More Reasons for that Sinking Feeling
So much of the damage from Anthropogenic Global Warming goes on literally and figuratively beneath the surface. Such is the case with many of the world’s kelp forests, where legions of heat-loving, kelp-munching sea urchins are reducing once-luxuriant kelp forests to vast tracts of sea floor populated almost exclusively by sea urchins—”urchin barrens.” The action is not where the kelp lie at the surface, it’s where the sea urchins dwell cloaked from view on the ocean floor.
For a quick visual of the onslaught’s progression, scroll down to the set of three photos in this report from Yale Environment 360: Kelp devastation off Tasmania
For those of you who have taken my repeated advice to subscribe (free) to the electronic Yale Environment 360 (highly recommended), you may have already got this message about one more wound torn in the living body of the planet.
With so much human misery brought to our attention every day, it’s hard to put these less dramatic, less heartbreaking events in perspective. It’s only plants! But you can’t help but look at the 3-photo sequence of the kelp forest being wiped out, without a deep sense of loss. (That is, anyway, if you are the typical reader of this blog.)
To Whom Do We Appeal?
Imagine the kelp forest calamity going viral on social media. Actually, you CAN’T imagine it. On social media, such bits of ecologically significant news are inundated by all things personal, emotional, things immediately arousing anger, indignation, things closely bound up with our social impulses that really get our juices flowing. Who can empathize with kelp? Who could get angry at sea urchins? They are impersonal, small, distant, invisible, simple, and devoid of sinister intent. Their depredations don’t make a good story.
To whom should we appeal in response to this kind of injury to the planet? It’s yet another murmur in the chorus of so many “canaries in a coal mine” that the canary analogy has lost its impact. It’s all canaries. The public at large tunes it out because, to them, it all sounds the same. Low level bad news, and why pay attention when we have monsters—Bashar al-Assad, Vladimir Putin, and Mohammed bin Salman,* you name them—imposing unspeakable cruelties on entire human populations?
If we have anyone to blame, it is The Media. We need more environmental True News. Even PBS and NPR put sensational stories at the top of the news hour. They think they must, for the sake of ratings. The growing ecological crisis gets thrown an occasional bone, but it is disproportionately small compared with the scale of damage.
Beat the Drums
That’s why I’m resolving to undertake a personal project to send comments to our publicly supported media (at least) imploring them to raise the profile of the ongoing assaults on our planet. And try to do it at least weekly. If enough of us do it, maybe it could make a difference. If you’re big on Facebook or Twitter (unlike me) you can make your voice heard with your own news announcements. But you have to keep it up.
It’s worth a try—something along the lines of, “I encourage PBS to have more news stories on the ecological damage inflicted by humans on the planet, an example being [link to kelp forest story or similar]. Stories on hurricanes are not enough. This is vital!”
If you want examples there’s a host of sources such as Yale Environment 360. I note Yale Environment 360 because I subscribe to them, and their reports are scientific, in depth and comprehensive.
On PBS Newshour, they now have these weekly segments (on Thursdays I believe) of a series called “Brief but Spectacular,” giving voice to prominent figures, mostly on social issues, the arts, and humanities.** Perhaps they could have a series, “Hugely Important although not so Spectacular” presenting the ecological mini-crises that surround us. Surely they could frame them in such a way that they wouldn’t get lost in the din.
=============== footnotes follow ========================
* Saudi leader who is depriving starving, cholera-stricken Yemenis of humanitarian aid
** Why they call it “Brief but Spectacular” I’m not quite sure. There’s some embarrassing note in there although I can’t characterize what it is. Surely the tone with which Judy Woodruff introduces it rings of forced enthusiasm.