Yves here. At its foundation, our denial of the seriously-bad-and-coming-way-ahead-of-schedule impact of climate change greatly resembles our denial of death. Aside from the devoutly religious and those who have had near death experiences, most of us do not want to think about death or climate change seriously. So as readers might have inferred, I’m not big on hope.. Hope as opposed to realism too often produces in/inadequate action, like Green New Deal rainbows and unicorns.
By Thomas Neuburger. Originally published at God’s Spies
Tho’ much is taken, much abides; and tho’
We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are
—Alfred Lord TennysonAll your cryin’ don’t do no good
Come on up to the house
Come down off the cross, we can use the wood
Come on up to the house
—Tom WaitsDoes death make life less sweet?
—Yours truly
I’ve been wanting to write for a while about how we could respond to the coming climate disaster, the Jackpot, in William Gibson’s terms. Respond to that which will be, in world-historical terms, the most important global event since the birth of brains and culture that we call us.
I’ve started that project with few paragraphs here and here. But I wanted to give these thoughts a proper page.
The Push to Offer Hope
Let’s start with this, from scientist Kate Marvel:
As a climate scientist, I am often asked to talk about hope. Particularly in the current political climate, audiences want to be told that everything will be all right in the end. And, unfortunately, I have a deep-seated need to be liked and a natural tendency to optimism that leads me to accept more speaking invitations than is good for me. Climate change is bleak, the organizers always say. Tell us a happy story. Give us hope. The problem is, I don’t have any.
“Give hope” is the constant admonishment in the climate world. Consider this from Kaitlin Naughton, a scientist with the British Antarctic Survey, writing at The Conversation: “The conventional wisdom is that you’re supposed to give people hope: to say that there’s a disaster behind one door, but we can avoid it if only we choose a different one.”
This is more than a conventional wisdom. The strategic argument is: If you depress people with downer talk, they’ll shut down and then won’t act. We need people to act. (Implicit: Because we can still win, preserve high-energy life.)
And this become almost a moral admonition, a subject of values examination, and occasionally, of shaming. “Don’t talk of the millions lost (dollars, lives). Talk of the gains — new jobs, a greener economy. Don’t be Debbie.”
That’s all well and good. But what if it looks to you, as it looks to increasingly many, that the die has been cast? Do you lie? Perform cheerleader duty? Or acknowledge the truth (as you and your audience may see it), and offer, not hope, but something more true to the facts?
Facts on the Ground
The fact is, we’re not doing something about climate. You noticed that, right?
And you noticed, I hope, the reason: that we — by which I mean both parties — are ruled by the (gotta say it) money-mad psychopaths who have placed a lock on the whole electoral process, from debate to ballot access, making sure only a money-fed candidate can win. (Yes, Trump was a money-fed candidate in 2016.)