Subtle Invisibility

Again, from the NY Times, a headline touting the amazing growth of the US economy next to an article asking why it is so hard for people to talk about climate change. The research director at Climate Outreach finds fault with "journalists" who "struggle to find the right tone, convey the right level of urgency". He is frustrated by climate scientists worried about "being branded activists" as well as movement messengers with "painted faces and placards." The Director is correct there is a messaging problem but his suggestion to enlist "faith leaders, trusted local businesses and culturally credible spokespeople" is both naive and simplistic.

The "collective paralysis" the author identifies is a rationally irrational response to a crisis whose solution we comprehend but cannot enact. We know but we must act as if we do not; therefore it is better to avoid the subject altogether. As Naomi Klein put it: the Right is right. They understand any real solution means a change in the power structure and this the elite will never accept. Species can go extinct, reefs turn brown, millions of humans perish and they won't budge.

Instead we celebrate the surge in economic growth and ignore the corresponding surge in emissions. Environmentalists like the author propose "a conversation" to get things started but this is not a problem of "articulation". This is a problem of power.
Meanwhile the Animus River in southern Colorado fills with ash and massive fish kills are predicted. Trout Unlimited spends millions to restore a small stretch of stream while avoiding any discussion around the real cause of climate change because they don't want to offend their donor base; people who call themselves "conservative" conservationists. They are disappointed in the Republican platform but enjoy watching the stock market rise. They, like the NYTimes, struggle to find the right tone.