Dot Earth: Pete Seeger’s Day Of Climate Action

Back to front page »

By Andrew C. Revkin

I went to talk to a folk singer about global warming over the weekend. There are some who would say that that’s silly, even irresponsible, given the weighty scientific and economic issues that lie at the interface between energy policy and the atmosphere.

But actually, a folk singer — in this case Pete Seeger — has just as legitimate a place at the table as a first grader, a retiree, a coal-industry lobbyist, a climate scientist or one of the diplomats negotiating in Bali over how to revive an ailing climate treaty.

That’s because the debate over next steps is as much about values as data. The consequences of various decisions over greenhouse gases are framed by science. But choices made by countries, communities and individuals are being shaped by a mix of history, geographic circumstance, money and †especially †values.

Mr. Seeger, at 88, has for many decades been writing and performing songs exploring values and rights, the interplay of people and the planet, and what one community or generation owes another. Whatever you think of his views, he’s clearly part of the national and global conversation.

At a climate rally on Saturday in his hometown, Beacon, N.Y., he sang “My Rainbow Race,” a 1967 song that has become something of an anthem for climate campaigners of late because the lyrics speak of the atmosphere (and oceans) as shared resources.

One blue sky above us, One ocean lapping all our shores, One Earth so green and round, Who could ask for more?

They also, in classic Pete Seeger fashion, toss a dart at those impeding change.

Some folks want to be like an ostrich, Bury their heads in the sand. Some hope that plastic dreams Can unclench all those greedy hands.

And they speak of intergenerational obligations, which I explored here not long ago in a post asking “What does the present owe the future?”

Go tell, go tell all the little children. Tell all their mothers and fathers, too – Now’s our last chance to learn to share What’s been given to me and you.

It’s not just banner-waving environmentalists and banjo-plucking folkies who see values as a key to the climate question. Last week, Jerry Taylor, a scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute, chided a group of climate scientists for issuing a call in Bali for sharp cuts in greenhouse gases, saying their expertise in climate science gave them no special standing to dictate how society should respond to warming.

In the meantime, how do you personally weigh the costs of changing from unfettered burning of the fuels of convenience — coal and oil — which have created so much wealth, for the sake of limiting future risks?

The ice age is coming, the sun’s zooming in Meltdown expected, the wheat is growing thin Engines stop running, but I have no fear Cause London is drowning and I, live by the river

–London Calling, 1979 THE CLASH

†Posted by Sanjong Thapa

It’s evidently too much of a no-brainer to put out the fire to agree on.

†Posted by Steve Bolger

Andrew–Why aren’t these kinds of articles–the ones like this on your blog, as well as the Reuters and AP pieces that come up when searching the NYTimes online, appearing in the print newspaper?

Today’s front page had an article about flying in a squirrel suit; yesterday’s was on the rise of reality TV. Why aren’t we at least getting a daily “briefing” somewhere in the print paper on what is happening on a daily basis at what could be the most important meeting of our times?

†Posted by Robert Berkman

Truly, a lovely song. As music, it blends beauty and sadness extraordinarily well; lyrically, it balances hope against anger. The fact that it was written long before most of us woke up to the climate crisis gives it a resonance beyond the obvious, and gives it a chance to become an anthem. (Reminds me a little of another of Seeger’s famous songs — “Where Have All the Flowers Gone?”) I do wish we could have heard the whole song, without the interruptions…

†Posted by Kit Stolz

Great job Andrew! Great job Pete!! I’m all for it.

Whether Pete is in his late eighties, or even if he were 100-plus, I’d love to see him sing and convey the message out here in California or on TV (assuming it would be a well-done, non-Hollywoodized TV show, of course). For now, I’ll just have to watch “Festival!” one more time. (That said, it grows better with age, just like a good wine.)

Please don’t forget to call Bob to make sure he understands that this is really, REALLY important. And Peter and Paul and Mary. And Joan. And . . .

Regarding the obligations we humans have to future generations and to sustainability, I believe they are (to pick a word) huge. Indeed, I believe it can be shown that:

Human morality itself is most foundationally “about” the sustainable and healthy survival of the human species along with plentiful and healthy biological diversity along with the sustainable health of our home, planet Earth, all accomplished in a way that respects human equality (in important senses) and embraces a living and somewhat fragile planet.

