Butler 1!

Grace Butler

Becky Hsu

R1A

30 September 2019

Urgency Is Needed To Combat Climate Change

Based on the contributions of authors, lecturers, environmentalists, and climate activists,

we have seen climate change approached in two very distinct ways: local and global. The local

approach can be defined as change on an individual, household, or community scale, whereas,

the global perspective can be seen as change happening from a larger-scale through corporations,

governments, and international policies. The global approach can be more beneficial in terms of

climate change because of its ability to produce more dramatic results. However, even these large

scale approaches will mean nothing to this global crisis unless we create a sense of urgency.

Author, Elizabeth Kolbert, values the local perspective in one of her essays. Using the

island of Samso as an example, Kolbert explains how the island went from having to import

more energy to producing more renewable energy than it was using; they did so through energy

cooperatives and educating their people on wind power. Kolbert spoke to some of the residents

of Samso who “... were clearly proud of their accomplishment. All the same, they insisted on

their ordinarinesss…’We are a conservative farming community’ is how one Samsinger put it.

‘We are only normal people’” (Kolbert 255). Although an impressive task, the Island of Samso is

only a tiny community and their original use of fossil fuels and emissions of greenhouse gases

were only an extremely insignificant contribution to global warming as a whole. Kolbert

acknowledges that changes need to be made, and shows the change with Samso, but her small-
 Butler 2!

scale energy-consumption approach fails to rise to the occasion, gathering the necessary support

for as large of an issue as climate change comes across.

Additionally, about half of environmentalist Jonathan Foley’s solutions push for local

approaches that differ from those of Kolbert’s. From going vegetarian to composting to turning

off lights, his local solutions revolve around the individual and what he or she can do to

contribute to the bettering of climate change. While these solutions are easily more obtainable

than Kolbert’s, they still lack a motivation to switch to these types of alternative lifestyles.

Vegetarianism and composting require more effort and time than some people are willing to put

in and even more time than we necessarily have as a planet, a downfall shared in common with

Kolbert’s solution.

Kolbert and some of Foley’s more localized solutions (he does mention global solutions

later in the lecture) revolve so much around the individual or small community that they fail to

acknowledge that the bulk of global warming is coming from corporations and industrialized

nations at a hasty rate. As a result of population growth and globalization, industrialization and

mass production have shaped continue to shape the world as we know it. Capitalizing on fossil

fuels and resulting in greenhouse gases, we are rapidly killing our earth and ultimately ourselves

as a result of it. Climate change is happening now and day by day it is getting worse, yet we

continue to do nothing about it. The only way to prevent and ultimately reverse climate change is

to showcase its urgency, something that is absent from both Kolbert and Foley’s perspectives

because both are geared towards solutions that will only be beneficial in the long-run or if

everyone across the world participates in them. In doing so, we need to take on the global

approach and the dramatic changes it produces to protect ourselves, our planet, and our future.
 Butler 3!

Developing further in his lecture, Foley addresses many large-scale solutions pertaining to

things such as forest protection, educating girls, and the installation of solar panels. He

recognizes that these global approaches will benefit climate change to a much greater extent than

his local approaches. To carry them out, Foley acknowledges that we need an empowering leader

to “point to a place in the future thats better and say ‘come with me and join me. Look at this

better world that we can build together.’” With this statement, Foley brings up three essential

ideas: hope, leadership, and group-effort. Since, climate change is something that affects

everyone, we all need to be a part of this global solution under the control of an optimistic leader,

according to Foley. The capacity for inclusion in this large-scale approach proves to have the

capability for greater results in comparison to local approaches.

To support Foley’s three main ideas of a group effort coupled with a visionary leader, he

uses Martin Luther King Jr. as an example. Although one person, his leadership can still be seen

as a global solution because he mobilized a large group to fight racism and segregation alongside

him. King’s speech, “I Have A Dream,” used an appeal to hope as a motivator to gather the

necessary support for the Civil Rights Movement and ultimately pushed for policies to be

implemented by governments in support of their argument. What Foley fails to recognize is that

this hopeful approach may not be the most effective carrier for succeeding movements and

activism, in this case, against climate change. With King and the Civil Rights Movement,

progress was made because of fear, not hope. Hope has historically not served as a strong enough

motivator for change because it lacks a catalyst to start the change whereas fear produces a

feeling of alarm and urgency. Roy Scranton acknowledges this in his essay, “Compulsion of

Strife” where he brings up how violence was the essential driving force within Civil Rights
 Butler 4!

history, not hope and optimism. MLK’s one motivational speech was just an outlier throughout a

time replete with violence, cruelty, and fighting. Scranton poses an idea of “an interruptor,” after

suggesting that “...the enemy is ourselves. Not as individuals, but as a collective. A system. A

hive.” To fight the enemy, Scranton seeks an interrupter that is “continually self-immunizing

against the waves of social energy we live in and amongst by perpetually interrupting its own

connection to collective life” (Scranton 85-87). Since Scranton does not explicitly state what he

means by an interruptor, it can be seen as someone who sparks new movements, disrupting the

current system of social norms. From both sources, King can be seen as an interruptor for the

Civil Rights Movement and generator for government interference, but now the question is who

will be the interruptor for climate change and is fear a useful motive for this type of change?

