Editor’s Note –
One day in 2017, during Trump’s first summer as president, I was on my way back from covering a protest on the U.S. Capitol lawn when the Republicans in Congress were still trying to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare. As I took my seat on the D.C. Metro train, I noticed a skinny, intellectual looking fellow in the seat across from me. He was carrying a camera tripod, so I struck up a conversation with him and found out I was talking to John Feffer, author of the dystopian novel Splinterlands and director of Foreign Policy In Focus at the Institute for Policy Studies.
When I made it back to Mobile, Alabama for the winter last year, I found out New American Journal Associate Editor David Underhill was familiar with Feffer’s work and had a copy of the book. I read it and began to correspond with John by email. He is also involved in the Poor People’s Campaign and a local theater group in Maryland called Capital Fringe.
He also writes for TomDispatch.com, a project housed at The Nation Institute, a nonprofit media center dedicated to strengthening the independent press and advancing social justice and civil rights.
We publish this piece today and include part of the editor’s note from Tom Engelhardt, editor of TomDispatch.com, where it was originally published with links.
—
Editor’s Note –
If you happened to notice, news reports on a study in the science journal Nature about the globe’s oceans warming faster than even most climate scientists had imagined should have been eye-opening and potentially devastating news. In another world, that study would certainly have made headlines across the country as the midterm elections bore down on us. We are, after all, talking about the greatest crisis humanity has ever faced.
Yet its impact was essentially nil and no wonder. In the election season just past, Donald Trump was blocking the view when it came to almost anything else happening on this planet. And climate change? Well, we have the president’s own word that, even if it isn’t a hoax, it might not be “manmade” — and, in any case, is likely to “change back again” sooner or later (give or take a million years). So, to quote Mad magazine’s Alfred E. Neuman: “What, me worry?”
No surprise, then, that the fossil-fuel-stoked nature of our changing planet wasn’t a significant national issue in election 2018, as it hadn’t been in the presidential campaign two years earlier. (There was not a single question about it in any of the three presidential debates that year.)
True, in these midterms, a Washington state carbon tax that would have funded clean energy and air programs was shot down by the voters, thanks in part to the huge sums that the oil industry — in particular, BP America, Phillips 66, and Marathon Oil Corporation’s Andeavor, all with refineries in the state — sank into the campaign against it. Also true, some local House candidates raised climate change as an issue and generally won. Still, compared to immigration or health care this election season, the warming of this planet and what it portends for our children and grandchildren was on par with fear of zombies.
For those paying attention, this is frustrating indeed. Still, as TomDispatch regular John Feffer suggests today, the situation is simply too serious to let the frustration of it all — including the fact that our president and much of his party aren’t just climate-change deniers but enthusiastic aiders and abettors of the phenomenon — discourage those focused on doing something about it. And Feffer himself is a good example of that ongoing effort. This is publication day for his striking new dystopian novel, Frostlands (the sequel to his hit novel Splinterlands), and it has climate change directly in its crosshairs. Strange to say, but he’s proof of the adage (which I just invented) that in dystopia there lies hope. In that context, check him out on the “escape room” that we all now find ourselves in, whether we care to notice or not.
– Tom
Welcome to the Ultimate Escape Room
Will This Climate-Change Dystopia Have a Sequel?
By John Feffer –
The mid-term elections are over, and the Democrats have regained the House, but the rest of American political reality remains intact. Meanwhile, the campaigns barely touched on the most important issues of our time: war, climate change, and the fracturing of the international community.
So, let’s consider these larger issues from a different angle.
Let’s step from the voting booth into a different space altogether: an escape room. This is, however, no ordinary escape room like the ones that have become so popular in cities around the world. Here, the stakes couldn’t be higher: life or death. You might want to give it a pass, but you don’t have a choice. There’s only one door and you have to go inside…
You’ve done enough escape rooms to know the drill by now. You are escorted into what seems like an ordinary room. There’s a table and a chair. On the table is a book. As soon as you step across the threshold, the door closes behind you. You hear the lock click into place.
You are now trapped in a room with four strangers. Three of them look as concerned as you are. The fourth is nonchalant.
The instructions this time are a little different. As with other escape rooms, you have a certain amount of time to figure out how to get out. Also, you know that clues to the puzzle are hidden somewhere in the room. Figure them out and you’ll be able to unlock the door.