I know that “mouthful” wouldn’t make for a good song, but the essence and heart are there. And, the statement can be grounded in a combination of science and sound reasoning, I believe.

Also, just to point out another (related) matter elsewhere on Dot Earth, the PCAP report suggests, as the first “Presidential Action” of the next president, this: “1. Establish the atmospheric commons.” What a beautiful and important start, to set an accurate context, paradigm, and attitude.

Thanks Andy and Pete. Good luck to you.

†Posted by Jeff Huggins

“How do you personally weigh the costs of changing from unfettered burning of the fuels of convenience †coal and oil †which have created so much wealth, for the sake of limiting future risks?”

As a stand alone issue not as great as I do as a part of the overall energy/resource discussion. I try to think about this from a very large view. I’ve tried in the past couple of years to personally come to terms with not just what we owe our children (someone once said they are our future, you know?) but to people 50 generations or even 500 generations out.

We certainly won’t be burning 80+ million barrels of oil per day in the year 2500. And we won’t be burning the same number of megatons of coal we’re burning today. And the natural gas will have been long gone as well.

So what will power the future? It makes some sense to me to start to think in these very long timeframes to imagine what sustainability really means. I don’t see “sustainability” as meaning we can get away with something for another 50 or 100 years.

So while global warming is an important problem, it’s only one in a series of problems that all relate to resource usage.

What I would not like to pass on to those who will follow us are destructive policies that view humanity as a form of invasive species to be controlled. At the heart of every repulsive regime is the notion that some subset of the human family is less deserving than those favored by the regime.

In this case, unfortunately, the regime of the present seems to be conspiring against the humanity not yet conceived on a number of fronts. Posts heaping scorn on other humans who act on the biological imperative and give rise to the next generation are counter-productive (and that’s the nicest way I can put it). They are as destructive as those who ignore great problems because they remove humanity from the solution.

What should replace this is a drive for more developments that enable (such a loaded word) our society to continue to live well and to continue to pass on optimism to those who follow us. We can engineer out waste. We can use our resources more intelligently and get to a point where we have eliminated sufficient waste and recycle enough that we can reduce mining and drilling for resources to the point that they will last eons.

From there, we leave it to those who will follow to decide what their present will be and what future they’ll pass on.

On another note, I’ve never liked being preached to by musicians. Just a personal preference.

†Posted by A3k

as a scientist I believe songs are a great medium for communicating. Obviously most people are more apt to remember a tune and lyrics than a specific scientific principle. Each time you hear the song you are reminded of what it represents. I give many presentations titled “I’m Melting- A glaciers perspective on Global Warming” and music is as powerful as the words I say, though not as powerful as the pictures of glacier change they accompany.

†Posted by mauri pelto

Why do we human beings think we are intelligent? From all I hear, see and read, we may be the least intelligent species on this planet. All other forms of life interact in a way that maintains a Balance so that all species may continue to live. We are the only species that does not behave this way. Since we can by force, we are proliferating without bounds, taking out all other forms of life and, it appears soon, will cause our own extinction. Are we, perhaps, the only stupid species? Are we, indeed, what some call “the cancer destroying this magic thing we call life itself?”

Seems like we need to act differently if we want to claim we are intelligent…

†Posted by djmontaine

We are the wealthiest nation ever, partly, as you say, because of the fossil fuel we burn. How about choosing to perpetuate that wealth indefinitely? That means creating a truly sustainable world, one in which energy comes from renewable sources, natural resources are reclaimed rather than mined, waste is recycled rather than dumped.

I don’t underestimate the magnitude of this task, but surely we are in a better position than anyone else to make it happen. Let’s do it for our kids and grandkids.

