2023-01-09
Human intelligence has been aware of human induced climate change for ages but human greed has thwarted action to mitigate it
By Tamsyn Heynes, Green Issue Co-editor
Unfortunate is not the correct word to describe the overall status of climate change. By no stretch of the imagination does it convey the gravity of the situation. Since the Industrial Revolution in 1750, the level of anthropocentric interference in geologic patterns has rightly led experts to name our current epoch the Anthropocene.[1] Humanity has so overrun and pushed the planet that we have become a force and agent of nature. It is nothing to be proud of. Inhabitants should not overrun the very habitat allowing their existence – it is arrogance and stupidity to an unspeakable degree. Capitalism, individualism, ignorance, delusion, avoidance, plain disregard and good old-fashioned drinking of the Kool-Aid collide in the massively relevant issue of climate change. It is not a ‘woke millennial’ trend, it is a tragic and disgusting story of orchestrated misinformation, avoidance and omission that has roots in the late nineteenth-century.[2]
As Nathaniel Rich states in his iconic piece, “Losing Earth”, “we could have avoided this”.[3] It is in this one fact that the great tragedy escalating before our eyes, due to climate change, is made even more poignant. It is wholly and solely the fault of humanity. Already I hear the predictable and defensive chorus “I didn’t do what my parents and grandparents did”. But we are better than such pettiness and we quite frankly do not have the time for it. We are now effectively in a concerted and desperate course of damage control – how do we get to carbon neutral to prevent and mitigate long-term catastrophic outcomes? A major problem that is allowing governments to put the brakes on urgently needed action are the huge number of voters who are climate change deniers.
Why is climate change bad? The World Population Review gives the following explanation:
“Hotter temperatures alter global weather patterns, leading to droughts, heatwaves, wildfires, floods, and fierce storms such as hurricanes. When hotter temperatures melt ice caps, glaciers, and permafrost, it causes rising sea levels and coastal erosion. Higher temperatures, extreme weather events, and rising sea levels disturb ecosystems and their migration patterns and life cycles. Climate change jeopardizes our air, water, and food; spreads disease; and threatens our safety. Every year, wildfires force tens of thousands of people to flee their homes. Millions of acres are destroyed by the flames, taking many families’ homes with them. Climate change means an increase in pollution, which contributes directly to respiratory disease and cardiovascular deaths.
The general scientific view is that any rise in global temperatures of more than 2 degrees Celsius would be catastrophic for the Earth— causing severe natural disasters, a melted Arctic, and possible mass extinctions. … The ultimate goal is capping the global warming rise this century to 1.5 degrees Celsius. While the 0.5-degree difference may not seem like a lot, it would dramatically impact low-lying nations and coral reefs.”[4]
Even though the above passage seems scientific, it is not – it is layman’s terms. The scientific explanation is far more complex and conservative (out of necessity), and herein lies an area that deniers attack and misunderstand. We arrive at the possibility that the professional obligation/expectation and indeed ethical binding that compels and limits scientists to report findings and facts in very specific ways may have contributed to vital information getting lost in translation when communicating to the general public.[5]
Deliberate misinformation is another problem. The mainstream media is controlled by the incumbent powers that prioritise jobs and budget profits over existence.[6] It sounds alarmist. It is alarming. We should be alarmed. Any sort of compassion, sensitivity and – dare I say – intelligence, is toxically labelled alarmist and fearmongering. We are now in the conundrum where speaking emotionally from the heart is considered soft, alarmist and illogical; and scientific talk is too unemotional, not to be trusted and ‘too vague’ – and the urgent truth ends up being ignored by too many. Scientific reporting can only be based upon properly vetted evidence, both for professional and ethical reasons. Reports are not just ‘intellectual conversation’, but the culmination of hundreds of hours to years of pain-staking work.[7] Meanwhile, the self-proclaimed ‘realists’ chorus accusations of conspiracy, lies and ‘everyone being too soft.’ The melee these loud un/misinformed voices create, cause the less dramatic to avoid discourse. And the loud, wrong, ignorant, and greedy end up holding the stage.
Inevitable ignorance of science is another major contributor to denial. It is important to emphasise and focus on human-induced climate change, not the global geologic cycles that occur throughout and over very long periods of time (often used as an ignorant attempt to ‘debunk’ climate change). The real comparisons pertinent to this discourse are the levels of parts per million of carbon dioxide and methane (and chlorofluorocarbons and nitrous oxide) and temperature, pre and post industrialization. Ignorantly misconstruing the existence, function and patterns of the natural geologic “Milankovitch Cycles” is nothing more than deflection.[8]
Historically, bipartisan governments of both Australia and the US, and fossil fuel giants such has Exxon and Shell, have all recognized and accepted the issue of climate change as legitimate. Their expansionist and profit-driven agenda meant no action was taken to negate or prevent (when it was preventable) the impact – but they still acknowledged the problem.[9] So why do we still have deniers when powerholders and citizens of all persuasions acknowledge the problem? How can we improve the discourse so that the issue can be tackled in a manner of global, cross-demographic cooperation? The reality is, it is too late. The future of the planet has been irreparably distorted and damaged. The question now is: how do we find the best practice of damage control?
