Apocalyptic Climate Reporting Completely Misses the Point
November 5, 2018 12:12 PM Subscribe
"Reporting on the IPCC, and climate change more broadly, is unbalanced. It’s fixated on the predictions of climate science and the opinions of climate scientists, with cursory gestures to the social, economic, and political causes of the problem. Yet analysis of these causes is as important to climate scholarship as modeling ice-sheet dynamics and sea-level rise."
It remains physically possible to keep global warming at a relatively safe 1.5 degrees Celsius, and certainly a less safe—but not apocalyptic—2 degrees. This would require dramatic changes in economic policy and doubling down on the powers of public planning
Ah, well, you see, that's where the despair comes from. Sure, it's physically possible to decarbonize in the next couple of decades, but people are deeply pessimistic that we actually will.
posted by BungaDunga at 12:57 PM on November 5, 2018 [14 favorites]
Ah, well, you see, that's where the despair comes from. Sure, it's physically possible to decarbonize in the next couple of decades, but people are deeply pessimistic that we actually will.
posted by BungaDunga at 12:57 PM on November 5, 2018 [14 favorites]
Yes, the article is a heartwarming example of optimism, just not backed by any realistic sense for the state of our politics right now. Humanity *could* quickly implement carbon pricing, etc. but not while the agenda/beliefs of the Kochs et al. are driving the programming of the most watched cable network in the U.S. and controlling the main loci of power in Washington D.C. (even under any optimistically realistic outcome of tomorrow's elections).
posted by PhineasGage at 1:03 PM on November 5, 2018 [7 favorites]
posted by PhineasGage at 1:03 PM on November 5, 2018 [7 favorites]
I admit to getting really fatalistic about this. It's hard not to, when we've had headlines upon headlines about it. There was even an article last year about how many climate scientists are killing themselves! The implication being that they must know the horrible truth we can't even understand.
I hadn't considered that of course this is science reporting, and news stories about science generally suuuuuck. Every idea is blown up to UNBELIEVABLE! proportions, every new report is PROOF of something new and fantastic/awful/amazing. People fucking love science! but not the kind that has nuance and careful methodology.
I'm not saying climate change reporting is bullshit, I'm just really frustrated that virtually no one bothered to write about the actual findings of this report, instead focusing on CLIMATE GENOCIDE in eye-catching headlines. I'm frustrated that I bought into it, and I'm so, so frustrated that my emotions are constantly being manipulated by a nonstop focus on worst-case-scenarios and how we're doomed, doomed I tell you. But, you know, that's what gets everyone's attention.
posted by shapes that haunt the dusk at 1:07 PM on November 5, 2018 [3 favorites]
I hadn't considered that of course this is science reporting, and news stories about science generally suuuuuck. Every idea is blown up to UNBELIEVABLE! proportions, every new report is PROOF of something new and fantastic/awful/amazing. People fucking love science! but not the kind that has nuance and careful methodology.
I'm not saying climate change reporting is bullshit, I'm just really frustrated that virtually no one bothered to write about the actual findings of this report, instead focusing on CLIMATE GENOCIDE in eye-catching headlines. I'm frustrated that I bought into it, and I'm so, so frustrated that my emotions are constantly being manipulated by a nonstop focus on worst-case-scenarios and how we're doomed, doomed I tell you. But, you know, that's what gets everyone's attention.
posted by shapes that haunt the dusk at 1:07 PM on November 5, 2018 [3 favorites]
Ah fuck, I was clearly naive to think this would be a useful corrective to Mefi's bitterness around climate change. It's saddening to see examples of exactly the kind of attitude the article decries.
posted by smoke at 1:07 PM on November 5, 2018 [12 favorites]
posted by smoke at 1:07 PM on November 5, 2018 [12 favorites]
Maybe try to remember that national politics are not the only politics, and that working for change on the neighborhood/city/county/state level can both do some good locally and serve as an example for other communities.
