One could say that we’re living in a fascinating moment in history. I would also say that it is overwhelming. In the past two years, spurred by a horrible natural disaster in Hurricane Katrina and the release of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, U.S. media headlines have begun to swim with mention of global climate change. Thank goodness, the national debate has shifted from the question, “Is global warming a myth?” to “Exactly how bad is it?”. In the days when many argued that climate change scientists were overreacting, my take on the issue was that global warming was happening. Ironically, I also managed to avoid reading about much of the evidence that would support my view. Maybe not ironically… maybe intentionally. It’s scary stuff.

The national debate has changed, and I am now sitting neck-deep in overwhelming quantities of complicated, contradicting information about environmental activism and climate change. Because conservation is now “in”, a “light green” movement has emerged, asserting that we can help the planet without changing our lives in drastic ways– how about just cutting your shower a minute or two short? Buying recycled toilet paper? Trading that Lexus SUV in for a Lexus hybrid SUV? It is exciting to see a shift in national consciousness toward concern and conservation, but once everyone (read: corporate America) jumps on the bandwagon, the message is bound to get watered down.

I have to believe that the small changes we make are helpful– especially the reduce portion of the reduce, reuse, recycle mantra. But then I read of India and China’s exploding population and the coal-fired power plants that are popping up at break-neck speed to keep pace. I feel comforted that, finally, the market is driving auto makers to use existing technologies to create more fuel efficient cars, but then I read a Rolling Stone profile on preeminent scientist John Lovelock,¹ whose stance is that climate change is irreversible and has us on a collision course. I put hope into recycling and alternative fuels, only to read about recycling being futile and current ethanol processes being inefficient and decidedly not carbon neutral.

You get the point.

As history unfolds in coming decades our understanding of it will be, for all of our computer models and forecasts, messy and inexact. Supposed innovations and steps forward may be red herrings, or they may lead to fundamental, exciting changes in the way we live. Discerning the difference between the two fascinates me, and although I feel worn down right now, I hope to keep sharing with you what I come across.

Of utmost importance, I think, is to try and keep a sense of humor about it all:

Nate read a story this morning in the New York Times² about a small group of New Yorkers who have formed a group called Superheroes Anonymous. Each member chooses a cause and roams the streets– Direction Man, for instance, wears a bright orange vest with black goggles and wanders to and fro looking for any lost visitors to aid. I am inspired (and greatly amused) by these brave souls, and have decided that I will join their ranks from afar, heretofore wearing an emerald green leotard with a kapok tree-shaped mask whenever typing my entries. I shall sift through mind-boggling piles of potentially depressing information, searching for exciting ideas and paths toward action to share. My name: Envirogirl.

1. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/16956300/the_prophet_of_climate_change_james_lovelock [↩]
2. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/29/nyregion/29super.html?_r=1&oref=slogin [↩]