“The science is clear but politically it’s impossible.”

That statement, included without further comment, explanation — or indignation — in a news story in the New York Times about the gigantic boondoggle that has plagued New Orleans’s struggles with decades of Mississippi floods, suddenly struck me with its basic insanity. I had, of course, always accepted such statements as a matter of course in the country in which I live and in the state in which I live (New York). I had grown so used to accounts of the anti-reality biases of our present President and our recent Albany lawmakers that the words no longer aroused any reaction — they were just another innocuous caveat, like ‘It’s probably going to rain.’ or ‘…who asked to remain anonymous because he was not authorized to speak’ or ‘Assuming the Mets lose again’. But this time its frank acknowledgement of intellectual corruption suddenly stirred my indignation.

Of course devious politicians from Julius Caesar to Donald Trump figured it out long ago and have routinely used it to their advantage. As a public figure, how you talk and how you behave are always two different things. Your public persona gets you the ticket to legislate on behalf of the people who have agreed to put their trust in you. Your private arrangements get you the dollars you need to reward your allies and your relatives, repay your lobbyists, place your bribes effectively, and buy off your enemies (and perhaps your ex-lays). Not difficult to justify unless you still have some scruples left over from your Sunday school classes or your Torah studies or madrassa lessons. But when put baldly and without comment by a newspaper reporter without the complications of any specific issue, it should constitute a shock to anyone not worshipful of willful ignorance. “The science is clear but politically it’s impossible.” “We would rather commit planetary suicide than relinquish a short-term advantage buttressed by lying in the service of partisan advantage.” Is that sane or insane?

In the case of New Orleans, how do we have the blind shortsighted lack of vision to look the other way when the coffins start to float up from the cemeteries every time Old Muddy slides over the levees? In Britain, how do we expect complicated Remain versus Brexit decisions to be sensibly conducted when facts are simply considered an option — to be cited when helpful to the cause; ignored when inconvenient? People are already so busy trying to survive loss of their once-secure jobs, deterioration of their once-adequate wages, and resentment against the use of public revenues to refurbish the stately mansions that are supposed to rescue the country with their admission fees (although, of course, they belong to the people already) that they hardly have time or interest any more for that consoling after-work pint and thoughtful political discussion. When accurate information is missing from the news no hasty referendum is going to reveal anything beyond pure ‘follow the sheep in front of you’ prejudice.

But my paper today holds out a glimmer of hope. It tells of at least two federal court judges who seem to be inching toward an understanding that future generations are entitled to a place at the table where things that will affect them are being discussed. In the name of as yet unborn and unnamed children, actual proxy plaintiffs with the money to pay lawyers are reported to have filed lawsuits claiming that those unborn children actually have legal ‘standing’ to sue the current political classes that are destroying their chances even before they can get born and speak for themselves. How those lawsuits will progress, if indeed they are permitted to progress at all, is of course unknowable, but I find it encouraging that they have at least got this far. They are now on some court’s official docket. They have the necessary stamps of approval and assignment numbers and scheduled trial dates The cases apparently will actually be argued. There will be public discussion. There will be media babble. At least, there should be public discussion, barring possibility of the Pecker Defense (‘buy the story and bury it’, as practiced by our President, among other loose-zipped men with adequate wallets) doesn’t rise to the level of infecting the major channels. We will perhaps be allowed to factor in the future cases of silicosis, epidemics, stunted growth, lead poisoning, and 20-yard smog visibility into our considerations of new environmental regulations and universal health care. How big a blessing would that be — not only to the unborn children but also to those remaining worried citizens who still care about what seems to be happening to their faith in big-D Democracy?

How much, in the form of contributions to the current crop of insurgent candidates, would you be willing to bet on it? What can you do to encourage those judges and discourage those coal revivalists and oil-well resuscitators and wild promisers of a return to the forever-vanished 19th century fossil fuel job economy? Are you willing to write letters to your newspaper editors, to your representatives, (to the troglodytes as well as the reformers)? Will you stand up in town meetings and ask questions? Will you refuse to be intimidated by the flag-wavers and KKKers and the MAGA chanters with the hate oozing out of their ears? For Brits, read, will you call out the nostalgic Empi-ah rooters, dreaming of reviving pith helmets and teacups? Same thing. Or will you remain silent and resign yourself to the bitter judgments of your children and your grandchildren and their grandchildren, who will perhaps be the beneficiaries of a clearer view than you can manage — if they are not physically blinded in a choking worldwide smog?

Rule number one : don’t vote for anyone older than 40. Rule number two : see rule number one. Rule number three : be sure you vote!