Despair's easy. Did we think this was going to be easy? (OK yes I will admit that I am still hoping for 1/5 of Captain Planet's powers.)
posted by asperity at 1:12 PM on November 5, 2018 [8 favorites]
Despair's easy. Did we think this was going to be easy? (OK yes I will admit that I am still hoping for 1/5 of Captain Planet's powers.)
posted by asperity at 1:12 PM on November 5, 2018 [8 favorites]
> Ah, well, you see, that's where the despair comes from. Sure, it's physically possible to decarbonize in the next couple of decades, but people are deeply pessimistic that we actually will.
Cynical and right ends up just as dead as determined and disappointed in this instance. The difference is that the latter has a chance. The former unintentionally aids and abets the Kochs and their ilk, and has no chance at all. This applies to every cause worth fighting for.
posted by cirgue at 1:13 PM on November 5, 2018 [20 favorites]
Cynical and right ends up just as dead as determined and disappointed in this instance. The difference is that the latter has a chance. The former unintentionally aids and abets the Kochs and their ilk, and has no chance at all. This applies to every cause worth fighting for.
posted by cirgue at 1:13 PM on November 5, 2018 [20 favorites]
Maybe try to remember that national politics are not the only politics, and that working for change on the neighborhood/city/county/state level can both do some good locally and serve as an example for other communities.
Yeah, California has done a lot as a state, and we're, what, the 6th largest economy in the world? 12% of the US population? We can't solve problems across the entire US, but we do have a lot of industry and agriculture, and it's a whole lot easier to pass environmental legislation here.
posted by shapes that haunt the dusk at 1:20 PM on November 5, 2018 [12 favorites]
Yeah, California has done a lot as a state, and we're, what, the 6th largest economy in the world? 12% of the US population? We can't solve problems across the entire US, but we do have a lot of industry and agriculture, and it's a whole lot easier to pass environmental legislation here.
posted by shapes that haunt the dusk at 1:20 PM on November 5, 2018 [12 favorites]
Extreme climate pessimism is starting to feel like a demand for emotional labor and grief counseling. Sorry, I have more than enough trauma in my own life without also carrying the load of your Henny Pennyism about the good I try to do in the world.
posted by GenderNullPointerException at 1:27 PM on November 5, 2018 [11 favorites]
posted by GenderNullPointerException at 1:27 PM on November 5, 2018 [11 favorites]
I do agree with smoke here. The only way we leave a planet for our kids (especially the kids of the Global South) is some hope, optimism and hard work.
posted by JamesBay at 1:36 PM on November 5, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by JamesBay at 1:36 PM on November 5, 2018 [2 favorites]
😀Cause for Hope: We’re On Track to Move Beyond Coal
😀Solar With Batteries Cheaper Than Gas in Parts of U.S. Southwest
😀A new way to make steel could cut 5% of CO2 emissions at a stroke
😀"Yeah, that's a coal utility in a conservative Midwest coal state admitting new renewables are both cheaper and less risky than *existing* coal plants."
😀Electric Vehicle progress: Norway (Half of new cars), China (most car growth in EVs), China 2 (bus fleet entirely converted), Europe (40% reduction mandate)
😀First Big U.S. Offshore Wind Farm Offers $1.4 Billion to Customers
😀LEGO Vestas Wind Turbine Set
posted by gwint at 1:49 PM on November 5, 2018 [19 favorites]
and I've got more where that came from! Come at me bro!!!
posted by gwint at 1:54 PM on November 5, 2018 [9 favorites]
posted by gwint at 1:54 PM on November 5, 2018 [9 favorites]
I found this article really helpful in dealing with 'climate change despair'...
posted by TruthfulCalling at 1:55 PM on November 5, 2018 [3 favorites]
posted by TruthfulCalling at 1:55 PM on November 5, 2018 [3 favorites]
Self-link (PDF).