But here’s the difference: the temperature in this room will go up a degree with every minute that passes. If you and those four strangers can’t figure out how to stop it from rising, you’ll succumb to heat stroke. In other words, if you don’t escape in the allotted time period, you’ll die.
You immediately set to work looking for the clues. Maybe one or two are in the book on the table or maybe a code is carved on the underside of the table. Maybe you need to use the chair to climb up close enough to scrutinize the crown molding near the ceiling. Three of the strangers are doing what you’re doing: trying to uncover clues.
The fourth is leaning against the wall, looking relaxed. “It’s just a joke,” he says to no one in particular.
“I already feel it getting warmer in here,” you respond.
“It’s just your imagination,” he replies. “Power of suggestion. Fake news.”
The clock is already ticking. It can’t be your imagination. It’s definitely hotter in the room than when you first entered. You’re sweating. Everyone’s sweating, even the leaning man. “Temperatures naturally fluctuate,” he comments. “It might be going up now, but it will go down again. Count on it.”
“Don’t listen to him,” says the teenager in your group. “He’s just a jerk.”
She’s right and there’s no time to try to persuade him either. The four of you are now uncovering one clue after another, which brings you to the truly challenging part: cracking the code. Each of you contributes something: the teenager quickly solves a quadratic equation, the stay-at-home mom translates that Japanese phrase, and the aging literature professor recognizes the quote from Dante’s Inferno.
And once the four of you use this code to open a panel you’ve discovered beneath a loose floorboard, you finally get the chance to apply your engineering knowhow to the situation. You personally figure out how to reset the thermostat hidden inside it and so manage to slow the rise in temperature. It’s not much perhaps, but it’s a start.
You’re working smoothly together now. Only through cooperation have you been able to get this far. Problem is, it’s still too warm in the room. The 70-something professor is now crumpled in the corner, breathing heavily. You only have one bottle of water to share and a couple of nutrition bars and there are still more puzzles to solve. The teenager is urging you on — and little wonder, she has her whole life ahead of her.
But here’s the catch. You’re getting tired, all of you.
This Hot Room is only the latest and greatest challenge you’ve faced. You’ve been doing escape rooms now for what seems like decades, each challenge evidently more urgent than the last.
You were relatively young when you first stumbled into this craze. In the War Room, you were trapped with two heavily armed men pointing high-powered weapons at each other. In the Pandemic Room, you were all infected with a deadly virus and had to find an antidote. Most recently, you were locked in the Autocrat Room with a raving narcissist who believed he was the king of the world and who had his finger on a very real button that could destroy you, him, and everyone else.
Yet somehow you managed to extricate yourself from each of those rooms — only to find yourself trapped in this one. You should be tired!
You can’t even believe it: Only now is the reality of it all beginning to dawn on you — that you’ve been proceeding through a series of nested escape rooms, boxes within boxes, that have led you here, to the ultimate box.
In this Hot Room, time is running out, resources are scarce, and you have to listen to an idiot leaning against a wall doing nothing, and acting as if this were a delightful sauna, not a potential coffin.
You suspect that this is the human condition, this endless succession of crises. Civilizations have risen and fallen throughout history. One culture after another has failed to figure out the riddle inscribed in its environment. Some didn’t even realize that they were on the verge of collapse until it was too late.
But this is different. Each previous time, it was just one part of the globe — the Mycenaeans, the Khmer, the Mayans, the Romans — that grappled with its communal fate.
Now, you’re addressing the fate of the planet. This Hot Room, you’ve come to realize, is Earth itself. And there’s nothing on the other side of the door except the cold, cold void.
To solve the riddle of this ultimate escape room means performing a genuine miracle. You have to stop the temperature from rising. You have to multiply the water bottles and the nutrition bars. Most challenging of all perhaps, you have to prevent everyone from giving in to despair.
So, you take time out to do what you’ve always done in such situations. You did it at work to rally your discouraged colleagues. You did it for your children at bedtime to dispel the nightly terrors.
You tell a story.
A Matryoshka of Dystopias
My novel Splinterlands was an exploration of one particular dystopian path: the nationalist fragmentation of the world into ever-smaller splinters. This was no far-fetched fantasy when I wrote it, just an extrapolation, circa early 2016, from ongoing trends: tensions within the European Union, the polarization of politics in the United States, the rise of far-right parties, the widening global gap between the rich and the poor.