Communicating highly scientific information (from multiple fields of science with input from environmentalists, environmental historians and social scientists) to the general populace makes for a difficult task. The timeline of anthropocentric climate change awareness has a longer history than many would realize. Reaching back to 1957, it is said that we knew as much then as we do now (take a moment to let that sink in). Between the US government and Exxon, the situation was ‘saved for the better minds of tomorrow” to address. The issue was not addressed at all, they did nothing – except make huge profit. The greenhouse effect was known of from the 19th century.[10] This was never a ‘millennial’ problem – it was a problem that could have been negated and now we are left to try and fix what seems to be unfixable.
Clinging to the dream of capitalist ‘success’ is a huge thorn in the side of accepting climate change for many. They want the house, the investment rental, two cars and a boat, and do not really give a dash as to how they achieve it. Should they feel the dint of guilt, they simply deny or avoid the existence of climate change.[11] They are like ignorant well-dressed ostriches with their heads in the sand.
The decades long attempts to mitigate the escalating problem arrived at the Paris Agreement in 2015:
"The Paris Agreement is a legally binding international treaty on climate change. It was adopted by 196 Parties at COP21 in Paris, 12 December 2015 and entered into force on 4 November 2016. Its goal is to limit global warming to well below 2, preferably 1.5 degrees Celsius, compared to pre-industrial levels. To achieve this long-term temperature goal, countries aim to reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emission as soon as possible to achieve a climate neutral world by mid-century … Implementation of the Paris Agreement requires economic and social transformation. Based on the best available science. The Paris Agreement works on a 5-year cycle of increasingly ambitious climate action carried out by countries. By 2020, countries submit their plans for climate action known as a Nationally Determined Contribution (NDCs).”[12]
After the extremely disappointing COP27, we have incumbent politicians showing the absolute criminal lack of concern for our present, future and the planet. The Agreement clearly requires and calls for the phasing out of the use of coal and the cessation of burning fossil fuels. “According to the 2021 Global Carbon Budget, reports between 1960 and 2020, around 82 per cent of carbon dioxide emissions came from the burning of fossil fuels, with remaining 18 per cent generated from land uses changes like deforestation and the degradation of ecosystems.”[13] – yet our government is still allowing and planning for more monstrous carbon emitting ‘job-creators’. The 2021 Global Carbon Budget estimates that we only have decade of continuing at the rate we are emitting before irreversible and unmitigable long-term catastrophe.[14]
“The international community has now very clearly signalled to financial markets that the fossil fuel era is coming to an end.”[15] However, the 2022 trends as published in Forbes show that while gas is globally on the decline and renewables are on the incline, coal use is still too high.[16]
Change is coming too slowly. Even governments who have ratified the Paris Agreement into legislation so that is legally enforceable have not necessarily honoured their promises because there is no governing body to ensure compliance. The naming and shaming of nations on the international stage that do not comply[17] works to further the optics that it is only an international political issue and not the matter of life and death that it is – allowing more avoidance and denial.
It is of utmost importance to hold up a mirror to ourselves in this topic. While issues covered here are by no means extensive for it is complex and far-reaching – there are those who wilfully do not care and those who are wilfully blind, and wilfully for destruction if it suits them in the moment. There are those who agree with certain people just because they are accustomed to, not even bothering to look at the information available.
Australia is filled with families relying upon mining, logging, unsustainable farming practices, and non-sustainable housing and suburb development. This demographic is challenging to move towards renewable, green energy and practices. While they would be what is globally considered privileged, they have real and conceived limitation of choices – choices facilitated by the government. While we have democratic processes to fight for rights (though with recent prosecution against protestors, it looks like exercising this democratic right will become an even greater challenge), change from the bottom up takes time – time we unfortunately do not have. As Oreskes and Klein point out, industry and powerholders enjoy a mutually beneficial relationship and they do not care about climate change. They mutually benefit from the ravishment of the Earth. Unfortunately, they have a huge hand in the public’s perception and understanding of the issue. The rich and powerful represent the dream of many a person, regardless of the fact that the enrichment they seek is only possible by the commodification of their very selves. The public wants the dream they paint in the clouds as the world quite literally burns and floods around them in an apocalyptic nightmare.[18]
While this seems bleak, small actions by many people effect great change. The bottom-up, grassroots approach is well worth any person’s time and effort. Practical ways to reduce our carbon footprint are well-documented and readily accessible[19]. The following suggestions directly address climate change denial/avoidance:
Amplify the voices of reason on social media. Your engagement will increase their reach and allow more people to be educated on the matter. This also means avoiding engagement with deniers.[20]
Vote for parties that prioritize climate reform. Every vote matters, a change of power can transform hopelessness to hope. Keep voting for the LIB-LAB and expect the same hopeless outcomes and priorities. The adaptation to green and renewable energy and environmentally-mindful planning requires the organization that can only come from the incumbent government – so vote for parties that prioritize it.