I love and covet that LEGO Vestas set, but when I eventually get it I'm going to add on a P2G electrolyzer and biorefining stack that allows unused wind energy to be converted to renewable methane and injected into the pipes (like this).
posted by nickmark at 1:55 PM on November 5, 2018 [2 favorites]
I love and covet that LEGO Vestas set, but when I eventually get it I'm going to add on a P2G electrolyzer and biorefining stack that allows unused wind energy to be converted to renewable methane and injected into the pipes (like this).
posted by nickmark at 1:55 PM on November 5, 2018 [2 favorites]
The book New York 2140 by Kim Stanley Robinson is interesting. It offers a vision of a future after terrible climate disaster. It may help for people who can’t imagine how life would go on after climate change. (It’s not actually a good book, unfortunately, it felt really rushed with characters not drawn well, but some of the SF aspects are good.)
Somehow there’s this perception that climate change will inevitably annihilate the human race, so there’s hope and no point in doing small things.
The reality is that it will just be really terrible but not infinitely so. If making things 1% less bad means saving millions of lives it’s clearly worth fighting for.
posted by vogon_poet at 2:13 PM on November 5, 2018 [3 favorites]
Somehow there’s this perception that climate change will inevitably annihilate the human race, so there’s hope and no point in doing small things.
The reality is that it will just be really terrible but not infinitely so. If making things 1% less bad means saving millions of lives it’s clearly worth fighting for.
posted by vogon_poet at 2:13 PM on November 5, 2018 [3 favorites]
gwint -- please an fpp! Just paste your links. We all need more optimism.
Yes the reporting is, ah, frustrating. The anti-wackos are embarrassing but the true believers/revert to a simple society are just as wrong. There is one option (well two but the other can not be considered), that is SCIENCE. Advancements in technology to manage our limited resources. Fund research, solar and wind with storage tech will become the only option when it's better and cheaper than oil. LED lighting is huge, subsidize that, send boxes of LED bulbs everywhere. (ok that's legislation or philanthropy but using tech) .
The human race is not dying out. Change will happen, the Amazonianmusks from that other planet will return to save our great great great great grandchildren from their watery existence. They will need to keep boosting technology.
posted by sammyo at 2:22 PM on November 5, 2018 [1 favorite]
Yes the reporting is, ah, frustrating. The anti-wackos are embarrassing but the true believers/revert to a simple society are just as wrong. There is one option (well two but the other can not be considered), that is SCIENCE. Advancements in technology to manage our limited resources. Fund research, solar and wind with storage tech will become the only option when it's better and cheaper than oil. LED lighting is huge, subsidize that, send boxes of LED bulbs everywhere. (ok that's legislation or philanthropy but using tech) .
The human race is not dying out. Change will happen, the Amazonianmusks from that other planet will return to save our great great great great grandchildren from their watery existence. They will need to keep boosting technology.
posted by sammyo at 2:22 PM on November 5, 2018 [1 favorite]
Oh and we should all send links on getting into web development to those West Virginia miners, they're gonna need new jobs.
posted by sammyo at 2:24 PM on November 5, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by sammyo at 2:24 PM on November 5, 2018 [2 favorites]
This observation from the article sounds true all too often:
This endorses the prevailing contempt in establishment circles for people’s capacity to govern themselves beyond the restrictions of market rule.
posted by doctornemo at 2:55 PM on November 5, 2018 [1 favorite]
This endorses the prevailing contempt in establishment circles for people’s capacity to govern themselves beyond the restrictions of market rule.
posted by doctornemo at 2:55 PM on November 5, 2018 [1 favorite]
Those West Virginia miners are a big part of the political problem. Even young ones are refusing job training because they think Trump will bring the coal jobs back.
posted by PhineasGage at 3:06 PM on November 5, 2018 [3 favorites]
posted by PhineasGage at 3:06 PM on November 5, 2018 [3 favorites]
The scary thing is that climate change is happening now, and it's happening fast. This past August my home town of Victoria was blanketed by thick smog from forest fires in the Cascades to the northeast of Seattle and over the border into British Columbia. A first.
