Writer Jonathan Safran Foer took part in the Festivaletteratura in Mantua with his latest essay on the climate emergency, 'Possiamo salvare il mondo prima di cena'. The interview.
Fields, farms, the warm light of early September. From the regional train travelling from Milan to Mantua, the typical Lombard landscapes scroll past. There is no fog; quite the opposite. The overnight storm has cleared the sky and brightened the land. In a few hours, at the Festivaletteratura, we will be speaking with Jonathan Safran Foer about his essay dedicated to the climate emergency. In the Italian Guanda edition, the title Possiamo salvare il mondo prima di cena is written on an apple — representing the Earth — bitten on both sides.
It is natural, however, to associate it with New York, the city where the writer lives and is literally a star, following the success he achieved while still in his twenties with the novels Everything Is Illuminated and Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close. Born in 1977, Jonathan Safran Foer grew up in the capital Washington in a Jewish family — the same one that inspired his first bestseller — made up of two brothers, a newspaper editor and a younger literary man. His father Albert is president of the American Antitrust Institute and his mother Esther, a PR professional, founded the agency Fm Strategic Communication.
Out there, in the Po Valley, there is an example of the "big farm" — the giant farm into which our world has been transformed. A subject close to Safran Foer's heart: in 2009 he wrote the essay Eating Animals, from which a documentary was also made with the narrating voice of his friend Natalie Portman.
Our train is now passing alongside a sprawl of intensive livestock farms which — as the writer notes — are among the leading causes of CO2 emissions, and therefore of climate change. But not the only ones. Also contributing to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, and hence to the rise in average global temperature, are fossil fuels, burned to produce energy (32.6 per cent), and to power our means of transport (14.2 per cent).
In his latest book, Safran Foer returns to what he knows best, but overlooks many aspects of the broader environmental question. He argues that we are late in addressing the climate emergency because it is "a boring subject" and "poorly communicated by scientists". He does not consider, however, that the role of researchers is not to captivate the masses, and above all he does not dwell sufficiently on climate deniers, who for decades were hired by oil and gas multinationals, and by governments, with the task of concealing the truth.
In the interview that follows, Safran Foer states that information alone is not enough to convince people to adopt a more sustainable lifestyle, yet he seems to ignore the stories and battles that have been suppressed over the past 40 years. The scientific journal Nature reports that the number of environmentalists killed over the past 15 years has doubled, reaching figures comparable to war zones. And when he lists his four self-help prescriptions (albeit ones that may resonate with a Western middle-class inhabitant) — "follow a plant-based diet, avoid flying, live without a car and have fewer children" — one is left wondering: how can we do this alone, without a political and economic revolution, to avert humanity's premature extinction?
Read also: Anthropocene, the human epoch in the words and images of Edward Burtynsky
Jonathan Safran Foer is waiting for us in a hall of Palazzo Andreani, home of the Mantua Chamber of Commerce. Outside it is pouring with rain; it is late afternoon, almost dark. He is wearing a pink shirt under a grey jacket and his customary black-framed glasses. He hints at a smile and greets us briskly.
At what precise moment did you think that the climate emergency was no longer a boring subject to talk about?
[Smiles, ed.] I still think it is largely boring. The debate takes very narrow, specialised paths. While writing the book, I gathered information that sent me into a panic. When I look at the Amazon in flames, the hurricane in Florida, the forests burning in California or the environmental refugees in Syria, I feel fear, anger, depression. A second after I turn my attention away from all of this, however, I stop worrying. I would like to worry about it…
But…
I don't think I need more information; I need to look inside myself. It is a challenge with myself. I can do more. I know it. The most important question I want to answer is: who am I, who am I within my family, my city, my culture, among 7 billion other people living on our planet.
So you have focused on what we as individuals can do in everyday life. Does your advice on reducing negative climate impact apply to Western citizens in big cities, like yourself, or also to the so-called "Global South"?
[Nods to show he has understood, sighs, ed.] Yes. It is very complicated [reflects for a few seconds, ed.].
