U.S. election 2024

Over the last eight years I’ve spent a lot of time reviewing books about Donald Trump, so with his re-election I thought I’d post a few preliminary thoughts and provisional observations that I will no doubt be returning to for modification and expansion as we move forward. That is, if I don’t decide to unplug from the discussion entirely, which is something I’m starting to consider.

Exercising my nearly perfect record of failure when it comes to political prognostication, I thought Kamala Harris was going to win the 2024 election. Both because she performed very well (and much better than expected) and ran what I thought was a solid campaign, but also because I thought there was a lot more Trump fatigue out there. Leading up the election there was a refrain I heard among many of my American friends (and not a few Canadians as well) that they were just “so sick of the guy.” And I’d add that these were by no means just lefties saying this. It was George Will who prophesied that Trump’s demise would be the result of his becoming boring, which he assuredly was, but on election day a majority of Americans signed up for another four years of the Trump Show. I didn’t think there was that much appetite out there for such programming. I thought people were fed up. I was wrong.

I also thought Trump ran a very bad campaign, by the end of which he appeared so tired and sounded so incoherent that more than one observer thought he was actually trying to lose. He seemed cooked to me, and I don’t think that was a false impression. Just since 2020 he has clearly taken a significant step down in his mental functioning and I would put his chances of serving out his entire term to be only 50/50 at best. Despite his usual bluster about being a perfect mental and physical specimen, he is old and not in good health. But I guess as long as doctors can keep him upright he’ll do for the establishment. As the anti-government crusader Grover Norquist once described his ideal president: “We don’t need someone who can think. We need someone with enough digits to hold a pen.”

There have already been many Democratic post mortems. I don’t know how convincing or even useful they are. There are still some hardcore Bernie Sanders supporters out there who see him as representing a populist turn the party should have taken in 2016. I don’t think Sanders could have won in 2016 and I still don’t see him as a viable national candidate, as popular as he is personally and how well some of his policies play. The non-partisan establishment would crush him. That same establishment despises Trump, but they know he can be bought. A point I’ll return to.

The most common explanation for Harris’s failure is that inflation was the deciding factor in the election. Perhaps. But America has experienced higher inflation and it had anyway come down to the point where it was lower than when Biden took office. Not to mention that inflation is largely out of the control of a president. During the campaign Trump not only gave no explanation of what he would try to do about it, one of his few absolute declarations on economic policy – the imposition of staggering tariffs – would be inflationary by definition. If it was the “economy, stupid,” then the U.S. had one that, as even The Economist declared weeks before the election, was “the envy of the world,” and was the strongest it had enjoyed since the 1960s. None of that mattered.

Many people also say that Harris was hurt by not having been chosen in a primary. I don’t see how that would have helped her much at all. Yes, Biden, who was far too old for the job (as is Trump), should have announced he was only going to serve a single term at the outset of his presidency, but that would have put the party in an awkward spot, as Harris wasn’t seen at the time as an attractive candidate and it would have seemed strange to have made her Vice President and then immediately rejected her for the top job.

My own sense, which I share with the outspoken Saunders, is that cultural issues didn’t help the Democrats, and haven’t for a while now. They should probably walk away from identity politics, which many people (especially white, working-class people) have come to see as a scam and that have often accelerated into comic depths of virtue signaling and self-flagellation. What I mean is stuff like Trans rights (from pronouns to athletics), DEI initiatives, or anything that can be made to fit under the label “woke.” In Canada I think Indigenous issues are taking on much the same character. People are sick of hearing about this stuff. I get an earful of people complaining about it nearly every day. What the Democrats need is someone who will declare that “the era of identity politics is over” and that social justice initiatives are dead. This does not mean endorsing or turning a blind eye to racism or sexism or whatever but it does mean the end of the government being active in trying to fix the same. It’s not like pursuing these policies are doing the Democrats any good, as both women and people of colour have moved toward Trump while white people without a college education (not a minority among the American electorate) have solidified as a Republican base.

