Hope for the best, but definitely prepare for the worst

Be very worried. Not just at the prospect of expectations for the upcoming Copenhagen conference benig downgraded, but because scientific assessments of the impacts of climate change have been getting worse and worse at the same time that the proportion of Americans (and Australians) who believe climate change is a hoax is actually rising(http://people-press.org/report/556/global-warming), at the same time that the growth rate of international greenhouse emissions has been accelerating! In short, humans are releasing unprecedented amounts of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere at precisely the time we know we have to stop. What is truly worrying however, is just how deluded policy makers, environmentalists and members of the public are on the issue. The debate is conducted under the premise that it is within our capacity to “stop” climate change. Yet it has become increasingly clear that we have lost the battle to “stop” dangerous climate change. The battle is now between dangerous climate change and really really dangerous climate change. As Clive Hamilton has recently argued in a speech to the Royal Society of the Arts, the goal of keeping global emissions under the “safe” limit of 450ppm is completely unrealistic and politically impossible. This assertion is backed up with compelling evidence and I recommend that you read the speech in it’s entirety. His argument is perhaps most succinctly expressed in the following quote “It is clear that limiting warming to 2ºC is beyond us; the question now is whether we can limit warming to 4ºC. The conclusion that, even if we act promptly and resolutely, the world is on a path to reach 650 ppm and associated warming of 4°C is almost too frightening to accept. Yet that is the reluctant conclusion of the world’s leading climate scientists. Even with the most optimistic set of assumptions—the ending of deforestation, a halving of emissions associated with food production, global emissions peaking in 2020 and then falling by 3 per cent a year for a few decades— we have no chance of preventing emissions rising well above a number of critical tipping points that will spark uncontrollable climate change” (http://www.clivehamilton.net.au/cms/media/documents/articles/rsa_lecture.pdf)

The position of many environmental lobbies such as Australia’s Climate Institute, is to trivialize these sombre predictions as the “politics of despair”. They seem afraid to engage with these arguments due to their groundless assumption that it will lead to people “tuning out” and assuming climate problems are too big to be dealt with. But not only is it disingenuous to avoid telling whole truth on the basis of how the public might react, but I believe it only works against us. It has not seemed to have dawned on green or science groups that climate change denialism and apathy cannot be defeated with iron-proof evidence and rigorous argument. Climate change deniers simply have no desire to engage in rational debate, their fears of human-hating environmentalists and capitalism-loathing scientists cannot be confronted rationally. As the Pew Research Centre survey reveals, denialism is on the rise so it is clear that the current “softy softly” approach to educating the public on climate change has failed spectacularly.

The message that green groups relate to their own supporters is equally tragic; a relentlessly “positive” message that extols the virtues of austerity and making a difference at the community level. There is nothing wrong with this in of itself, but it is what the green groups fail to say that is disingenuous. Encouraging kids to recyle or to plant trees or save water is nice, but it hides from them the enormity of the looming castrophe. No matter how well-meaning greenies are, they can only ever have a minute impact on emissions unless governments legislate and enforce emission cuts. The relentless focus on individual responsibility in fact allows governments to abdicate a large portion of it’s own responsibility.

In short, even the people who believe in climate change don’t appear to be psycologically able to accept its consequences. The vast majority of people confront the threat with apathy. Those who acknowledge the consequences often seek to filter out their full impact by assuming that humans will overcome the challenges through a technological revolution or an unrealistic optimism that our political leaders will suddenly see the light (although as Clive Hamilton points out, even if they did suddenly, it is still highly unlikely we could avoid at least 2 degrees of warming). Themes of “hope” and optimism for optimism’s sake dominate the public sphere, but this is increasingly dangerous as it blinds people to the reality that the focus in the climate change battle must necessarily move from prevention to mitigation. But themes of hope and optimism have no place in strategic thinking about responding to climate change, there are only cold hard facts and our willingness to face reality for what it is instead of what it ought to be. If one wants to be optimistic than think of it this way: the quicker we start re-structuring our society to limit the impacts of climate change the better. The public need to have a better understanding of what population centres and economic practises are inherently unsustainable and how we can plan for a new geo-strategic environment.

There is only one country that has clearly begun to plan in this way; China. China’s resolve in ocupying Tibet can be better understood in the context of a warming climate where glaciars and snow melt will accelerate in the coming decades. By damming the Mekong river (as China has begun doing), they are not only ensuring water supplies and an alternative agricultural base to the heavily polluted Yangtze river, but they can also hold the countries who rely on the Mekong further downstream (ie. most of South Eeast Asia) to ransom. As China controls the head of the river, countries such as Thailand will become hopelessly dependent on China for water and will have no bargaining chips of their own. In short, China will exercise an iron-curtain like grip on South East Asia. And how is Australia planning? Well we’re subsidising rice farms on the Murray Darling at the same time that Adelaide is on the brink of dependency on bottled water.

My criticism of mindless optimism and unjustified hope does not necessarily mean that I have been able to psycologically accept the realities of impending climate change however, whatever “accepting” it means. As the reality of inevitable climate change has sunk in over the past eighteen months it feels quite surreal. Surreal in the sense that there is no modern historical comparison for this sort of issue (there are plenty of comparisons with ancient civlizations such as the Mayans and the ancient inhabitants of Easter Island). What is most strange however, is the sense that boundaries and parameters of geo-politics for the next hundred years have effectively been decided in the last five. And one it utterly powerless to stop it. Politics and external realities are going to collide with even the most apathetic of my peers within a few decades. But instead of just wollowing in self-pity, it is worth taking note of just how extradoninary our luck has been henceforth; we have lived in an usually stable and agriculture-friendly environment for the past 20,000 years and no generation has profited more from this than those living today. By any historical comparison Gen X and Gen Y have had healthy, luxurious and care-free lives (ie. worrying about relationships and job promotions as opposed to surviving famines and plagues). The problems we face in life bear little relation to those faced by any living thing that has ever lived on this planet. That said, it is our children and grandchildren that are going to deal with the worst consequences and it’s entirely the fault of people alive today.

Whatever your reaction may be, it will always be better than self-delusionment.

Advertisement