at least for everyone but the 0.01 percent and the Supreme Court. We need a new way to make people care about the nasty things we’re doing with our cars and power plants. At the very least, we need a new name.

How about Nature Day or Environment Day? Personally, I am not an environmentalist. I don’t think I’m ever going to see the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I wouldn’t drill for oil there. But that’s not out of concern for the caribou but for my daughter and the planet’s next several billion people, who will need to see oil use cut sharply to avoid the worst of climate change.

I used to worry about the polar bear. But then some naturalists told me that once human-caused global warming has mostly eliminated their feeding habitat — the polar ice, probably by the 2020s and maybe sooner — polar bears will just go about the business of coming inland and attacking humans and eating our food and maybe even us. That seems only fair, no?

I am a cat lover, but you can’t really worry about them. Cats are survivors. Remember the movie “Alien”? For better or worse, cats have hitched their future to humans, and while we seem poised to wipe out half the species on the planet, cats will do just fine.

Apparently jellyfish thrive on an acidic environment, so it doesn’t look like we’re going to wipe out all life in the ocean, just most of it. Sure, losing Pacific salmon is going to be a bummer, but I eat Pacific salmon several times a week, so I don’t see how I’m in a position to march on the nation’s capital to protest their extinction. I won’t eat farm-raised salmon, though, since my doctor says I get enough antibiotics from the tap water.

If thousands of inedible species can’t adapt to our monomaniacal quest to return every last bit of fossil carbon back into the atmosphere ASAP, why should we care? Other species will do just fine, like bark beetles, kudzu, cactus, cockroaches, rats and ratsnakes, scorpions, Anopheles mosquitoes and the malaria parasites they harbor — oh and let’s not forget the Dengue virus and brain-eating amoebas. Who are we to pick favorites — especially since those same species must also have all been on Noah’s ark!

I didn’t hear any complaining after the dinosaurs and many other species were wiped out when an asteroid hit the earth and made room for mammals and, eventually, us. If God hadn’t wanted us to dominate all living creatures on the earth, he wouldn’t have sent that asteroid in the first place, and he wouldn’t have turned the dead plants and animals into fossil carbon that could power our Industrial Revolution, destroy the climate, and ultimately kill more plants and animals.

All of these phrases create the misleading perception that the cause so many of us are fighting for — sharp cuts in carbon pollution — is based on the desire to preserve something inhuman or abstract or far away. But I have to say that all the environmentalists I know — and I tend to hang out with the climate crowd — care about stopping global warming because of its impact on humans, even if they aren’t so good at articulating that perspective. I’m with them.

The reason that many environmentalists fight to save the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or the polar bears is not because they are sure that losing those things would cause the universe to become unhinged, but because they realize that humanity isn’t smart enough to know which things are linchpins for the entire ecosystem and which are not. What is the straw that breaks the camel’s back? The 100th species we wipe out? The 1,000th? For many, the safest and wisest thing to do is to try to avoid the risks entirely.

This is where I part company with many environmentalists. With 7 billion people going to 9 billion, much of the environment is unsavable. But if we warm significantly more than 3.5°F from pre-industrial levels — and especially if we warm more than 7°F, as would be all but inevitable if we keep on our current emissions path for much longer — then the relatively stable environment and climate that made modern human civilization possible will be ruined, probably for hundreds of years (see NOAA: Climate change “largely irreversible for 1000 years,” with permanent Dust Bowls in Southwest and around the globe). And that means misery for many if not most of the next 10 to 20 billion people to walk the planet.

So I think the world should be more into conserving the stuff that we can’t live without. In that regard I am a conservative person. Unfortunately, Conservative Day would, I think, draw the wrong crowds.

The problem with Earth Day is it asks us to save too much ground. We need to focus. The two parts of the planet worth fighting to preserve are the soils and the glaciers.

Numerous studies show that nearly a third of the world’s land faces drying from rising greenhouse gases — including two of the world’s greatest agricultural centers, the U.S. Great Plains and a big chunk of southeastern China. On our current emissions path, most of the Southwest ultimately experience twice as much loss of soil moisture as was seen during the Dust Bowl (see “Dust-Bowlification“).

Also, locked away in the frozen soil of the tundra or permafrost is more carbon than the atmosphere contains today (see Tundra, Part 1). On our current path, most of the top 10 feet of the permafrost will be lost this century — so much for being “perma” — and that amplifying carbon-cycle feedback will “Will Likely Add Up To 1.5°F To Total Global Warming By 2100,” all but ensuring that today’s worst-case scenarios for global warming become the best-case scenarios. We must save the tundra.

Perhaps it should be small “e” earth Day, which is to say, Soil Day. On the other hand, most of the public enthusiasm in the 1980s for saving the rain forests fizzled, and they are almost as important as the soil, so maybe not Soil Day.