But in the end, looking at the breakdown of the vote, I mostly agree with those who say there probably wasn’t anything Trump could have done to lose. The media, understood broadly, is entirely right-wing now. And by media “understood broadly” I mean talk radio (iHeartRadio, formerly Clear Channel), social media platforms (X), and podcasters (Joe Rogan, Tucker Carlson, Charlie Kirk, Dan Bongino, Megyn Kelly, Ben Shapiro, et al.). Newspapers like the New York Times don’t count anymore, and Fox News still rules cable (drawing nearly double the viewers of either MSNBC or CNN on election night). Yes, everyone lives in their own media bubble now, but the right-wing bubble holds a lot more voters. As Michael Tomasky observes:

Today, the right-wing media sets the news agenda in this country. Not The New York Times. Not The Washington Post (which bent over backwards to exert no influence when Jeff Bezos pulled the paper’s Harris endorsement). Not CBS, NBC, and ABC.

And the result is what we see today. The readily visual analogy I use is: Once upon a time, the mainstream media was a beachball, and the right-wing media was a golf ball. Today, the mainstream media (what with layoffs and closures and the near death of serious local news reporting) is the size of a volleyball, and the right-wing media is the size of a basketball, which, in case you’re wondering, is bigger.

Fed a diet from such information (not quite news) sources, people felt the country was on the wrong track and voted for change. Voting for change is frequently what happens, but I’m never sure if it’s just optimism (change can only be for the better) or anger at whoever’s in power. Either way, I think in this case it was a mistake.

As so many of the top office holders in his first administration warned, Trump is not fit to be president and poses a grave threat to American democracy. At his age it is also clear he is not going to change, pivot, or become more presidential. He is going to behave like he did in his first term, only worse because he is mentally failing and there will be no guardrails. So we can expect a lot more anger, grievance, and resentment.

What will be the practical results of his election? I imagine most of Project 2025 is a go. Which means turning America into Hungary, or some other one-party state ruled by an oligarchy (the label fascism, which got a lot of play late in the campaign, is an outdated twentieth-century relic). While Trump himself may not be behind Project 2025, or even know much about it, that really doesn’t matter since all reports from his first term made it clear that he has little to no interest in actually governing. As one of the Republicans running against him in the primaries put it, the only reason he wanted to be president was to make money and stay out of jail. I very much believe that to be the case. And so the criminal investigations against him will now be set aside and I think even a conservative estimate would put his expected windfall from grifting in the office will personally net him in the billions of dollars from tycoons and foreign governments looking to curry favour.

I don’t know what the foreign policy consequences will be, but can’t imagine much positive from someone who has made no secret about his admiration and respect for dictators and his general ignorance of international affairs. I’m willing to bet he’s unable to find Taiwan on a map, and he may not need to in another few years. Which may be true for Ukraine as well.

On the domestic front I assume the push to emulate Hungary (or Russia, or China) will continue apace, working in tandem with the global forces Anne Applebaum dubbed Autocracy, Inc. I don’t see where any pushback is going to come from. The main thing I feel confident predicting though is that we are going to see kleptocracy run mad. The looting of the American state is about to begin, on a scale (to borrow a favourite Trumpism) never before seen in the history of the world. Back during his first term Sarah Kendzior characterized the Republican plan for America as being to “strip it for its parts,” and Trump presided over an administration more corrupt and indeed criminal than any the U.S. had ever experienced. Well, expect that to ramp up bigly. The copper wires are going to be ripped from the walls, the plumbing fixtures torn out, and the lead taken from the roofs. Switching metaphors, the cookie jar is going to be wide open and sitting out on the table for at least the next two years. To indulge a more speculative take, one way I could see this imploding is with the combination of a push for total deregulation of the financial sector coupled with the mad schemes of the crypto pushers leading to a crisis perhaps even greater than the 2008 mortgage meltdown. That’s only one of the unhappy shocks we might have in store though.

As Aditya Chakrabortty put it, “Trump will almost certainly plunder from the budgets for social security and Medicaid. Social services will be cut. The tech bros will suckle on government subsidies, while the suits from private equity get to set government policy.” The rich are about to get a lot richer and the poor are going to take a hit. After the election one of the aphorisms of H. L. Mencken soon started making the rounds: “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”

A lot of this goes back to the kind of thing Thomas Frank wondered about in What’s the Matter With Kansas? By channeling social issues (politics is downstream from culture!), the political right tricks the poor and working class to vote against their economic interests. There’s some truth in that, and I’m saying that from the perspective of someone who tends to vote for parties that want to tax me more, while getting tax cuts delivered to me by people who really can’t afford them. I guess I can’t complain too much, but I’m not thanking anyone either.

