We should have seen this coming. The end of the world as we know it was announced today, unceremoniously with a blog post. Scripps Institution of Oceanography is reporting that we’ve definitely surpassed the 400 parts-per-million threshold for atmospheric CO2. It is at this concentration that a cascade effect is triggered and acidic seas rise to new heights, extinction rates increase, and food systems are permanently disrupted. More on all of that here.
What I want to focus on briefly is how we grapple with this enormous problem. It has been said before but it is worth saying again today: spurring people to act on climate change is difficult because the consequences are distributed and any solutions are really only best guesses to what is an enormously complicated question. Not only is it impossible to instantly halt all fossil fuel usage, it is difficult to even agree on how to scale it down. This is not a wishy-washy centrist political problem: should nations that have been plundered by colonial rule be forced into slowing down their own domestic nation-building projects? Should Europe and North America take on a greater share of the responsibility to account for historical advantages?
I am not expert in these matters, I only bring up this complication because it runs counter to the clear-cut narrative that U.S. environmentalism usually puts forward: that carbon neutral or even carbon negative futures are possible and it is only a matter of weak wills and greed that keep the smokestacks churning. Climate Change is often seen as a problem to be solved with equal parts technology and regulation but I would contend that an equal if not bigger issue is how we talk about climate change.
Consider, by way of extreme example, how the Green Party’s Jill Stein talks about “Protecting Mother Earth,”
Lead on a global treaty to halt climate change. End destructive energy extraction: fracking, tar sands, offshore drilling, oil trains, mountaintop removal, and uranium mines. Protect our public lands, water supplies, biological diversity, parks, and pollinators. Label GMOs, and put a moratorium on GMOs and pesticides until they are proven safe. Protect the rights of future generations.
In theory, the policy positions outlined on a campaign’s web site are not there to make an argument so much as they are there to help you decide if your values line up with that of the person running for office. In truth though—and this should be especially true for a third party candidate that needs to convince people to vote on a long-shot—every time you have a voter’s attention you should be trying to convince them to change their mind and vote for you or give them more fodder for an internal dialog of why they’ve made the right choice to vote for you. Stein’s platform is emblematic of a larger problem of environmental social movements as of late: there is no shortage of organizational energy but there is still no clear way forward.
Climate change inaction is essentially a problem of public engagement because there are very bright people with very clear agendas but nothing really seems to be taking hold as forcefully as the situation demands. And no wonder: what does it even mean to “halt climate change” at this point? What is an electorate signing up for when they choose a government that commits to protecting biological diversity? I know someone knows—there’s probably even precedent for it—but I’m a fairly educated person on this topic and if I were faced with having to answer that question in order to gain entry to the last boat leaving North Miami Beach during the supermoon, I would probably end up clinging to a classy sectional sofa somewhere 100 miles north of Cuba.
The actual answer to the questions I pose above are besides the point. Thinking of climate change as a problem of argumentation means that there is something fundamentally wrong with how we talk about confronting the issue. After reaching this auspicious milestone, it seems likely that it is only those who are convinced climate change is real that will be talking about it. It is also likely that a lot of that talk will center around how thick-headed people are for not believing in climate change, becoming a single issue voter about it, or doing enough to reduce their own carbon footprints. I do not think that sort of talk is helpful anymore, if it ever was.
To answer my glib titular question: there has to be a renewed commitment to meeting people where they are at. Granted, where people are at, is bad: not nearly enough people in the U.S. believe in climate change (recent poll pegs it at 30%) but perhaps the problem is that we need people to “believe in” impending global catastrophe. Resolute and determined commitment to facing a danger is only one of many reactions and unfortunately willful ignorance is another. Instead of calling anyone that doesn’t believe in climate change an idiot, there needs to be a wide range of rhetorical strategies. The general shift towards talking about climate issues in economic terms is probably a good start. (Martin O’Malley’s often-repeated phrase “Climate change is the best job opportunity we’ve seen in 100 years” is probably a bit much though.)
I definitely would rather live in a world where climate change was treated as the pending disaster that it is, but instead I live in one where it is largely ignored or outright denied. I suspect it is time to stop expecting people to be persuaded by evidence, even when it has literally arrived at their front door in the form of regularly reoccurring floods or droughts. Climate change is not a problem primarily defined by not enough people knowing the science. It is a political problem that requires persuasion by multiple means. The oil company villains and the “if every single person just…” rhetoric seems to have reached as many people as it is going to reach and we have to change tactics. That is, of course, if we stay committed to the idea that there is still time to wait to persuade people at all. If that is not the case then perhaps environmentalists must consider going in the opposite direction and, rather than appealing to existing governmental bodies, step up the rate at which they take it upon themselves to forcefully close uranium mines and fracking. I don’t know if there’s a third option.
