The Last Crusade or the Temple of Doom?

Reasons to be cheerful, part 94

It’s been extremely striking how, helped by social media filter bubbles and by some scientists playing to their respective crowds, the COVID pandemic saw a polarisation into extreme groupings on each side of the argument. However, this wasn’t entirely unprecedented: indeed I’ve seen plenty of weary sighs from science communicators who have experienced similar in climate arguments.

My own stance through the pandemic has generally been a centrist one: there was certainly a problem, and at certain times there was a bad problem, but I’ve never been convinced by the arguments for elimination or for perma-masking. What I find interesting is that not only do my views on climate change fit into a similar space, but that there may be a solid correlation between pandemic and climate views in general.

To get it out of the way: I absolutely believe that climate change is a real and significant problem facing humanity. It’s clear from the Keeling Curve that the concentration of atmospheric CO2 has increased significantly at the same time as human emissions. It’s clear from the climate stripes that temperatures are consistently warmer now than say 50 or 100 years ago. It’s clear from thinking about normal distribution curves that shifting the distribution of temperatures will significantly increase the frequency of extreme weather events. Yes, there have been changes in climate before, but not on this timescale. And just like the pandemic it is likely that the impact will not be distributed equally, because the rich will find it easier to make adaptations.

But just as I don’t buy the “viruses don’t exist” or the “climate change is a scam” rhetoric (which often seem to come from the same people), I’m afraid I don’t buy the language around “mass disabling events” or “6 billion deaths due to climate change” either (which again often comes from the same places). Firstly, while I am no expert, it doesn’t seem to be based on any kind of scientific consensus that I can recognise. Secondly, I worry that this sort of language can convince people that everything is hopeless and there’s no point trying to do better - when actually there are things that we can do and are doing.

Just as with the pandemic, many of the finest climate charts and most thorough analysis come from Our World In Data. For example, you can see how much the UK’s emissions have fallen lately, whether or not you take into account goods manufactured overseas:

You can see how the amount of energy being generated worldwide by renewable sources is growing:

You can see how this time the log charts are in our favour, as the cost of solar power has fallen exponentially for the last 40 years or more:

So I think we absolutely have a problem, but also we are taking steps in the right direction. It’s not necessarily obvious to me whether these steps are big enough or fast enough, but whatever some people will tell you, we’re not doing nothing either. Human ingenuity and technological progress are powerful forces.

In the same way, I find rhetoric that the UK “did nothing to stop COVID” or that “our lockdowns weren’t hard enough” to be alienating and counterproductive. It dismisses the huge sacrifices that millions of people made, particularly the young who missed so many opportunities because of a virus which typically posed a low danger to them personally.

Whether for the pandemic or for climate, telling people that the measures they have taken so far are worthless will not encourage them to do more, when actually both problems require(d) willingness to make changes on an individual level, as well as action from Governments and companies of course. In both cases, we need(ed) to understand the right actions - not to sweat the small stuff or to make a theatre of ineffective measures, but rather to concentrate peoples’ limited time and attention on the things that can be most effective and to thank them for their efforts.

Most of all, I think we need to find ways of promoting centrist voices in the discussion, not overweighting the opinions held by those on either fringe of the debate, and finding a way to step away from the doom. It’s probably no coincidence that many of the charts above come via Hannah Ritchie at OWID, whose own Substack is one of my absolute must-reads at the moment, and whose piece on the dangers of too negative language says everything I say here but better:

The future is not a choice between dying off, or living an incredibly limited life. There is a third option: building a world where 8, 9, or 10 billion people can flourish, while reducing our environmental impact at the same time.

That’s the message that we should be telling our kids.

That seems like a good plan to me.