It’s all a bit discouraging. I think the United States is a great country full of great people that has been irresponsibly led for a while now by politicians of all parties. Yes, competent political leadership is in short supply everywhere (Canada and the UK are recent grim examples) but even disliking government as much as I do that’s no reason to blow everything up. I’d like to think Trump marks a kind of nadir or lowest point in the American experiment in democracy, but things can always get worse and I think they probably will. One thing I’ve learned following Trump’s career is that there is no bottom.

No more books

A subject that always gets me to sit up and take notice whenever it’s mentioned in the news is the ongoing decline in reading. So of course I had to click on a story headlined “Not-so-great expectations: Students are reading fewer books in English class.” Here are some highlights.

In many English classrooms across America, assignments to read full-length novels are becoming less common. Some teachers focus instead on selected passages — a concession to perceptions of shorter attention spans, pressure to prepare for standardized tests and a sense that short-form content will prepare students for the modern, digital world.

I hear this a lot. I can understand cutting reading requirements because we no longer live in a text-based culture. Reading novels, even for English class, may be seen as having few practical applications in the real world. But I don’t buy that studying short-form content will prepare students for much of anything.

The National Council of Teachers of English acknowledged the shift in a 2022 statement on media education, saying: “The time has come to decenter book reading and essay-writing as the pinnacles of English language arts education.”

The idea is not to remove books but to teach media literacy and add other texts that feel relevant to students, said Seth French, one of the statement’s co-authors. In the English class he taught before becoming a dean last year at Bentonville High School in Arkansas, students engaged with plays, poetry and articles but read just one book together as a class.

This is another idea I’ve always taken exception to. I remember arguing against this kind of thinking thirty years ago. It’s typical of people advocating for change to say that they’re just adding new kinds of learning but keeping all the old. It’s not an “either . . . or” proposition, but “both . . . and.” Which is nonsense. It’s a zero sum game when it comes to students’ time and attention. The “idea” may be “not to remove books” from the curriculum, but that’s what’s going to happen.

Also, it’s not so much that book reading and essay-writing are the “pinnacle of English language arts education” as it is that the Humanities are essentially fields of study that are grounded in the reading of books. That’s what a degree in Literature, History, Philosophy, etc. is. The arts without reading is a contradiction in terms. If students aren’t prepared for that in grade school than the game is already over.

There’s little data on how many books are assigned by schools. But in general, students are reading less. Federal data from last year shows only 14% of young teens say they read for fun daily, compared with 27% in 2012.

Whoa! The number of kids reading for fun (meaning: the number of kids reading at all) has been cut in half in only ten years?

Teachers say the slide has its roots in the COVID-19 crisis.

“There was a trend, it happened when COVID hit, to stop reading full-length novels because students were in trauma; we were in a pandemic. The problem is we haven’t quite come back from that,” said Kristy Acevedo, who teaches English at a vocational high school in New Bedford, Massachusetts.

Wouldn’t spending lots of time indoors, in lockdown, mean that you’d be likely to read more? I guess not. Because . . . trauma.

For some students, it’s a struggle to read at all. Only around a third of fourth and eighth graders reached reading proficiency in the 2022 National Assessment of Educational Progress, down significantly from 2019.

Another “significant” and recent decline. And I wonder what “reading proficiency” means. Are we talking basic literacy? So only a third of these students are literate? And we’re talking about reading proficiency here. I assume that anyone who isn’t able to read proficiently also can’t write. That’s the way these things usually work.

Terri White, a teacher at South Windsor High School in Connecticut, no longer makes her honors ninth-grade English class read all of To Kill a Mockingbird. She assigns about a third of the book and a synopsis of the rest. They have to move on quickly because of pressure for teachers to cram more into the curriculum, she said.

A ninth-grade English class can’t read all of To Kill a Mockingbird! So the teacher assigns a third of it and hands out a synopsis of the rest. What percentage of the class even reads the third of the book that’s assigned? And the idea of just giving kids a synopsis of the book is wrongheaded. You don’t read literature to find out what the story was about, who died in the end and whodunit. That’s treating books as just being sources of information. But unless we’re talking about some (not all) reference works, books also contain ideas and experiences that the act and (I would say) art of reading draws out. A bare synopsis misses all of this.