I believe that every time we find reasons why others cannot change, we provide ourselves with an excuse not to change.
Certainly. But there is no universal recipe. We must adapt to contexts…
Let me give an example. If individuals do not have access to resources, we must commit to solving that problem, but that does not mean I should not change my diet. Last year a study was conducted showing that a plant-based diet costs 750 dollars less than a meat-based one. Eating less red meat, therefore, is cheaper, is certainly better for one's health (and I am not the one saying so) and for the planet. Of course, as Nature itself has also stated, those who do not have access to fresh food, for various reasons — such as poor soil conditions — and are malnourished, must eat more meat and dairy. But we must not: we need to reduce red meat by 90 per cent and dairy products by 60 per cent.
Can you manage it?
One must be honest about one's limits. I, for example, am not completely vegetarian and I cannot give up flying. To come here to Mantua I took a plane. And I know I will fly again with my children during the three weeks of winter holidays. We usually go to Europe, to South America. I cannot give that up. After March, though, I think I will stop. I am doing my best.
At this point we address the thesis from which the book departs: "For the public to believe you, you need a good story". According to Jonathan Safran Foer, climate change has not moved people's hearts the way other events have in the past. He recalls, for instance, the forgotten Claudette Colvin, a poor African American teenage mother who was the first person in the segregationist United States of the 1950s to refuse to move to the back of the bus. The civil rights movement preferred to spread the story of activist Rosa Parks, which happened nine months later and was carefully staged. The white man sitting behind her — in the famous image — is a journalist with whom she had made prior arrangements.
Greta Thunberg is then a modern-day Claudette, genuine, but fortunately less alone and with more means?
Greta Thunberg is more like Rosa Parks in her ability and capacity to engage people, who believe her and are concerned about the climate emergency. Usually, I can't bring myself to listen to environmentalists, but Greta captures my attention. She's really good at inspiring an emotional response.
But she's authentic — she says things as they are, without filters…
Of course she's authentic! I find those who challenge her ridiculous. The mass media, for example, always need to strike a balance, to give space to two opposing voices on the same subject. But sometimes you can't and you shouldn't. Everyone should be grateful to Thunberg — I am.
Did you see last July's funeral ceremony for the Icelandic glacier declared "dead"?
[He nods, but betrays no emotion. He remains serious, ed.] Yes, I saw it.
This event was so moving that it was watched by viewers all over the world. Perhaps environmental issues aren't boring after all.
They are difficult issues, iconic moments are few and far between. But we have to keep trying. The goal isn't just tears and raised fists — it's to drive action.
The ten-minute one-on-one interview is over. The following day I wait for the writer at the group press conference. He arrives about 45 minutes late, but excuses himself with a smile: "I stopped to sign the most autographs I can remember, here in Mantua. It means the climate emergency is really starting to matter to people. In the United States the narrative has completely changed, even among Republicans. I'm hopeful — we're finally all moving in the same direction."
So isn't it misleading to call the whole issue "boring"? Indian writer Amitav Ghosh, in the book The Great Derangement, says it isn't boring in itself, but that we've told the story badly.
That's what I meant to say.
No, yesterday you said it is largely boring. And the news record shows there have indeed been "iconic" moments: from environmental activists being killed to Greenpeace's actions. Some of this news has not been reported adequately.
What do you mean?
That a system bigger than us has censored, manipulated?
I don't agree. By now, we all have access to information through the internet, but that information is not enough to translate into concrete action. And Greenpeace has also made mistakes. For example, it hasn't addressed intensive livestock farming.
The interview ends there. The press officers from Guanda do not allow any further questions, but for the record it is worth noting that Greenpeace has taken part in various campaigns against intensive GMO crops, intended for animal feed production, and that in 2018 it launched the global campaign "Il pianeta nel piatto" against intensive livestock farming. Furthermore, not everyone in the world has access to information, or the means to select it adequately. Another journalist asks Safran Foer whether having fewer children is also necessary in Italy given the birth rate crisis, and he admits: "I haven't thought about it in depth, to be honest."