Bill McKibben: Obama Versus Physics

I remember learning about the “pathetic fallacy” in high school English, i.e., assigning human moral characteristics to inanimate objects, e.g., “the cruel sea.”  Obviously, there is nothing cruel about the sea; it has no motives or intentions.  Likewise, at least according to the existentialists, we live in a universe that is coldly indifferent to your and my happiness.  OK, but what about living creatures?  Don’t we refer to lions as “vicious?” Again, the idea of “vice” is used inappropriately; lions act out of physiological impulse; they don’t make moral choices.  

Here’s another brilliant piece from Bill McKibben, founder of the global climate campaign 350.org, and the author, most recently, of Eaarth: Making a Life on a Tough New Planet that picks up on this point. 

He argues that most of our political discourse is essentially one set of opinions versus another.  There are intelligent, well-meaning people on both sides of the debate surrounding gay marriage, abortion, the death penalty, etc.  And in truth, the decisions we make in these arenas are rooted in a kind of democracy: when a definitive majority wants a certain thing to happen, eventually, it will.  

But climate change is different; it’s not man versus man; it’s man versus physics.  Even as our presidential candidates were astonishing us Americans and the entire rest of the world looking on with their conspicuous ignoring of the entire global warming concept, the ever-increasing concentration of greenhouse gases was melting the icecaps.  Physics doesn’t care what we think and feel; it simply is. 

That’s why McKibben’s not waiting around for Obama, hoping that the president becomes the man we expected him to be.  But what exactly is McKibben (and his army of followers) doing?  I hope you’ll check this out.