But of course, if you’re just looking to acquire information from a book in order to pass some standardized test, then I can see thinking that reading is no longer the pinnacle of an arts education. Or, for that matter, even relevant.

X marks the spot

Today, President Joe Biden announced that he won’t be standing for re-election. This didn’t come as a big surprise, as it had become evident, glaringly evident since his debate performance against Trump, that he could no longer communicate and hence campaign effectively. What surprised me, and something I still can’t explain, is that he made the announcement by posting a letter on the social media platform X (formerly known as Twitter).

Why X? The platform is not a trusted or respected news source. Nor is it even a platform with that great a reach. Its prominence, even back when it was Twitter, was always overstated mainly because it was used by a lot of reporters.

It is also owned by Elon Musk, someone who has pledged massive funding to elect Biden’s rival.

Biden could have got air time or coverage on any network or platform or service and the statement would have been picked up and immediately re-posted and broadcast everywhere else. So why was it released on X? I’ve never had a Twitter or X account, and only used to go on it occasionally to scroll through some posts back when it was Twitter because they let you do that without registering. You can’t do that anymore, which is one of the reasons X has been losing traffic as well as revenue since Musk’s takeover.

I think Biden dropping out was the right call. He’s much too old. Trump is also much too old, but he’s in a category all his own. Leaving that aside though, I don’t see why Biden would make such an important announcement on a platform like X. Surely there was a better way to break the news.

Telling my truth

Here’s a little something I said five years ago, on the occasion of a Liberal cabinet minister calling out the prime minister and being congratulated for telling “her truth”:

I’ve been vaguely aware of this expression for a while but I’m not sure where it got started. As near as I can tell, when someone says they appreciate you telling your truth what they’re saying is that they don’t believe what you are saying is true, but they accept that you believe it to be true. It’s very much a backhanded way of saying nothing much. It’s also a perfect political soundbite. In response to the recent accusation of inappropriate behaviour on the part of possible presidential candidate Joe Biden, other Democratic candidates again rushed to acknowledge the complainant coming forward with “her truth.” I guess this covers the bases pretty nicely, without committing anyone to saying what the truth in any particular situation is.

But isn’t this a problem? By just saying that someone has told their truth aren’t we making the claim that no objective truth can be arrived at or is recoverable? That everything is relative to one’s own subjective experience? How is this different from a world where nothing is true and everything is possible?

I found myself thinking about this again recently in response to a couple of news stories, and feel nudged toward saying a bit more. I’ll put it in the form of an appeal: Can we please stop referring to someone as speaking their truth?

The first story has to do with the claim made by Alice Munro’s daughter, Andrea Robin Skinner, that Munro took the side of Skinner’s stepfather after it came to light that he had sexually abused Skinner as a child. I found this revealing in many ways (apparently “everybody knew” about this, but in the approved manner of Canadian literary circles they didn’t talk about it in public), but it was the end of the story that caught my attention. This is from the CBC report:

Munro’s Books, a bookstore Alice Munro founded in Victoria with her first husband, James, posted a statement on its website supporting Skinner. The bookstore has been independently owned since 2014.

“Munro’s Books unequivocally supports Andrea Robin Skinner as she publicly shares her story of her sexual abuse as a child,” the store said. “Learning the details of Andrea’s experience has been heartbreaking.”

The bookstore also released a statement on its website from Andrea, her siblings Jenny and Sheila, and her step-brother Andrew.

“By acknowledging and honouring Andrea’s truth, and being very clear about their wish to end the legacy of silence, the current store owners have become part of our family’s healing,” they said. “We wholly support the owners and staff.”

Is this really unequivocal support? What does it mean to acknowledge and honour “Andrea’s truth”? Doesn’t such a statement imply that they’re not taking a side? Because after all, they’re not saying Skinner is telling the truth, only that she’s telling her truth.

The second story, also reported by the CBC, has it that Indigenous Services Canada is concerned about people who are not of indigenous ancestry claiming identity in that group anyway in order to take advantage of various professional benefits. Apparently this phenomenon is known as “race-shifting” (the people who do it are called “pretendians”) and there are concerns that it is spreading into Canada’s huge public service, which is, as one academic puts it, “fertile ground for race-shifting given the job security, lucrative salaries and its size.”

