War, Nationalism and Climate Change
Shall we lay down a bet? What will kill our Earth as a viable home first? War, climate change, or nationalism? What if all three are intertwined, and to banish one, we have to get rid of all three? Why are you reading this column and running an acute risk of being slapped in the face with so much anguish? Here, and now, with temperatures and the carbon dioxide curve going in the wrong direction, and Vladimir Putin strutting his nukes so that he can invade a country that isn’t even his? Isn’t 10 time zones, (or is it 9 or 11?) enough for one oligarch?
At the time that this is being written, much of our world is at war in Ukraine, as Vladimir Putin, the brutal nuvoczar of Russia, having bombed his way unprovoked into Ukraine (heretofore a civilized place) with plans to (as Col. LeMay was fond of saying about Vietnam), “Bomb ‘em back into the Stone Age.” Putin has been reminding the world that he’s got nukes, while much of the world tries to turn his homeland into an international pariah state. Russia has become a seamless tyranny, where anyone who calls what has been happening in Ukraine a “war” can go to prison for 15 years.
Big Brother never stooped so low in mangling language to produce Newspeak. In Putin’s shadow it’s not a war, but “spetz operatsiya,” “a special operation.” If you say otherwise, see you in the Gulag after a show trial. Practice after me: two plus two equals five.
But hey, you say: Dr. “What’s Hot,” I know all of this. Let’s try some context. War is a very carbon dioxide and methane-intensive business. How many tons of greenhouse gases do Russia’s fighter jets pour into the atmosphere as Putin’s air war demolishes homes, schools, factories, and more? Putin is probably not in the mood to calculate such things. He wants to re-acquire the Russian empire at its height, in a hurricane of nationalistic hubris. So how, all we peace makers out there, do we cool the fires of nationalism in the name of Earth’s survival? Silly question? Well, then our game is over before we begin.
Let’s try global warming. Perhaps everyone can agree that bringing down the carbon dioxide and methane levels in our atmosphere is a good idea. Yes, many people do, as long as someone else does the heavy lifting.
International climate conferences have become a games of nationalistic hubris as different countries debate how to deemphasize their roles in various treaties with the least pain for themselves. Everyone squabbles as the heat-holding gases accumulate, and the masters of war (thank you, Bob Dylan) still build the big bombs and rattle their sabers. This has been going on since the major tools of war were sticks and stones and the Earth’s population of human beings’ major contribution to the atmosphere’s load of greenhouse gases was burning wooden cooking fires. What has a changed is the size of the stakes. Now, both danger via global climate travail and war seem to be racing each other to a finish line that no sane person should wish to cross. So, war propelled by nationalistic fury isn’t going to save the Earth. So where does that leave us?
Carl Sagan, a scientist who was so eloquent and prescient that Harvard denied him tenure because he was envied by his peers, had a theory about interstellar life. Given the size of the universe, he said, it is likely that many planets exist that could have conditions amenable for intelligent life. Given distances, we probably never will meet them. Sagan took his allegory one step further: when intelligent life reaches a level of complexity it is prone to destroy itself.
So here we are, with our wonderful technology, our fossil fuels, and our history of bragging about our ability to bomb each other back into the Stone Age with ever-more-powerful weapons. And so, how we are, sleepwalking every day toward Dr. Sagan’s anticipation of planetary demise.
So how about dodging this massive bullet with massive changes in human behavior to favor cooperation in the name of human survival vis a vis climate changes is going to require basic changes in human behavior quickly. We will not solve the global warming problem until we forsake nationalism as a tool of international diplomacy. They both must go as a matter of planetary survival and will require international cooperation on a level at which this planet has never before experienced. Are we capable of such changes, or are we as a species, dead?
Dr. Johansen taught journalism, environmentalism, and Native American Studies at the University of Nebraska at Omaha from 1982 to 2019, when he retired as emeritus, with 55 books.
At the time that this is being written, much of our world is at war in Ukraine, as Vladimir Putin, the brutal nuvoczar of Russia, having bombed his way unprovoked into Ukraine (heretofore a civilized place) with plans to (as Col. LeMay was fond of saying about Vietnam), “Bomb ‘em back into the Stone Age.” Putin has been reminding the world that he’s got nukes, while much of the world tries to turn his homeland into an international pariah state. Russia has become a seamless tyranny, where anyone who calls what has been happening in Ukraine a “war” can go to prison for 15 years.
Big Brother never stooped so low in mangling language to produce Newspeak. In Putin’s shadow it’s not a war, but “spetz operatsiya,” “a special operation.” If you say otherwise, see you in the Gulag after a show trial. Practice after me: two plus two equals five.
But hey, you say: Dr. “What’s Hot,” I know all of this. Let’s try some context. War is a very carbon dioxide and methane-intensive business. How many tons of greenhouse gases do Russia’s fighter jets pour into the atmosphere as Putin’s air war demolishes homes, schools, factories, and more? Putin is probably not in the mood to calculate such things. He wants to re-acquire the Russian empire at its height, in a hurricane of nationalistic hubris. So how, all we peace makers out there, do we cool the fires of nationalism in the name of Earth’s survival? Silly question? Well, then our game is over before we begin.
Let’s try global warming. Perhaps everyone can agree that bringing down the carbon dioxide and methane levels in our atmosphere is a good idea. Yes, many people do, as long as someone else does the heavy lifting.
International climate conferences have become a games of nationalistic hubris as different countries debate how to deemphasize their roles in various treaties with the least pain for themselves. Everyone squabbles as the heat-holding gases accumulate, and the masters of war (thank you, Bob Dylan) still build the big bombs and rattle their sabers. This has been going on since the major tools of war were sticks and stones and the Earth’s population of human beings’ major contribution to the atmosphere’s load of greenhouse gases was burning wooden cooking fires. What has a changed is the size of the stakes. Now, both danger via global climate travail and war seem to be racing each other to a finish line that no sane person should wish to cross. So, war propelled by nationalistic fury isn’t going to save the Earth. So where does that leave us?
Carl Sagan, a scientist who was so eloquent and prescient that Harvard denied him tenure because he was envied by his peers, had a theory about interstellar life. Given the size of the universe, he said, it is likely that many planets exist that could have conditions amenable for intelligent life. Given distances, we probably never will meet them. Sagan took his allegory one step further: when intelligent life reaches a level of complexity it is prone to destroy itself.
So here we are, with our wonderful technology, our fossil fuels, and our history of bragging about our ability to bomb each other back into the Stone Age with ever-more-powerful weapons. And so, how we are, sleepwalking every day toward Dr. Sagan’s anticipation of planetary demise.
So how about dodging this massive bullet with massive changes in human behavior to favor cooperation in the name of human survival vis a vis climate changes is going to require basic changes in human behavior quickly. We will not solve the global warming problem until we forsake nationalism as a tool of international diplomacy. They both must go as a matter of planetary survival and will require international cooperation on a level at which this planet has never before experienced. Are we capable of such changes, or are we as a species, dead?
Dr. Johansen taught journalism, environmentalism, and Native American Studies at the University of Nebraska at Omaha from 1982 to 2019, when he retired as emeritus, with 55 books.