A childhood friend of mine who has lived overseas for the past twenty years says he is considering no longer coming home on leave in the summer, which used to be a lovely time of year here, because of the smoke from forest fires.
posted by JamesBay at 3:24 PM on November 5, 2018
A childhood friend of mine who has lived overseas for the past twenty years says he is considering no longer coming home on leave in the summer, which used to be a lovely time of year here, because of the smoke from forest fires.
posted by JamesBay at 3:24 PM on November 5, 2018
Unknowingly on edge of a climate 'precipice'?
>Climate researchers are debating with growing urgency whether the steady release of carbon dioxide and other warming gasses from the world’s tailpipes and smokestacks could push the planet to an inflection point beyond which the climate might abruptly and irreversibly change.
>Such changes might be too great, and might occur too quickly, for people to adapt. Cities, no longer suitable for the new conditions, might become uninhabitable. Nations might be unable to feed themselves. “There’s an old adage that speed kills,” said James White, dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Colorado and an expert on past climate. “The same is true for climate change.” Twenty five years ago, White himself had a hand in proving the lightning speed with which the climate can turn.
I appreciate optimism, but there comes a point at which we need to start planning for the worst. And right now seems like a really good time to start designing habitats which provide us with air, water, food, and the various other things we need to survive, for the long term. We're well within reach of the technology, and it's vital to the survival of our species.
And if the doomsayers are wrong, well then we'll have figured out how to build truly sustainable habitats which use minimal energy and resources, which could be useful in any number of ways.
Shouldn't we have a survival-of-the-species backup plan? A few lifeboats wouldn't hurt, right, just in case?
posted by MrVisible at 4:12 PM on November 5, 2018 [2 favorites]
>Climate researchers are debating with growing urgency whether the steady release of carbon dioxide and other warming gasses from the world’s tailpipes and smokestacks could push the planet to an inflection point beyond which the climate might abruptly and irreversibly change.
>Such changes might be too great, and might occur too quickly, for people to adapt. Cities, no longer suitable for the new conditions, might become uninhabitable. Nations might be unable to feed themselves. “There’s an old adage that speed kills,” said James White, dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Colorado and an expert on past climate. “The same is true for climate change.” Twenty five years ago, White himself had a hand in proving the lightning speed with which the climate can turn.
I appreciate optimism, but there comes a point at which we need to start planning for the worst. And right now seems like a really good time to start designing habitats which provide us with air, water, food, and the various other things we need to survive, for the long term. We're well within reach of the technology, and it's vital to the survival of our species.
And if the doomsayers are wrong, well then we'll have figured out how to build truly sustainable habitats which use minimal energy and resources, which could be useful in any number of ways.
Shouldn't we have a survival-of-the-species backup plan? A few lifeboats wouldn't hurt, right, just in case?
posted by MrVisible at 4:12 PM on November 5, 2018 [2 favorites]
Interrogate your cynicism and fatalism. Does it lead you to believe there's no chance to fix things before it's too late? Does it thus let you off the hook for at least doing what you can to change our political and economic systems? Then maybe your cynicism does more to protect those people and structures who got us into this mess (oil companies, the wealthy in general, far right politicians and movements who thrive in chaos) than it does to protect the people who will be most impacted by inaction (your children/grandchildren, poor people the world over).
posted by lunasol at 4:43 PM on November 5, 2018 [18 favorites]
posted by lunasol at 4:43 PM on November 5, 2018 [18 favorites]
Thanks for posting this. I have a friend who is actively working in this space and she rails at the doom and gloom since it leads to weird fatalism when a lot of the big plays (modifications to the electricity grid I'm not clever enough to understand, for instance) are actually happening.