The solution, according to the Deputy Minister in charge of Indigenous Services? Well, “the key is to honestly tell your truth.” But isn’t that how this problem got started? I don’t want a bunch of frauds telling their truth, however honestly they may go about it.

Hasn’t this nonsense gone on long enough? What does it even mean to speak or tell “your truth”? I suppose the point is that if you believe something is true then it is true for you, and that’s all that matters. Or more poisonously, as George Costanza put it on Seinfeld, it can’t be a lie if you believe it.

In trying to be non-judgmental the term has become a dismissive and condescending insult. “Oh, I’m so glad that you’re telling your truth,” we say. It’s like smiling at someone in therapy. Because we’re quite deliberately not taking any kind of a stand on what the truth is. In fact, as I said five years ago, I think there’s a clear implication when we say someone is telling their truth that we don’t think they’re telling the truth at all.

And are we always so agnostic? Think of election denialism in the United States. Are the people who claim that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from Donald Trump to be graciously accepted as telling their truth, even if we know they’re not telling the truth? I don’t see that happening.

Yes, there are many different truths out there. And some things may be true for us and not true for others. But truth isn’t always so personal and subjective. To even say of matters that have been adjudicated that they only constitute some individual’s personal truth is to indulge in a relativism so absolute as to be nihilistic. Enough is enough.

Total recall

A week ago I had a Dangerous Dining post talking about breakfast cereals, in the course of which I mentioned how Quaker’s Harvest Crunch granola cereal was one of my go-to favourites. Just a day or two later a recall was announced by Quaker that had that same cereal listed as possibly contaminated with salmonella.

Ouch!

Usually I don’t pay any attention to grocery recalls because they seem to always involve brussels sprouts or instant ramen. This one took me a bit by surprise, and not just for coming from such a major brand as Quaker. I mean, I’m sure it’s not impossible to get salmonella from granola, but isn’t it strange?

Salmonella is a bacteria most often found in poultry, eggs, raw and undercooked meat, and dairy products. At the end of several lists of foods most likely to be contaminated with salmonella I also found things like nut butters, some processed foods, and infant formula.

Not granola.

Even stranger was the wire story on the recall:

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has received at least 24 reports of adverse events related to the products initially recalled, but no illnesses have been confirmed to be linked to the foods, an agency spokesperson said Friday. Adverse events can include medical problems, but also complaints about off taste or color of a product, defective packaging or other non-medical issues, the official said. FDA will continue to investigate the reports.

So no illnesses confirmed to have been linked to the foods? And “adverse events”? That sounds really vague. It even includes “complaints about off taste or color of a product, defective packaging or other non-medical issues.” Defective packaging?

I don’t know how much of this recall is due to an excess of caution, and how big the actual risk might be. In any event, seeing as I had several boxes of the suspect cereal this has become the first product recall that I’ve actually taken part in. I filled out a form online, attached a picture of the unopened boxes I had in my cupboard, and was told my request would take up to 8 weeks to process.

I’m curious to see what happens. Do manufacturers actually pay out when they have a recall? You’re on the clock, Quaker! I’m not expecting anything, but let’s see how you do.

Update, May 27 2024:

All’s well that ends well!

Celebrity bios: then and now

“Waive the laws of history.” Cicero

Long-time readers of this site will know I have a pet peeve about celebrity bios, and the way people who enjoy wealth, power, and fame use them to carefully fashion their image and brand. See, for example, the posts here and here. I also had a post a while back mentioning how old a story this is, and how Michelangelo, upset at the (worshipful, not to mention truthful) account of his life written by Vasari, got one of his students to write a more flattering, inaccurate portrait.

But the great tradition of phoney, fawning biography goes back further than this. I recently came across this little gem while reading Anthony Everitt’s Cicero:

Aware that his public image needed burnishing but sensing the public would not welcome any more self-praise from his own pen, Cicero tried to interest a respected historian, Lucius Lucceius, in writing a history of his Consulship, exile and return, the main purpose of which would be to expose the “perfidy, artifice and betrayal of which many were guilty towards me.” He was candid about his expectations, and asked Lucceius to write more enthusiastically than perhaps he felt. “Waive the laws of history for once. Do not scorn personal bias, if it urge you strongly in favour.” Lucceius agreed, although for some reason the books seems never to have appeared.

