My garden club recently sent out an environmental questionnaire. The club's program committee wanted to know what we would like to learn more about, in order of preference: air and water quality, public lands and parks, native plants or climate change?
I was stumped. How to chose just one when they were all so interconnected? My gut tilted me toward water quality because I'd proposed a speaker on that topic. A guy I know in Iowa is suing the feds over hog confinement pollution. He'd give a rousing talk. Iowa's befouled air and water pose an immediate threat to living people. He would conjure up frightful images of asthmatic children wheezing, of piglets wriggling in their own antibiotic- and growth-hormone-laden excrement.
He would not talk about climate change, though — not because he isn't spooked by the role agriculture plays in the crisis, but because it isn't his area of expertise.
What with even the pope now pushing for action on fossil fuels as a moral imperative (the vulnerable poor are already suffering from what he calls, unequivocally, a man-made disaster), I should click on the climate-change box, right?
Wrong, writes the acclaimed novelist Jonathan Franzen. His essay "Carbon Capture," published in the April 6 issue of the New Yorker, begins with a story about Minneapolis. Franzen was sickened by the Vikings stadium commission's decision to not spend a tenth of a tenth of the cost of the shiny new sports palace on a type of glass that would prevent thousands of birds from crashing into the stadium's transparent façade and plunging to their deaths.
Worse for Franzen than the decision itself was the sentiment expressed by the Star Tribune's environmental blogger, who wrote that these deaths were nothing compared with what climate change would do to bird populations at some later date, so why bother with now?
Franzen's defense of actual living birds gave way to a broader discussion of why climate change gets no respect. His transition from emotional certainty about birds to intellectual uncertainty about global warming reminded me of my response to the garden club questionnaire. Were the catastrophic and sweeping implications of global warming distracting us from solving fixable problems, like improving Iowans' water quality (not to mention hogs' quality of life) and saving a specific group of birds from death by window glass, just because we didn't have a clue how we'd save whole species from vanishing habitats?
Franzen tells how he traveled to Latin America to visit a pair of conservation projects where endangered bird species are nurtured in nature sanctuaries that were themselves rescued from industrial plantation overkill. Amazon Conservation is a sustainable park and farm on public land in Peru. Costa Rica's Area de Conservación Guanacaste (A.C.G.) is a sizable swath of tropical rainforest that a pair of American scientists began restoring in 1985, training locals to perform meticulous experiments, record data and care for the place.