Unfortunately, those trends only intensified after I finished the manuscript. It hadn’t actually been my intention to predict. Like any politically engaged dystopian novel, Splinterlands was meant to be a warning. I knew things could get that bad. I just didn’t think they would — not so quickly anyway.
Even before the book came out, Britain had voted to leave the European Union and then, more improbably yet, Donald Trump managed to win the 2016 presidential election. Instead of being weird exceptions, the Trump-Brexit developments turned out to be part of a terrifying trajectory. Since then, the far right has assumed positions of power in Austria, Italy, and now Brazil. It has done well in elections in Germany and Sweden. In France, the extremist National Front is now, according to pollsters, the country’s most popular party.
Get on a train today in Poland, heading for North Korea, and you’ll pass through an enormous swath of territory ruled by fake democrats and authentic autocrats. An illiberal axis connects this great expanse of Eurasia to Turkey, Israel, India, the Philippines, Colombia, and Nicaragua. The military or one-party governments hold sway over much of Southeast Asia. Religious zealots and strong-arm leaders rule the greater part of the Middle East. Democracy is weak in most African countries and non-existent in others.
Together, these illiberal forces are deeply suspicious of any transnational authority that demands they adhere to global human rights norms and international standards.
The international community, never a particularly robust entity, is beginning to evaporate. Countries are withdrawing from international agreements like the Global Pact for Migration and organizations like the International Criminal Court. With its high-profile exits, Donald Trump’s America has done its best to undermine the Paris accord on climate change and the U.N. Human Rights Council. It’s not quite a rush to the exits, nor is this retreat into sovereign parochialism irreversible — not yet anyway. But the Splinterlands scenario of the total collapse of the international order and the fragmentation of countries like the United States and China has become incrementally more likely.
Meanwhile, global inequality continues to worsen. According to Oxfam, “82% of the wealth created last year went to the richest one percent of the global population, while the 3.7 billion people who make up the poorest half of humanity got nothing.” Facilitated by financial deregulation, corruption has become rampant, registering as a serious problem in two-thirds of the world’s countries, according to the latest Transparency International report. The media are under attack even in traditionally liberal countries like the United States.
And surveillance by the state and corporate conglomerates like Facebook has become commonplace. In China, the two forces are working hand in hand under the auspices of the phone app WeChat. Chinese use the application to shop, listen to music, and exchange messages. But the app also assigns users a score based on everything from online behavior to how they drive their cars, and if that score is too low, they’re locked out of certain jobs, travel opportunities, and schools. The system should be fully operational and exportable in a couple of years.
These various real-world dystopian scenarios are not discrete. They are indeed nested in one another, like one of those Russian matryoshka dolls that open only to reveal smaller versions of itself, each inside the next. Just as British Prime Minister Winston Churchill once characterized Soviet Russia as “a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma,” think of the current reality as never-ending wars wrapped in nuclear proliferation inside nationalist fragmentation enclosed in climate change.
This last challenge is, of course, the most urgent, transcending politics as it does. Governments of every political flavor have contributed to it and continue to dither in the face of an obviously looming catastrophe, while economic greed prevents any sustainable solution. In other words, we’re heading for a true existential reckoning. Heat up the planet enough and there won’t be any more politics or economics. It will be the real end of history, not the triumphalist one that Francis Fukuyama thought up in 1989 in anticipation of the end of the Cold War.
In Splinterlands, I still saw climate change as one part of an overall ecosystem of threat. In my new dystopian novel, Frostlands, climate change takes center stage. A stand-alone sequel set in 2051, the moment when Splinterlands ended, it focuses on Rachel Leopold, an aging climatologist, living in Arcadia, a sustainable community in what was once part of Vermont. Arcadia is now under attack by unknown forces and Rachel is worried that those attacks are directed at her. She’s been conducting experiments in secret to regenerate the Arctic ice cap in a desperate bid to enclose the remaining methane gas trapped in the permafrost. But (as in our world today) not everyone shares her urgent desire to stop climate change.
As with Splinterlands, the dystopia of Frostlands is, in fact, unspooling in real life on an accelerated basis. As environmentalist Elizabeth Kolbert wrote in a recent New Yorker:
”Arctic soils contain hundreds of billions of tons of carbon, in the form of frozen and only partially decomposed plants. As the region heats up, much of this carbon is likely to be released into the atmosphere, where it will trap more heat… In the Arctic Ocean, vast stores of methane lie buried under frozen sediments. If these stores, too, are released, the resulting warming is likely to be catastrophic.”