Maybe it just wasn’t any good, much like Cicero’s own self-indulgent epic poetry. And for that we may be thankful.

What brought this to mind again was the publication this past month of a couple of instant bestsellers written by two of the most prominent biographers working today: Elon Musk by Walter Isaacson and Going Infinite: The Rise and Fall of a New Tycoon (on Sam Bankman-Fried) by Michael Lewis. I haven’t read either book, but reviews have called out both authors for an overly deferential attitude taken toward their subjects, accompanied by a shrug at their various “demons” (the handmaid of “genius”) and other failings.

I would have thought that the mere fact of the special access they were given in writing “authorized” bios would have been enough to set off all kinds of alarms. In her New York Times review of Going Infinite, Jennifer Szalai criticizes Lewis for being “stubbornly credulous” and for having “a front-row seat — from which he could apparently see nothing.” This is, just to repeat the point I’ve been banging on in all these posts, to mistake the reason why someone is given access, or “a front-row seat,” in the first place. It’s precisely so the author won’t see anything, or at least want to talk about it.

Making matters even more embarrassing, Isaacson and Lewis were going into print when their subjects were on the verge of imploding, leading some to question the divine status of figures like Musk and Friedman as masters of the universe.

What can I do but keep repeating myself? So I will: “if you’re reading the bio of a living celeb (meaning one who still has the ability to have any influence over what someone is writing about them) you have to assume that it’s going to be, at best, only the loosest facsimile of the truth. It has always been thus.” Remember: if you’re not reading something that the subject of the biography didn’t want written, it’s just an ad.

Bad calls

Over the last ten or so years I think there are very few amateur political commentators who can claim to have been so consistently wrong in their predictions, about pretty much everything, as I’ve been. That said, it seems as though one of my hot takes has blown up in record time with the recent announcement from Premier Doug Ford’s Ontario government that they are reversing the controversial Greenbelt land swap. In an earlier post I concluded that the land was never going back into the Greenbelt, but now it look as though it might.

At least for a while. I still think it’s likely to end up being rezoned after the next official Greenbelt review, but for now Ford seems to have made a political calculation to sacrifice the interests of the developers to shore up some of the political damage he’s been taking. But given the amount of money at stake I think this is a story we’ve yet to hear the last of.

The real green

Still looking green, for now. (CBC News – Patrick Morrell)

Ontario’s ruling conservative party has recently found itself in hot water after taking nearly 3,000 hectares of mostly agricultural land out of the protected Greenbelt around Toronto and opening it up for development. Technically this was part of a “swap,” with 3,800 hectares being newly included in the Greenbelt elsewhere. The government says that the land was needed to build more affordable housing in the province, but few people are buying that argument.

Premier Doug Ford now says there will be a re-evaluation of the land swap deal after two government watchdogs raised serious questions about how it happened, including a report from Ontario’s auditor general that found the process was heavily influenced by a small group of politically connected developers. Housing Minister Stephen Clark has stepped down amid all the controversy.

Opposition parties, and many public voices, are calling for the lands to be returned to the Greenbelt. Indeed, one of the auditor general’s 15 recommendations made in their report was for the land swaps to be reconsidered.

In response, that was the one report recommendation that Ford’s government refused to even consider. In Ford’s statement that he will re-evaluate the process he even suggests that the result may be that he takes more land out of the Greenbelt.

I could be wrong, but I feel safe in saying that that the decision to take the land out of the Greenbelt is not going to be reversed. According to the auditor general’s report the owners of the land (not farmers, but the developers who bought it up) stand to see the value of it rise by $8.3 billion.

$8.3 billion.

It doesn’t matter what environmental groups and government watchdogs say. It doesn’t matter if ministers resign in disgrace. It doesn’t matter if governments are voted out of office. It doesn’t even matter if people go to jail. With so much money at stake literally nothing else matters. That land isn’t going back into the Greenbelt.

Update, September 21 2023:

I called it wrong.

Disaster tourism

Destination hotspot.