My concern is that the doom and gloom is actually strengthening the position of the people who are not trying to change things. All the fatalism seems to be playing in to Mad Max thinking and scenarios and the idea that people have to "protect their own". And it also takes efforts away from the boring stuff needed to change and puts it into fantasy scenarios.
posted by frumiousb at 4:44 PM on November 5, 2018 [5 favorites]
My concern is that the doom and gloom is actually strengthening the position of the people who are not trying to change things. All the fatalism seems to be playing in to Mad Max thinking and scenarios and the idea that people have to "protect their own". And it also takes efforts away from the boring stuff needed to change and puts it into fantasy scenarios.
posted by frumiousb at 4:44 PM on November 5, 2018 [5 favorites]
Smoke noted that "It's saddening to see examples of exactly the kind of attitude the article decries".
We humans have a tendency, when we're opinionated and we're offered a link to an article the likes of which we think we've seen before, to skip the "read the article" stage and go straight to sharing our views.
The article is very much worth reading. "Prior to the latest report, the IPCC projected [a set of] future scenarios based on skeletal, technocratic models of energy, land use, and climate. They represented climate politics as being like a dashboard with a few dials that engineers could turn—a little more renewable energy here, a touch less deforestation there. In contrast [in this IPCC report], the SSPs [“Shared Socioeconomic Pathways”] imagine different possible climate futures in terms of realistic clusters of policy decisions, which in turn affect emissions, land use, and how the impacts of extreme weather are felt." And: which policy approaches we take will make a big difference.
(The article points out that this IPCC report's “Summary for Policymakers” did not include mention of the SSPs, which I expect is likely a reason why journalists taking a quick look at the report before writing something about it wouldn't notice or mention them.
I myself have not taken a good look at it yet either. )
posted by Baeria at 5:24 PM on November 5, 2018 [4 favorites]
We humans have a tendency, when we're opinionated and we're offered a link to an article the likes of which we think we've seen before, to skip the "read the article" stage and go straight to sharing our views.
The article is very much worth reading. "Prior to the latest report, the IPCC projected [a set of] future scenarios based on skeletal, technocratic models of energy, land use, and climate. They represented climate politics as being like a dashboard with a few dials that engineers could turn—a little more renewable energy here, a touch less deforestation there. In contrast [in this IPCC report], the SSPs [“Shared Socioeconomic Pathways”] imagine different possible climate futures in terms of realistic clusters of policy decisions, which in turn affect emissions, land use, and how the impacts of extreme weather are felt." And: which policy approaches we take will make a big difference.
(The article points out that this IPCC report's “Summary for Policymakers” did not include mention of the SSPs, which I expect is likely a reason why journalists taking a quick look at the report before writing something about it wouldn't notice or mention them.
I myself have not taken a good look at it yet either. )
posted by Baeria at 5:24 PM on November 5, 2018 [4 favorites]
Mod note: Couple deleted; there's a US politics thread, there's a US political action/election thread; tomorrow there will surely be more threads with full day coverage of the midterm elections in the US. Folks have asked us in the past to try to keep threads about international issues from defaulting to being about the US, so let's channel that US political stuff into the existing threads for it.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 7:09 PM on November 5, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 7:09 PM on November 5, 2018 [1 favorite]
Well okay, but the linked article seems to be largely about US politics. It certainly isn't about climate science.
posted by sfenders at 7:51 PM on November 5, 2018
posted by sfenders at 7:51 PM on November 5, 2018
There are so many varying degrees of fucked; we would do well to work for a lesser degree. I have faith that we will not literally turn the Earth into Venus; how far we can keep ourselves from that will be monotonically related to the seriousness and commitment of our action to prevent it.
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 9:31 PM on November 5, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 9:31 PM on November 5, 2018 [2 favorites]
I'll second the David Roberts mention in the article; he is more optimistic than I am but also much more informed than I am so it gives me a shred of hope that he's right and I'm wrong. Here's a piece on proposals to try and limit change to 1.5 degrees.
