财新传媒 财新传媒



GUEST  BLOGGER  Craig K. Comstock


The question:  What could be the use of taking seriously a scenario of the collapse of global climate and civilization, even near term extinction? Especially the views that argue that it's already too late or that changes could help, but probably won't be made. The answer: By responding fully to the scenario, we can meanwhile live more intensely and organize the elements of a society that, under new conditions as they develop, would work.


In a Series on American Climate Politics by Guest Blogger Craig K. Comstock, this Post notes a rising tide of writing about the possibility of “near term extinction” of humans. The Post suggests some positive good that might come from taking these warnings seriously. A slightly longer version of this essay first appeared at The Huffington Post on 140302 as “A gift from the collapseniks.” 

Comstock says of this Series for Caixin: "Even more than economic growth, climate change is the defining issue of our century, yet the American political system has so far addressed it only timidly and obliquely. One question is why. Another question is how the system can be prodded to deal with a threat whose cause is invisible (greenhouse gases), and comes as a "side effect" of benefits from burning fossil fuels.”




Guest Blogger  Craig K. Comstock 

[I]t's going against [human nature] to ask people to imagine extreme loss, [particularly in the determinedly optimistic USA]. Nonetheless, a growing number of observers of climate change and other trends foresee disaster. We can describe them as “collapseniks,” a term with a suffix derived from Russian in honor of Dmitri Orlov, who grew up in St. Petersburg (then Leningrad) and emigrated to the U.S. An engineer, sailor and writer, Orlov believes that his adopted country will descend into collapse, and that the U.S. is less well prepared than the country where he was raised. If we define collapsenik as an observer who is conscious of the possibility of economic, political and social collapse and who believes collapse is worth considering, then Orlov has a parade of company, of which I will give chronological highlights at the end of this piece. 

There are big differences among collapsenik authors and even in a single author at different times. A spectrum exists, from those who feel we could avoid the worst of climate change by changing our ways substantially ("we're sleepwalking toward disaster but could conceivably wake up") to those who believe our species is doomed ("it's already too late"). For example, scientist Guy McPherson has come to believe that, as a species, we are headed toward "near term extinction" (niftily abbreviated as NTE). 

While pessimists predict NTE, optimists envision the triumph of a progressive politics that would render climate change survivable, perhaps shifting us toward a steady-state economy, slowing what Elizabeth Kolbert calls the sixth extinction of species, and fostering a network of local and democratic institutions. An optimistic scenario would resonate with what Macy, expressing hope, now calls "The Great Turning." 

In contrast, McPherson argues that it's already too late for adequate reform: humans have inadvertently created feedback loops that will keep making the situation worse. For example, the release of methane caused (in part) by warming of the shallow Arctic ocean and the Siberian and Canadian tundra, will cause more warming because methane is a greenhouse gas even more dangerous than CO2. And so on. 

Humans don't have a very good record of predicting the future, in spite of various divinatory schemes. Whether developments are technological, political or economic, we have proceeded without reliable forecasts. Given the surprises inherent in complex systems and in technical development, nobody can show that we face certain demise, though we can discuss probabilities. 

Could we learn to regard collapse not as a firm prediction but as a scenario worth exploring? After all, the Pentagon has contingency plans for events that are less likely and less devastating. 

To return to our initial question, what could be the use of taking seriously a scenario of collapse, especially the views that argue that it's already too late or that changes could help, but probably won't be made? If we feel grief at what seems to be happening, instead of simply seeming smug in a prediction of certain doom; if we invent ways to lessen the turbulence and create the best that is possible in the new circumstances, if we live intensely instead of habitually, then the scenario of demise might seem no worse than knowing that, as individuals, we each will die. Meanwhile, what are we capable of? 

According to Rebecca Solnit's A Paradise Built in Hell (2010), disasters can bring out the best in people. If the scenario of the collapseniks plays out, we will have opportunities to discover what kind of gardens we can create in the ruins of our present society. So what is the gift? That by responding fully to the scenario, we can meanwhile live more intensely and organize the elements of a society that, under new conditions as they develop, would work. 