Recent weeks have seen record-setting heat waves in the United States and southern Europe. In Greece wildfires have been raging and thousands of tourists had to be evacuated from the island of Rhodes. Overall, July is set to be the planet’s hottest month ever recorded, leading the United Nations Secretary General to declare “The era of global warming has ended. The era of global boiling has arrived.”

Scientists have pointed to “absolutely overwhelming” evidence of human-induced climate change in the latest wave of high temperatures. One contributing factor to climate change is air travel, though people argue as to how significant a factor it is. From what I’ve read, air travel causes about 3% of the warming all human activities cause. But make not mistake: that’s a lot. One stat I saw says that if the aviation sector were a nation, it would be among the top 10 global emitters, and that it is responsible for 12 per cent of transportation emissions. So it makes a real difference. And it’s almost entirely unnecessary.

Now personally I don’t travel much, and I think the last time I was on a plane was twenty years ago. But I get that a lot of people like to travel. Indeed, that’s the problem. It’s a sector that’s expected to grow significantly in the next couple of decades. Tourism is projected to generate up to 40% of total global CO2 emissions by 2050. The effect of such growth won’t help the planet, especially as any new energy efficiencies in air travel will be more than offset by more frequent flying.

But I’m not flight shaming here (flight shaming being the name of the anti-flying social movement). Like I say, I get that people want to travel. During the COVID lockdown I had to stand witness to two acquaintances, both retirees, literally break down in tears at the fact that they were somehow being cheated of going on more vacations before they died. It was embarrassing, but it revealed just how important travel is to a certain segment of the population. Because I guess there’s nothing else for them to do. So even if it’s not a feeling I share, I can at least say I get it.

Anyway, these recent headlines were brought home to me yesterday as I was talking to a friend whose sister and brother-in-law are currently vacationing in Greece. I gather they’ve been complaining about it. The heat. The fires. And it made me think of the cognitive dissonance this must involve.

The vacationing couple are wealthy retirees (she was a government lawyer, he was an academic) with no kids. And they travel a lot. They have three international vacations planned this year alone, and they travel deluxe all the way. But hearing about how they were grousing over the impact of climate change on their trip triggered me a bit.

As I see it there are several different responses one can have to living this kind of apex-consumer lifestyle in the present day.

(1) The travel Neros: this was a name given to a movement a while back where global warming was taken for granted, with frequent flying being a major contributing factor. But the travel Neros took the position that the world was going to burn to a crisp anyway so they were going to party while it fried. Maybe not socially responsible behaviour, but it’s a position that has its own integrity.

(2) The deniers: climate change is all a hoax foisted on us by the Chinese or global elites or killjoy environmentalists. Don’t listen to them! Keep consuming! After all, if you damage the economy in any way trying to save the planet, the cure will be worse than the disease! Not a position I agree with, but again at least it holds together as a belief system.

(3) Those who acknowledge climate change is real and air travel is only making things worse, but feel that their own personal contribution doesn’t make a difference: here is where I think the cognitive dissonance comes into play. “It would be better if people didn’t fly as much, but since they do it would be stupid for me to give up one of life’s great pleasures just for some benefit to the planet that I likely won’t benefit from anyway.” To my eye, this is just casuistry. How, I wonder, do the tourists in Europe this summer feel the heat and see the clouds of smoke on the horizon and say to themselves “This has nothing to do with me. I hope they get it all fixed up when I come back next year.”

As I say, the whole conversation I had with my friend ended up really triggering me and I said something about how what the the vacationers were experiencing in Greece was due in part to their being there in the first place. This was met with the response that that couldn’t be true because Canada has been wracked with forest fires this summer and those forests weren’t being overrun by tourists. Honestly. This was one of the stupidest things I’ve heard in a long time.

After I explained (in my typical, hard-to-follow and sputtering way) how climate was a global system and was affected by human activity everywhere, with its effects experienced differently in different places, I got a more realistic, though even more depressing response. The vacationers were retired, you see. And, well, what else was there for them to do? How were they going to stay occupied in their remaining years except by traveling? (And they had both taken early retirement and were only in their early 60s, so they potentially still have a lot of time ahead of them to, you know, burn.) And then there was the matter of their being rich. What else were they going to spend all their money on? What could they spend it on?

It may well be that our entire civilization is going to die of affluence and boredom.