One reason for my pessimism is, having failed to muster the will or energy to do this when it was relatively easy, we'll be trying to do it when it's hard and there's no margin for error. We can't run a dozen different programs small scale and look at things a decade from now to see what we should adopt. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try multiple solutions all at once. As Roberts says, there is no risk of overdoing mitigation efforts. We need to start yesterday and if the adoption efforts and incentives have unintended consequences we can't back off.
I do think people on the left need to come to terms with what trade offs we'd accept. If we find the incentives were done wrong and are, say, making inequality in the developing world worse, which fight will you have? A lot of progressive writing involves various degrees of assuming the fix also improves other laudable parts of our program but given the political economy that seems really unlikely.
posted by mark k at 10:14 PM on November 5, 2018
One reason for my pessimism is, having failed to muster the will or energy to do this when it was relatively easy, we'll be trying to do it when it's hard and there's no margin for error. We can't run a dozen different programs small scale and look at things a decade from now to see what we should adopt. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try multiple solutions all at once. As Roberts says, there is no risk of overdoing mitigation efforts. We need to start yesterday and if the adoption efforts and incentives have unintended consequences we can't back off.
I do think people on the left need to come to terms with what trade offs we'd accept. If we find the incentives were done wrong and are, say, making inequality in the developing world worse, which fight will you have? A lot of progressive writing involves various degrees of assuming the fix also improves other laudable parts of our program but given the political economy that seems really unlikely.
posted by mark k at 10:14 PM on November 5, 2018
Oh, I also want to second Jpfed's point: Pretty much *anything* we accomplish makes things better for a lot of people. Peaking at three degrees warming is pretty horrific but if we don't stop it there it's even worse. Literally any effort is worth doing even if we miss our goals by a mile.
posted by mark k at 10:20 PM on November 5, 2018 [8 favorites]
posted by mark k at 10:20 PM on November 5, 2018 [8 favorites]
A new way to make steel could cut 5% of CO2 emissions at a stroke. Every little bit counts.
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 10:34 PM on November 5, 2018 [4 favorites]
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 10:34 PM on November 5, 2018 [4 favorites]
About a month ago I had a very heartening conversation. It all started with the weather (this was a school event, so, weather - and the weather here (northern germany) has been particularly mild this fall. And how, I mentioned, I felt guilty because it should be horrible weather because we had such a nice summer (protestant self-flagellation is a big hit with many Germans) - ha, ha. I forgot the guy I was speaking with worked in the Gov., promoting German cars overseas and, well, the diesel scandal. As in, the weather is thanks to global warming and he was promoting diesel cars for the last ten years.
The turn around was his pointing out that people are working, hard, on solving the issue. Think of smog in the 70's, or the ozone hole. These were huuuuuge issues, which now aren't anymore. Which is heartening - it's eff'ed up, no lie, but it is also being addressed and it will likely be tough but we can not 100% certain it will be. Later, while walking the dog, it occurred to me that what is most anxiety-inducing about the whole discussion is the uncertainty about the future - that I want a sense of a path forwards, and the 'media' is often selling us the idea of a disastrous one, whereas the truth could well be something else entirely.
posted by From Bklyn at 4:19 AM on November 6, 2018 [1 favorite]
The turn around was his pointing out that people are working, hard, on solving the issue. Think of smog in the 70's, or the ozone hole. These were huuuuuge issues, which now aren't anymore. Which is heartening - it's eff'ed up, no lie, but it is also being addressed and it will likely be tough but we can not 100% certain it will be. Later, while walking the dog, it occurred to me that what is most anxiety-inducing about the whole discussion is the uncertainty about the future - that I want a sense of a path forwards, and the 'media' is often selling us the idea of a disastrous one, whereas the truth could well be something else entirely.
posted by From Bklyn at 4:19 AM on November 6, 2018 [1 favorite]
Here's a piece on proposals to try and limit change to 1.5 degrees.
That is more my speed of optimism. If ever there were a situation that, if it calls for any optimism at all, calls for *cautious* optimism, this is it. Cautious about making bold claims, but also cautious about not implicitly overstating the importance of whatever trivia you can put a favourable spin on. David Roberts seems to do a good job of it, and gives the impression he knows what he's writing about.