As for glaciers, when they disappear, sea levels rise, perhaps in excess of an inch a year by century’s end (see also here). If we warm even 3°C from pre-industrial levels, we will return the planet to a time when sea levels were ultimately 100 feet higher (see Science: CO2 levels haven’t been this high for 15 million years, when it was 5° to 10°F warmer and seas were 75 to 120 feet higher). The first five feet of sea level rise, which seems increasingly likely to over the next hundred years on our current emissions path, would displace more than 100 million people. That would be the equivalent of 200 Katrinas. Since my brother lost his home in Katrina, I don’t consider this to be an abstract issue.

Equally important, the inland glaciers provide fresh water sources for more than a billion people. But on our current path, virtually all of them will be gone by century’s end.

So where is everyone going to live? Hundreds of millions will flee the new deserts, but they can’t go to the coasts; indeed, hundreds of millions of other people will be moving inland. But many of the world’s great rivers will be drying up at the same time, forcing massive conflict among yet another group of hundreds of millions of people. The word rival, after all, comes from “people who share the same river.” Sure, desalination is possible, but that’s expensive and uses a lot of energy, which means we’ll need even more carbon-free power.

Perhaps Earth Day should be Water Day, since the worst global warming impacts are going to be about water — too much in some places, too little in other places, too acidified in the oceans for most life. But even soil and water are themselves only important because they sustain life. We could do Pro-Life Day, but that term is already taken, and again it would probably draw the wrong crowd.

We could call it Homo sapiens Day. Technically, we are the subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens. Isn’t it great being the only species that gets to name all the species, so we can call ourselves “wise” twice! But given how we have been destroying the planet’s livability, I think at the very least we should drop one of the sapiens. And, perhaps provisionally, we should put the other one in quotes, so we are Homo “sapiens,” at least until we see whether we are smart enough to save ourselves from self-destruction. I’d suggest “Brainless Frog Day” but I just don’t think that would catch on.

What the day — indeed, the whole year — should be about is not creating misery upon misery for our children and their children and their children, and on and on for generations (see “Is the global economy a Ponzi scheme?“). Ultimately, stopping climate change is not about preserving the earth or creation but about preserving ourselves. Yes, we can’t preserve ourselves if we don’t preserve a livable climate, and we can’t preserve a livable climate if we don’t preserve the earth. But the focus needs to stay on the health and well-being of billions of humans because, ultimately, humans are the ones who will experience the most prolonged suffering. And if enough people come to see it that way, we have a chance of avoiding the worst.

We have fiddled like Nero for far too long to save the whole earth or all of its species. Now we need a World War II scale effort just to cut our losses and save what matters most. So let’s call it Triage Day. And if worse comes to worst — yes, if worse comes to worst — at least future generations won’t have to change the name again. your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+2 # zach 2015-04-22 10:19
I would quarrel with your characterizatio n of climate change as "preventable."
The IPCC report says it is not preventable.
-8 # MidwesTom 2015-04-22 10:51
With an annual budget expenditure of $1.8 Billion per year we are a long way from understanding Climate Change. Australia has stopped all funding of climate change concluding that it is more of religion than science. Note the following article from NATURE, a very reputable source.
+9 # Dust 2015-04-22 12:38
Of course!!

So tell me, Tom - what's the significance of the article you've cited?

And is there a reason you have omitted every article published in Nature on climate change since January 2014 when this one was published? After all, it's a "very reputable source".
-10 # MidwestTom 2015-04-22 13:00
More and more scientist, not earning money by supporting the study of Climate change, are now seeing fortunes in research money spent on a subject that more and more view as a religion, and they are getting fed up and finally speaking up.

+8 # Billy Bob 2015-04-22 13:17
"...scientist, not earning money by supporting the study of Climate change…"

You're TOO FUNNY Tom!!!

Do you think we forgot how YOU earn YOUR money???


You crack me up, Tom.

Who do you think you're convincing?

What BALLS you must have, to bring up where others are getting their paychecks!!!
+4 # A_Har 2015-04-23 09:40
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

Upton Sinclair
+1 # Billy Bob 2015-04-23 11:39
Awesome quote!
-9 # MidwestTom 2015-04-22 13:06
here's a challenge: Find a prediction made 10-20 years ago by a climate change supporter that turned out to be true. I did a quick search and found one prediction that turned out
to be false: &p_multi=SJ&p_t heme=realcities &p_action=searc h&p_maxdocs=200 &p_topdoc=1&p_t e
xt_direct-0=0EB 7304FF9A84273&p _field_direct-0 =document_id&p_ perpage=10&p_so r
t=YMD_date:D&s_ trackval=Google PM

Obviously as a senior UN scientist, he had access to the most up to date models of the day. Those models said the sea levels would rise and cause dire flooding within 10 years. 26 years later, very little ocean rise and no nations wiped out. If these scientists followed the scientific theory, they would make a prediction, test it, and either they would be right, or
wrong. However, there is no way to disprove global warming. Everything that does happen gets blamed on global warming (floods, droughts, hot spells, cold spells, hurricanes, tornadoes, volcanoes, earthquakes.... .); but when predictions are proved false (major hurricanes were supposed to happening all the time due to global warming, but we haven't had a major hurricane hit the US in over 10 years), they're dismissed as anomalies. As I mentioned earlier e-mail, climate change is not science, it's a religion.
+5 # Dust 2015-04-22 13:25
Sure - here's one directly from Nature, as you already defended that publication as "very reputable".