Combining propositions made by Foley and Scranton with evidence from King, we can infer that

this interruptor needs to be a strong leader who incites some sort of alarm within his or her

audience in order to guide them towards a better future.

While nobody wants violence, including Scranton, we still need to take on a call to action

approach that uses the power of emotions to invoke change on a large scale. Currently,

environmental activist, Greta Thunberg, proves to be a prime example of this sort of

“interruptor” who shares an affinity to both Foley and Scranton. At 16 years old, Greta Thunberg,

has sacrificed her education in order to prove a point to the government and stand up for what

she believes in most, the health of the planet. She has sparked an international movement,

Fridays for Future, in which students leave class to participate in demonstrations with the goal of

demanding action and further prevention of global warming. Recently, Thunberg spoke to world

leaders at the past United Nations convention in which she uses words like “fear” in combination
 Butler 5!

with angry facial expressions to invoke a sense of shame into the heads of the governments. To

further her argument, she explains that “we are in a mass extinction and all [the government

officials] can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth.” By putting the

spotlight on the government and what they currently are not doing, it triggers a sense of

trepidation within her audience and further supports her movement for change. Most importantly,

she showcases the urgency that was lacking from Kolbert’s argument and the panic that Foley’s

case completely opposed all while promoting large-scale change namely by means of the

government.

Unfortunately, where Thunberg’s revolutionizing of climate change goes awry lies in her

direct solutions. While she currently has the attention of vast amounts of individuals and the eyes

of nation’s leaders on her, she states that “people should do everything” in her Daily Show

interview. Undeniably, her age becomes evident in her slightly ignorant response of “everything”

because we all know that everything is impossible. However, what Thunberg’s solution lacks is

what Foley’s solutions can make up for. If Thunberg continues to carry out her “interrupting”

agenda as she has been doing, she may be able to gather enough support to make Foley’s

solutions far more tangible. Contrastingly, there is a role reversal between Foley and Thunberg

later on in her speech; Thunberg is a strong proponent for government interference in the matter.

In this case, she shows a maturity that even Foley does not posses. Foley makes a statement that

he wishes the government would help to pass legislation geared toward the environment but says

how it is impossible with our current government and that we should try again during the next

presidential term. On the other hand, Thunberg believes that if we wait, it will be too late

because of how pressing this issue is. She understands the severity of this crisis moreso than
 Butler 6!

Foley and believes in using the power of democracy to fast-track us out of our current demise by

means of large-scale change and government interference.

In comparison to local approaches, global approaches can be seen as far more

advantageous when pertaining to solving climate change. Demonstrated by Kolbert and the

island of Samso, small-scale solutions prove inadequate amongst how sizable the issue of climate

change actually is. Foley’s extensive solutions coupled with Scranton’s use of an interruptor

prompting a certain degree of disquietude within their followers can lead to the forceful change

that we need. All together, Thunberg is proving the sources correct in that a solution to climate

change lies in global, group activism and using the severity of the matter as a driving force for

change.
 Butler 7!

Works Cited

Comedy Central. “Greta Thunberg - Inspiring Others to Take a Stand Against Climate Change -

Extended Interview - The Daily Show with Trevor Noah (Video Clip).” Comedy Central,

www.cc.com/video-clips/ed6ma7/the-daily-show-with-trevor-noah-greta-thunberg---

inspiring-others-to-take-a-stand-against-climate-change---extended-interview.

Foley, Jonathan. “Building a Climate Safe Future.” Scott Institute for Energy Innovation

15 May 2019, Carnegie Mellon University, Lecture.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhJfl1jVB5Q

Kolbert, Elizabeth. “Island in the Wind,” Field Notes from a Catastrophe: Man, Nature, and

Climate Change. Bloomsbury, 2015.

Scranton, Roy. “Compulsion of Strife,” Learning to Die in the Anthropocene: Reflections on the

End of a Civilization. City Lights Books, 2015.

“Transcript: Greta Thunberg's Speech At The U.N. Climate Action Summit.” NPR,

NPR. 23 Sept. 2019, www.npr.org/2019/09/23/763452863/transcript-greta-thunbergs-

speech-at-the-u-n-climate-action-summit.