Now here are the promised examples of some writers who are aware of the possibility of collapse and who, in various cases, are sketching alternatives. Pioneering studies include Donella H. Meadows and her colleagues' The Limits to Growth (1972), William R Catton Jr's Overshoot (1980), Jonathan Schell's The Fate of the Earth (1982), Bill McKibben's* The End of Nature (1989), "assessment reports" of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 1990, plus 1992, 1995, 2000, 2007 and 2014), World Scientists' Warning to Humanity* (1992, organized by the Union of Concerned Scientists), and Tom Hartmann's Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight (1997). 

These are followed by such early 21st century books as Tim Flahherty, The Weather Makers (2001), Chris Hedges' War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning (2002), Richard Heinberg's The Party's Over (2003), Jared Diamond's Collapse (2005), James Howard Kunstler's The Long Emergency (2005), Clive Hamilton's A Short History of Progress (2005), Elizabeth Kolbert, Field Notes from a Catastrophe (2006), George Monbiot's Heat (2006), IPCC assessment report (2007), James Lovelock's The Revenge of Gaia (2007), John Michael Greer's The Long Descent (2008). 

And in the past five years: Fernando (FerFAL) Aguirre, Surviving the Economic Collapse (2009), Sharon Astyk and Aaron Newton's A Nation of Farmers (2009), Hamilton's Requiem for a Species (2010), Chris Martenson's The Crash Course (2011), Guy McPherson's Walking Away from Empire (2011), Dmitri Orlov's Reinventing Collapse (2011), Paul Gilding's The Great Disruption (2012), David W. Orr's Down to the Wire (2012), IPCC assessment report (2014), Kolbert's The Sixth Extinction (2014), and the National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society, Climate Change: Evidence and Causes (also this year). (With a few exceptions, I have listed only the first book in which each author shows a pervasive awareness of collapse.)

In addition, apart from the writers already listed, many of whom write blogs, you can find many provocative personal and organizational websites, some of which publish several writers, such as Arctic News* (Sam Carara), Climate Progress (Joe Romm and others), Collapse of Industrial Civilization* (xraymike 79), Collapsing into Consciousness (Gary Stamper), Culture Change (Jan Lundberg), Dark Mountain Project (Paul Kingsnorth), Grist, How to Save the World (Dave Pollard), Our Finite World (Gail Tverberg), Radio Ecoshock (hosted by Alex Smith), Speaking Truth to Power (articles gathered daily by Carolyn Baker), and Yale Environment 360 (edited by Roger Cohn Sr.).

We should be swayed not by the growing number of collapseniks, but by the evidence these writers bring and by the awkward fact that some countries are already in collapse: for example, Argentina. Chris Martenson has an interview about the situation there. His source has written a book about one solution: get the hell out! Unfortunately, insofar as the potential problem is global, where would we go?



"Craig K. Comstock studied political science at MIT and Stanford, but makes his living as a coach to authors of books and, for a while, as director of the Ark Foundation. Author of several books, he also writes extensively on the internet and hosts a TV interview show." 

Winckler is selecting these Posts on American Climate Politics from among Comstock’s many essays at the online Huffington Post. Insightfully, Comstock often notes analogies between the politics of climate and the politics of other global crises, present and past. 






71篇文章 9年前更新

Edwin A. Winckler (韦爱德) is an American political scientist (Harvard BA, MA, and PhD) who has taught mostly in the sociology departments at Columbia and Harvard. He has been researching China for a half century, publishing books about Taiwan’s political economy (Sharpe, 1988), China’s post-Mao reforms (Rienner, 1999), and China’s population policy (Stanford, 2005, with Susan Greenhalgh). Recently he has begun also explaining American politics to Chinese. So the purpose of this Blog is to call attention to the best American media commentary on current American politics and to relate that to the best recent American academic scholarship on American politics. Winckler’s long-term institutional base remains the Weatherhead East Asian Institute at Columbia University in New York City. However he and his research have now retreated to picturesque rural Central New York.