This paper examines model predictions of ENSO behaviors when compared with observed data from 1998 - 2012.

And I confess I am extremely curious - please cite some sources that show a disconnect between climate model predictions of sea level rise and the observed satellite data on sea level. Real sources, please - with data, scientific paper references, and no bullshit.

You are correct, of course, that a rigorous scientific approach is needed when dealing with any avenue of scientific inquiry; absolutely. Are we to assume that you also include research into fracking and groundwater contamination or increased seismic activity under that call for scientific rigor?

And you still never answered my questions - why did you conveniently ignore all the other papers published in Nature after January 2014 on the subject of climate change? And what is the significance of the article you DID cite? Does it somehow suggest that human beings do not affect climate, which is your implication? Did you even actually read it?
+3 # Henry 2015-04-22 14:08
Tom, why is it that you want to disprove climate change?
-9 # 2015-04-22 11:05
I was there at the first Earth Day 45 years ago. I had been married for seven years and had a terminally cute 3-year-old son who ran around the geodesic dome and collected al the colorful flyers.

Barry Commoner and Paul Ehrlich were quoted extensively. All our fresh water fish would be dead within decades as pollution deoxygenated our lakes and rivers. Life expectancies would be lowered to 42 years of age by 1980 due to pollution. By 1980 urban dwellers would need to wear gas masks to withstand the air pollution. 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would have starved to death by 1990. And Ecologist Kenneth Watt assured us that the scientific consensus indicated that nitrogen buildup in the atmosphere would cut sunlight so much by 2000 that a new ice age would be triggered. And I, a young person concerned about my son, believed much of what I heard and read that day.

It's reassuring to see that our species inclination to draw apocalyptic conclusions from incomplete data has not changed much in four and a half decades.

Lee Nason
New Bedford, Massachusetts
+6 # Dust 2015-04-22 12:39
Partly true.

But I want you and your son to go and drink directly from the Neponset River.
-9 # MidwestTom 2015-04-22 13:14
Lee, you forgot the ozone hole that was going to kill off mankind as it grew ever larger because of Freons. Freons developed and sold DuPont. We used a lot of freon in the plastic industry and were paying about $400/cylinder; until first Allied came in with cylinders for $300; then Brazilian made freon came in for $250/cylinder. Then the hole appeared and Dupont suddenly had a replacement for $550/cylinder. Freons are still in use in a lot of countries ( they are far more efficient), but the hole has disappeared from all discussions.
+7 # Billy Bob 2015-04-22 13:23
The hole hasn't disappeared from discussion. You're just no longer paying attention.

Here, since you part-own a chemical company, and refuse to be honest, let me "educate" you with a simple wikipedia page:


Tom, Lying is no replacement for having an actual argument.
+5 # Dust 2015-04-22 13:31
Apparently, it is, if we follow the discourse of politicians, corporations, and everyone else who wants to keep and increase their money and power.

Discouraging, but every time I want to hide and give up, I remember Pete Seeger, who was tireless and endlessly optimistic and never gave in (at least, publicly) to despair.
+4 # jsluka 2015-04-22 15:09
MidwestTom and Lnason are denialists and enemies of the earth. People like them are the reason why the environment is being destroyed. They are quite obviously part of the problem, not part of the solution. Shame on them. Stupid is as stupid does, and stupid is not an admirable trait.
+3 # Billy Bob 2015-04-22 21:28
In the case of Tom, he's DIRECTLY INVOLVED in the problem.

If I'm elected to be king (so I don't have to go through conservative congressmen to do the right thing), one of my first acts will be forcing ALL climate change denialists to have that fact stated on their drivers license or other photo I.D. When the shit hits the fan, and we're facing mass starvation (even in the U.S.) due to extreme crop failure, I want to make sure none of them are legally allowed to EAT. We simply can't afford to waste food on the very people who will have CAUSED the crop failure we'll be facing.

Why should children go without food due to climate change, while the very people who caused it (and stood in the way of doing something to curb it while it was still possible) eat?
0 # think4once 2015-04-23 05:54
Everyone, please read this short article,, share and make viral.!
0 # 6thextinction 2015-04-25 12:01
This has nothing to do with the topic.

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.