David is on Twitter: @da_banks
Image credit Tink Tracy.
Comments 3
J — September 30, 2016
just want to add that while fossil fuels are part of the problem, the mass production of meat is actually a greater burden (I recognize that this detracts from your main point. sorry about that). This is a convincing argument.
Whitney — September 30, 2016
I would agree with you that climate changes challenge is not a lack of people knowing the science. The fact is, knowing “the science” isn’t that important (and perhaps insisting on explaining the science is part of environmentalists problem). Everyone has heard of climate change, some people have (mostly financial) reasons for denying it and have convinced others to do the same. But it’s happening.
Also, you are right that the “if every single person just…” rhetoric isn’t going to be effective. Firstly, end-consumer consumption only represents one fraction of the market. While the transportation sector represents about 30% of the US global warming emissions, passenger cars are responsible for only about a third of that. (https://climate.dot.gov/about/transportations-role/overview.html) Also, fuel consumed in international travel by air and sea (so most cargo shipping) is not counted towards that total. Cargo vessels burn heavy fuel oil when at sea which literally spews pollutants. 15 cargo ships pollute more than all the cars in the world (http://www.industrytap.com/worlds-15-biggest-ships-create-more-pollution-than-all-the-cars-in-the-world/8182) So, convincing everyone to drive smart cars isn’t going to do as much you might think. Even once you have convinced consumers to “go green”, people can’t choose options they don’t have. For example, tampons use up a bunch of resources to make and transport all that bleached cotton and cardboard, and while consumers may know that a reusable menstrual cup is more environmentally friendly, try to find one in the “feminine products” isle of your grocery store. It’s not there. So, the people who are trying to make environmentally friendly choices still have to choose from what is presented to them.
What I hear from people like yourself, people in the climate change activism community, guests at the aquarium, even climate-change deniers is, “But what can we do about it?” So, I think your point that how we talk about climate change might be the bigger issue is correct. We no longer need to talk about if climate change exists, we need to tell people what can actually be done about it.
I have thought about this for two years (since I started working at the aquarium and becoming involved in climate change activism), and here is what I think we can do as individuals beyond altering our consumer choices:
First, VOTE. Now, I know that convincing people to vote is nearly as hard as convincing people that climate change is real, but bear with me. Don’t just vote for president. Vote for plastic bag bans in your city, vote for increased emission regulations, vote for city counselors and state legislators and representatives that have actionable climate change platforms. Vote to protect protesters, vote for green space, vote for public transportation, vote for better recycling and compost programs. There are so many changes that when enacted on a community level have so much more impact than they do as individual choices.
Secondly, make changes in your places of business. Insist upon recycling, look for ways to make your operations less wasteful. One person choosing not to use a plastic bag is fine, but a business telling a vendor not to ship them product in superfluous packaging is going to be a lot more impactful. And someone is out there making those decisions. If you are in any kind of management position, you have the power to make positive changes in the place you work.
The last thing I have for you is, do not despair. Climate change may have a cascade effect, but actions have a cascade effect too. Once you start making changes it becomes easier to make more changes, and you start to see the opportunities to halt climate change more places. Thanks for reading my absurdly long comment.
David Banks — October 6, 2016
Thanks Whitney! A couple of thoughts here.
I suspect that the some of the really big emitters of GHGs that you mention, like cargo ships, are not subject to democratic authority. Too much of our emissions problems are privately held and the authorities we have to compel private actors to do better are either not there or grossly under-powered. One could imagine a TPP sort of treaty but for the environment where tiny island nations could sue the US and China for shipping iPhone parts back and forth to each other and killing the planet.
Perhaps so-called localist efforts to buy food and goods that are within a few hundred miles is a way to combat just that problem but it doesn't seem likely that manufacturing will be reorganized to the point that international shipping goes down markedly. But even if we did succeed in that monumental task we're still left with the consumer choice problems you mentioned.
Setting up something like either of these scenarios would require massive amounts of international public pressure but, and this is what I was trying to get at in the article, I still don't see the discourse pointing in this direction. There are no big singular demands or programs that really seem up to the challenge here, and to build such a thing would require a kind of message that resonates equally well with Trumpists and vegan anarchists. Anything less would not get enough support.