Kolbert then quotes Peter Wadhams, an ice specialist: “The risk of an Arctic seabed methane pulse is one of the greatest immediate risks facing the human race.”
Why wait until 2051 when you can experience apocalypse now?
Evolutionary Dead-End?
A climatologist, a nuclear physicist, and an epidemiologist walk into a bar.
The bartender gestures to the three tiers of bottles arrayed behind her. “Pick your poison.”
The three professionals laugh ruefully. The climate scientist links arms with her two colleagues and says, “Why don’t you pick your poison?”
It’s no joke.
In a culture that emphasizes free choice — among political candidates, breakfast cereals, and Internet avatars — we now face the ultimate choice. We can choose our dystopian future. We can cut funding for medical research and emergency response and increase our vulnerability to the next plague. We can elect leaders who have itchy nuclear fingers and increase the likelihood that we go out with a bang. Or, if we somehow make it out of those particular escape rooms, we can drink the ultimate poison and heat up the planet until it can no longer sustain anything but cockroaches.
For some, the inexcusable slowness with which the international community is addressing climate change — along with the other apocalyptic scenarios — is yet more proof that humans, like dinosaurs, have outlived their evolutionary usefulness. It’s hard not to feel that all of humanity deserves a Darwin award when you see the effects of recent superstorms, the vanishing of polar ice, the heedless drilling for oil and gas everywhere, and the dilatory efforts of even sensibly led countries like South Korea to reduce their carbon footprint.
Dinosaurs, of course, couldn’t put up much of a fight against the asteroid that slammed into Earth 66 million years ago and the cataclysms that followed. You, however, can still tell the bartender, “Thanks, but no thanks, on the poison tonight.” You can still solve the riddle of the Hot Room and hope that the next challenge won’t be quite as apocalyptic.
Remember: there’s always going to be some guy leaning against the wall, making light of your efforts to save the world. It’s maddening to have to listen to him. So, like Odysseus, you must close your ears to the siren songs of what passes for pragmatism today. The politics of the possible don’t stand much chance in an impossible situation.
In that Hot Room, everyone but the skeptic is back to work, even the aging professor. Your story has inspired them to attempt the impossible: to work together, to solve the riddle, to overcome the resistance. They know the odds. They understand that they’re already living in a dystopia.
But now you’ve given them reason to believe that even dystopias can have sequels.
—
John Feffer is the author of the dystopian novel Splinterlands and the director of Foreign Policy In Focus at the Institute for Policy Studies. His new novel, Frostlands, a Dispatch Books original and book two of his Splinterlands series, has just been published. Originally published at TomDispatch.com.
Before you continue, I’d like to ask if you could support our independent journalism as we head into one of the most critical news periods of our time in 2024.
The New American Journal is deeply dedicated to uncovering the escalating threats to our democracy and holding those in power accountable. With a turbulent presidential race and the possibility of an even more extreme Trump presidency on the horizon, the need for independent, credible journalism that emphasizes the importance of the upcoming election for our nation and planet has never been greater.
However, a small group of billionaire owners control a significant portion of the information that reaches the public. We are different. We don’t have a billionaire owner or shareholders. Our journalism is created to serve the public interest, not to generate profit. Unlike much of the U.S. media, which often falls into the trap of false equivalence in the name of neutrality, we strive to highlight the lies of powerful individuals and institutions, showing how misinformation and demagoguery can harm democracy.
Our journalists provide context, investigate, and bring to light the critical stories of our time, from election integrity threats to the worsening climate crisis and complex international conflicts. As a news organization with a strong voice, we offer a unique, outsider perspective that is often missing in American media.
Thanks to our unique reader-supported model, you can access the New American journal without encountering a paywall. This is possible because of readers like you. Your support keeps us independent, free from external influences, and accessible to everyone, regardless of their ability to pay for news.
Please help if you can.
American journalists need your help more than ever as forces amass against the free press and democracy itself. We must not let the crypto-fascists and the AI bots take over.
See the latest GoFundMe campaign here or click on this image.
Don't forget to listen to the new song and video.
Just because we are not featured on cable TV news talk shows, or TikTok videos, does not mean we are not getting out there in search engines and social media sites. We consistently get over a million hits a month.
Click to Advertise Here