November 30, 2016 - 20:08
First, I believe the 3 main points he argues is
- humans ability to dismiss their responsibility to their declining world around them because of the vast changes that would need to be made. "I think that it is easy for us to agree that, in modernism, people are not equipped with the mental and emotional repertoire to del with such a vast scale of events" (1).
- How objectivitiy is unreal in its role for climate change
- Historic narratives and storytelling of the environment bid for a large underplaying of the severity of the issue or "casuality."
What struck me the most was the idea of how with storytelling and history we have to choose "between matter and materiality". How can we appeal to an audience who feels they can dismiss their responsiblity when "the maximum permissible CO2 limit wsa crossed just before 1990," which was almost 30 years ago?