Why is it so hard to save the biosphere?

[polly7]

Why is it so hard to save the biosphere?

http://ourworld.unu.edu/en/why-is-it-so-hard-to-save-the-biosphere/

by George Monbiot on December 19, 2011

Why is it so easy to save the banks — but so hard to save the biosphere? They bailed out the banks in days. But even deciding to bail out the planet is taking decades.

Nicholas Stern estimated that capping climate change would cost around 1% of global GDP, while sitting back and letting it hit us would cost between 5 and 20%. One per cent of GDP is, at the moment, $630 billion. By March 2009, Bloomberg has revealed, the US Federal Reserve had committed $7.77 trillion to the banks. That is just one government’s contribution: yet it amounts to 12 times the annual global climate change bill. Add the bailouts in other countries, and it rises several more times.

This support was issued on demand: as soon as the banks said they wanted help, they got it. On just one day the Federal Reserve made $1.2tr available — more than the world has committed to tackling climate change in 20 years..........

So why is it so easy to save the banks and so hard to save biosphere? If ever you needed evidence that our governments operate in the interests of the elite, rather than the world as a whole, here it is.

This is an older article that I just came across, I hope it's not a duplicate.

[liberal N proud]

1. Because there is more profit in killing it than saving it.

GREED!

[pscot]

2. Because nobody gives a shit?

I mean, as long as you're making money, who cares? And if you're poor, you have more important things to worry about.

[HopelesslyLiberal]

3. Because people don't see their own connection to it.

I grew up and live in rural areas. I frequently travel to Manhattan. The disconnect is mind-boggling. The most conservative farmer in rural Texas knows you need to take care of the land. The most liberal city dweller just sees it as something pretty to save.

[XemaSab]

6. That's kind of the opposite of my observations

There are a lot of people in the Bay Area who freak out at the thought of ONE tree being cut, whereas most of the people in the hinterlands are like "There are lots of trees and we'd rather have jobs than spotted owls."

People in urban areas are more likely to drive a small car or no car while people in the sticks drive huge trucks.

Living in a small apartment is MUCH more environmentally friendly than living on a three-acre ranchette.

I would guess that by almost every measure, 100,000 people in San Francisco are "greener" than 100,000 people in Redding with the possible exception of airline miles flown in a year.

But you're right, there is still a huge disconnect between urban dwellers and the land.

[HopelesslyLiberal]

7. As they say - "Your mileage may vary."

Here in San Antonio urbanites drive around in giant SUVs and pickup trucks without a speck of dirt on them. In the country, people who drive pickups USE pickups. I know the ranchettes you are talking about, though, they are creeping up the highway from San Antonio. Ranchers with thousands of acres of heritage land and a need for cash sell to developers who create those ranchettes for people who want to get away from the city.

Last year as the drought reached its peak and people in my rural town were worrying about whether they could stay, I heard one lifetime San Antonio resident ask "The aquifer can't really run out of water can it?"

People out here who hunt eat what they kill. Urbanites come out here, kill and leave carcasses so they can mount antlers on their walls. People out here monitor herds of exotic deer that long ago bred out of control. We eat a lot of venison because there are no natural predators for these herds. Rural folk rely on the land. They start to abuse it because the demand for resources from the cities creates jobs - at least until those resources are depleted. The dangerous ones in the rural areas are the ones who believe the resources are infinite. They are here and they are dangerous to us all. That's when certain "conservative" mindsets get twisted.

San Francisco is a very progressive and aware city. Other urban areas are not and some are practically deluded in their approach to the environment whether they are pro-environment, anti-environment or simply think they are pro-environment. In Minnesota, the feldgling Green party nearly collapsed under the weight of a disagreement over hunting. The urbanites wanted it banned in all forms. The rural Greens relied on it to live. There was a hue rift and disagreement over who actually was environmentally aware.

Most of my view comes from experience doing wildlife education. Most people I encounter are enamored of the animals we teach about but they have no clue how important they are to their own lives. For too long environmentalism has relied too heavily on beauty for its marketing and too little on actually educating people about basic biology.

[XemaSab]

8. I'll agree with most of that

People in California are *really* opposed to logging because it's ugly, but they'll throw something in about the salmon and the forest ecosystem because they know that those are issues too.

Logging a third-growth forest on a gentle slope a mile away from the nearest waterway doesn't create those problems, but it's still ugly so people will still be opposed. Saying "I'm opposed to all logging in every form" will just make people tune you out, though, so the real issues never get dealt with.

Much like your hunting argument, I'm sure.

[Kolesar]

4. IIRC, th American public was only "out" for less than $100 billion when the bank bailout played out

The real answer is that we are challenging the coal and oil industries, and they own the governments of the world.

[GliderGuider]

5. Because the IMF, WB and WTO now control most national governments and dictate their policies.

Any attempt to factor serious environmental protection into national economic policy is virtually impossible under their rules. So saith Ross Jackson, the author of the book Occupy World Street: A Global Roadmap for Radical Economic and Political Reform. I don't know about his prescription for change yet, but I can recommend the book without reservation based just on his analysis of how we got here and where "here" really is.

Here are excerpts from a Counterpunch review that lays some of it out:

Transnational megacompanies not only tell so called emerging market countries (most of the world) what they will produce, how it will be produced, when it will be sold, and at what price, but they also influence local working conditions, wages, benefits, and labor laws. They often dictate local government monetary, fiscal, trade, and banking policies. International money managers decide which foreign currencies are overvalued and which are not, as well as which countries should be punished for not playing by their arbitrary, self-serving rules. This is truly a one-size-fits-all game.

The U.S. government, Federal Reserve Bank, International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and World Trade Organization are all committed to transforming the world economy into a giant global growth machine regulated by an international gambling casino in which resource allocation decisions are driven by a high-speed, multinational, high-tech crap shoot. Satellite communications, fiber optics, and the Internet make it possible to transform small, manageable local problems into unmanageable global problems overnight.

While there may be little we can do to stop this process, there is a lot to be learned from the experience. Now is the time to begin thinking about how we want to live, love, work, play, and do business in a more localized world. It could prove to be a much more meaningful experience than life under globalization.

Jackson's overview of the situation is insightful, comprehensive and comprehensible. He doesn't go down too far into into the weeds for an intelligent lay reader, but the references are there for anyone who wants to dig deeper. He has put together the same pieces that many of us who have been digging for a while have uncovered, but unlike most he assembles them into a clear, coherent map of the territory. While may I still have reservations about his prescription for a cure, I think he has diagnosed the current bout of the human/environmental disease better than anyone else I've read so far.

[hatrack]

9. And it's nothing new - "Divided Planet" by Paul Athanasiou laid it out 20 years ago

This was back when the WTO was still GATT, so very little has changed.