†Posted by Dave M

This ought to produce profound and passionate response from your great readers. I remember reading this quote in which you refer to Taylor: “I do not believe that “the experts” in any field should be dictating climate policy because there are plenty of important value judgments built in to those policies and experts however defined have no objectively better values than you or I.” I thought about that statement all day. I wondered if it was analagous to an oncologist being asked not to dictate a treatment plan to a cancer patient because that oncologist had value judgments built into the treatment plan no better served than yours or mine. Wouldn’t a climate scientist, like a doctor, know more than you and I in whatever area of their deemed expertise as far as consequences to avoiding their advice? And while the final decision is up to you and me on a treatment plan, how can an expert’s contribution not be worth evaluating or listening to? Aside from Divine intervention and believing in miracles, which I do, I am much more inclined to believe a climate scientist’s warning to cut greenhouse gas emissions than Mr. Taylor’s anything. The coal and oil industries have made a minority wealthy, not the majority. That minority is not going to suffer. And with regard to replacing or even forfeiting those wealthy and polluting coal and oil industries for cleaner technologies in order to save our planet’s future? We all, the entire world, better learn the meanings of birth control, down sizing, sacrifice, minimilist living, and compromise. It will take all these efforts to perhaps leave those who are born today a chance at celebrating life on Earth later on rather than wondering what the hell we weren’t doing that left this dear Earth a mess. Elizabeth Tjader

†Posted by Elizabeth Tjader

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

All NYTimes.com Blogs »

Peace and Climate and Prizes

A former vice president and an unpaid network of climate scientists laboring in obscurity for nearly 20 years shared the Nobel Peace Prize today. In announcing the joint award in October, the Nobel Nobel Committee specified that the scientists were being lauded for laboring in the trenches to define climate risks, while former Vice President Al Gore was recognized for boosting awareness of the science.

Pete Seeger and the ‘One Blue Sky Above Us’

I went to talk to a folk singer about global warming over the weekend. There are some who’d say that’s silly, even irresponsible, given the weighty scientific and economic issues at play. But actually, a folk singer — in this case Pete Seeger — has just as legitimate a place at the table as a first grader, a retiree, a coal-industry lobbyist, a climate scientist or one of the diplomats negotiating in Bali over how to revive an ailing climate treaty.

Hydrogen Car Is Here, but Where’s the Hydrogen Economy?

Honda is preparing to lease a small fleet of its new hydrogen-fueled sedans to people in southern California. The car is remarkably unremarkable, according to a story this weekend in The Times Autos section. But it’s one thing to have a few hydrogen cars, and another thing entirely to transform an energy and transportation system built on fossil fuels into one built on hydrogen generated without producing carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse-gas emission linked to recent global warming.

Radars Taken Out by Arctic Warming

The Pentagon is closing down 3 of the 20 Norad early-warning radar sites in northern Alaska because the ground they’re built on in some cases is literally crumbling into the Arctic Ocean as a result of erosion caused by waves on ice-free waters.

Bali Update: Pushing for Action, Not Talk

The diplomats and officials gathered in Bali to shape talks leading to a new climate treaty are beginning to feel the heat.

By 2050 or so, the world population is expected to reach nine billion, essentially adding two Chinas to the number of people alive today. Those billions will be seeking food, water and other resources on a planet where, scientists say, humans are already shaping climate and the web of life. In Dot Earth, reporter Andrew C. Revkin examines efforts to balance human affairs with the planet’s limits. Supported in part by a John Simon Guggenheim Fellowship, Mr. Revkin tracks relevant news from suburbia to Siberia, and conducts an interactive exploration of trends and ideas with readers and experts.

Access to cheap energy underpins modern societies. Finding enough to fuel industrialized economies and pull developing countries out of poverty without overheating the climate is a central challenge of the 21st century.

Africas Energy Gap The Power of Green The Energy Challenge series

Enshrined in history as an untouchable frontier, the Arctic is being transformed by significant warming, a rising thirst for oil and gas, and international tussles over shipping routes and seabed resources.

Human advancement can be aided by curbing everyday losses like the millions of avoidable deaths from indoor smoke and tainted water, and by increasing resilience in the face of predictable calamities like earthquakes and drought.

Earth’s veneer of millions of plant and animal species is a vital resource that will need careful tending as human populations and their demands for land, protein and fuels grow.

Andrew C. Revkin began exploring the human impact on the environment nearly 30 years ago. An early stop was Papeete, Tahiti. This narrated slide show describes his extensive travels.

Dot Earth is meant to be a two-way street, incorporating ideas, anecdotes, links and other contributions from readers, as well as exchanges with scientists, officials, tinkerers and thinkers working to smooth the interactions between people and the home planet. Get in touch.

+ rowData.contentSnippet +

Tag Cloud

External Information

Additional Information

Where Am I?