Participate in civil disobedience
- Protest, this is not always marching – it is also the way you choose to live. Let your lifestyle be your protest against those who will destroy the Earth for their back-pocket
- Boycott brands and jobs that do not conform to best green practice, and support those that do. Providing a job for you to work at is not a favour, it part of the capitalist model that reigns supreme despite our social democracy. Yes, we need money to live, but we can make ethical choices. The capitalist model that is destroying the earth (physically and socially) is not a reflection of them caring for you – they use and pay; workers are but commodities. Life and existence are worth more than that. Is the future not worth more than that?
Educate, talk about it. Do not avoid the conversation – share your fears, it is a frightening reality. Climate change has been so politicized that the ‘nice’ people who care but ‘don’t do politics’ may not actually realize how the bad the situation is because they have kept themselves uninformed. Tell them. Be the person that brought up the topic that may have caused a bit of upset, but also brought this topic to the forefront of the minds of all present. Climate change affects the world in its entirety, you can prevent the deluded belief that it can be avoided or shelved for later in your circles at least (because every citizen matters).
There is so much more to say and explore, but let us part with the hopeful and poignant words spoken by the beloved Sir David Attenborough at the precipice of the decade hailed by many experts as humanity’s last chance to take action to prevent catastrophe:
If working apart we are a force powerful enough to destabilize our planet, surely, working together, we are powerful enough to save it.[21]
Header photo: Calving from a Greenland glacier. Credit: NASA Christy Hansen
[Opinions expressed are those of the author and not official policy of Greens WA]
[1] Joelle Gergis. Humanity’s Moment: A Climate Scientist’s Case for Hope. 1st ed. Black Inc., 2022, 1- 25
[2] Nathaniel Rich. “Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change.” New York Times, 1 August 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/01/magazine/climate-change-losing-earth.html
[3] ibid
[4] “Paris Climate Agreement Countries 2022”. https://www.worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/paris-climate-ag…
[5] Joelle Gergis. Humanity’s Moment: A Climate Scientist’s Case for Hope. 1st ed. Black Inc., 2022, 1- 25
[6] Aarathi Prasad. “Naomi Oreskes: Understanding the Denial of Science.” The Lancet (British Edition) 399, no. 10344 (2022): 2341
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(22)01102-3
[7] Joelle Gergis. Humanity’s Moment: A Climate Scientist’s Case for Hope. 2022, 1- 25
[8] ibid
[9] Nathaniel Rich. “Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change.” New York Times.
[10] ibid
[11] Rebecca Huntley. How to Talk About Climate Change in a Way That Makes a Difference. Murdoch Books, 2020.
[12] “Paris Agreement: United Nations Climate Change”. https://www.unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement
[13] Joelle Gergis. Humanity’s Moment: A Climate Scientist’s Case for Hope. 1st ed. Black Inc., 2022, 187-188
[14] ibid
[15] ibid
[16] Ian Palmer. “Oil And Gas Profits Very High Once Again – What This Feels Like to Energy Consumer.” Forbes. 4 November 2022
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ianpalmer/2022/11/04/oil-and-gas-profits-v…
[17] Joelle Gergis. Humanity’s Moment: A Climate Scientist’s Case for Hope. 1st ed. Black Inc., 2022, 179-234
[18] Aarathi Prasad. “Naomi Oreskes: Understanding the Denial of Science.”; Naomi Klein. “Capitalism Killed our Climate Momentum, Not ‘Human Nature’.” The Intercept, 3 August 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/01/magazine/climate-change-losing-earth.html;
[19] “Simple Tips to Reduce Your Carbon Footprint: Top 10 Ways to Save Energy.’ Office of Sustainability, Georgetown University, on 28 December 2022. https://www.sustainability.georgetown.edu/community-engagement/things-you-can-do/; “Towards a net-zero future: The UN Campaign for Individual Action.” United Nations. https://www.un.org/en/actnow
[20] Haim, M., Graefe, A., and Hans-Bernd, B. “Burst of the Filter Bubble?: Effects of Personalization on the Diversity of Google News.” Digital Journalism 6, no. 3 (2018): 330–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2017.1338145
[21] Joelle Gergis. Humanity’s Moment: A Climate Scientist’s Case for Hope. 1st ed. Black Inc., 2022, 179-234