One Small Voice: Pick a better battle, Army Bob

by Lynn Mandaville

Does anyone remember when, back in the day, if you had a skip in a record, a certain phrase or line of music would repeat, and repeat, and repeat, ad infinitum, until you either raised the phonograph needle past the skip, or bumped the machine with a hip or a kick to move the needle?

I remember.

And these days, when I read Army Bob’s column in this publication, I have that same sense of frustration/crazy-making that I used to get when there was a skip in one of my records.

Here’s what happens when we play the Army Bob record:

2030, end of the world, settled science, AOC, Bernie Sanders, socialism

2030, end of the world, settled science, AOC, Bernie Sanders, socialism

Mr. Traxler cannot seem to get past the musings of some environmental activists that the world is going to end in 2030, that it is settled science that deems it so, that AOC and Bernie Sanders are the primary proponents of this wide-spread myth, and that somehow all this is closely associated with a socialist movement intended to replace our democratic republic.

In the interest of ending this skipping of the record, I’d like to say that I, for one, don’t believe we are witnessing settled science where the predicted end of the world will occur in 2030.

However, I don’t think this is going to help end AB’s tirades.

I am under the impression that Mr. Traxler is enamored of the battle he is waging against perceived socialist enemies, and he won’t be vindicated until “they” concede the battle and admit that 2030 isn’t an accurate prediction of the end of the world.

What I do think needs to be said, though, is that Mr. Traxler is fighting the wrong fight.

The real battle that needs to be waged is the one against those people, nations, practices, and policies that have aligned to assure an eventual, sure demise of the planet Earth.

It is normal rhetoric from AB that the US is only a small part of the problem of climate change, and that the Green New Deal is going to cost us dearly to implement, and will not matter a hill of beans in the bigger picture.  (And he’s not wrong on these two points.)

It is also normal rhetoric from yours truly that it cannot hurt the effort to stem the tide of destruction that the US, at the very least, set an example for the rest of the world, and at the very best, put into practice policies and strategies to curb carbon emissions and to become free of our dependence on fossil fuels.  (And I’m not wrong on these points either.)

I would suggest that the battle we ought to be fighting is not one of whether 2030 and settled science are accurate, or even reasonable, terms to describe our situation.

The battle we should be fighting is the one that causes the US to rationalize our own continuing contributions to climate change, and to not take advantage of our global position to compel other nations – nations that certainly do contribute more damage than we do to the earth (China, India, and other Third World countries) – to curb their own negligence toward the existential crisis we all face.

If I could have my way (which I can’t) I would ask Mr. Traxler to channel his energy toward a more constructive endeavor than to keep tilting at windmills, fighting his battle against 2030 and settled science.  He may think he is winning the battle, but, in actuality, he is losing the war.

Our war against climate change – which is real, regardless of what AB says – needs to be fought with action, not words.

We can fight the war on many fronts.

The war can be fought with simple action, like recycling and curbing waste of natural resources.  Like acquiescing to electric vehicles, and giving up the gas-guzzlers we love so much.

The war can be fought with big action, like ceasing the clear-cutting of forests around the world, and stopping the practices of fracking or drilling for oil on protected wilderness lands.

The war can be fought by putting our own money where our mouths are, as in contributing financially to efforts such as Greenpeace, The Rainforest Alliance, The Ocean Conservancy, and the hundreds of other worthwhile organizations which ceaselessly work to keep the earth green and above water.

And the war can be fought by fighting the fossil fuel industry which seems unable give up its ill-gotten billions of dollars in the interest of saving the planet, nor take the time to see the writing on the wall that their days are numbered if we, the people, are serious about preventing the ultimate demise of Earth.

I like a good fight about semantics, or consistency of arguing a point, just as much as Mr. Traxler seems to.  But there comes a time when rehashing the same old same old becomes tiresome and meaningless.

So what if some blowhard claimed that 2030 was the End Of The World?  So what if they claim it’s settled science?

Those of us who have a brain can discern scare-tactics vs. rational thinking.

There are factions in our society who believe no one will take seriously their point of view unless they scare the bejesus out of us.  Let’s take their babble with a grain of salt.

There are those of us who know that there is no such thing as “settled science.”  Science is always probing, positing new theories for testing, conducting new experiments and collecting new data, to make sure science is providing the most recent and valid facts as we know them to date.  Science by its very nature is always in flux, as exemplified by the COVID-19 pandemic.  As we learn more about this virus, about its mutations and ability to spread, we adapt our methods of protecting ourselves from the emerging after-effects of catching it.

Instead of merely chastising, ad nauseum, the fallacious comments that set an arbitrary date of the doom of mankind, we should be doing something that staves off the doom which seems to be coming at a fairly alarming rate.

If I know one thing for sure, it’s that none of us knows the day and time of the end of the world.

But we sure aren’t so stupid as to not see it coming, when around the entire globe naturally occurring events are happening at seeming accelerated speed, especially when viewed honestly within the scanty data humans have collected over the past couple of hundred years.

I concede, on behalf of the rest of us, that 2030 is not the undisputed end of the world.  I concede that there is no settled science where our demise is even certain.

Humankind is capable of recognizing its mistakes and correcting them.

But getting mired in red herrings like AB’s unending tirades over dates and science-certainty only serves to muddy the vision of the steps we need to take to undo what has been done.

And getting trapped in a blame game as to how we got here does nothing to advance beyond the current situation.

So I implore Mr. Traxler to find a new battle to fight.  A battle that might be both worthy of the fight, and include a battle plan that actually tackles the problem instead of paying it lip service.