It's interesting that someone has modelled the climate implications of everyone going vegetarian. Putting that side-by-side with more conventional approaches really makes it look easy by comparison. All we have to do is stop eating meat, something billions of people have already done and aren't really any worse off for. Compared to improving the energy efficiency of everything in the world by 40%, it's practically nothing. No fantastic new materials in unimaginably large quantities, not too much social or industrial re-organization, no incomprehensibly large construction projects, no economic obstacles to speak of. And yet it can make a substantially big difference not only to climate change, but a large number of our other environmental problems as well. Do that, humanity, then I'll be optimistic.
posted by sfenders at 12:39 PM on November 6, 2018 [1 favorite]
That is more my speed of optimism. If ever there were a situation that, if it calls for any optimism at all, calls for *cautious* optimism, this is it. Cautious about making bold claims, but also cautious about not implicitly overstating the importance of whatever trivia you can put a favourable spin on. David Roberts seems to do a good job of it, and gives the impression he knows what he's writing about.
It's interesting that someone has modelled the climate implications of everyone going vegetarian. Putting that side-by-side with more conventional approaches really makes it look easy by comparison. All we have to do is stop eating meat, something billions of people have already done and aren't really any worse off for. Compared to improving the energy efficiency of everything in the world by 40%, it's practically nothing. No fantastic new materials in unimaginably large quantities, not too much social or industrial re-organization, no incomprehensibly large construction projects, no economic obstacles to speak of. And yet it can make a substantially big difference not only to climate change, but a large number of our other environmental problems as well. Do that, humanity, then I'll be optimistic.
posted by sfenders at 12:39 PM on November 6, 2018 [1 favorite]
Personal pessimism is one thing--although I'll restate that one should take care about whether that goes so far as to demand emotional labor in a way that's disruptive to other people's activism. The media bias described in the linked article is a systemic problem that needs to be considered as such.
posted by GenderNullPointerException at 1:07 PM on November 6, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by GenderNullPointerException at 1:07 PM on November 6, 2018 [1 favorite]
Do that, humanity, then I'll be optimistic.
Yeah --- power to those capable of maintaining optimism and I'll keep throwing y'all resources cuz what the fuck else am I gonna do, save for retirement? But seeing what humanity can't manage to do has me pretty convinced that I will die in a vastly different social-politico-cultural-econo-climatic context than I was born in due to climate change, and that it's about degrees of horrificness.
My response to being asked to choose between degrees of appalling horrificness is to shut down. I cannot take pride in preventing the three billion and first death after being powerless to prevent the three billionth. Sorry. Good for you who are stronger.
posted by PMdixon at 2:40 PM on November 6, 2018 [3 favorites]
Yeah --- power to those capable of maintaining optimism and I'll keep throwing y'all resources cuz what the fuck else am I gonna do, save for retirement? But seeing what humanity can't manage to do has me pretty convinced that I will die in a vastly different social-politico-cultural-econo-climatic context than I was born in due to climate change, and that it's about degrees of horrificness.
My response to being asked to choose between degrees of appalling horrificness is to shut down. I cannot take pride in preventing the three billion and first death after being powerless to prevent the three billionth. Sorry. Good for you who are stronger.
posted by PMdixon at 2:40 PM on November 6, 2018 [3 favorites]
Spinning off the utopia/dystopia thread, maybe the third path out of the optimism/pessimism conundrum is to put on your pants and shoes, and do what needs to be done.
But I'm feeling a bit meatpunk lately, and bailed on church last week because my patience with mass handwringing by mostly cishet liberals is wearing thin.
posted by GenderNullPointerException at 6:15 AM on November 7, 2018 [2 favorites]
But I'm feeling a bit meatpunk lately, and bailed on church last week because my patience with mass handwringing by mostly cishet liberals is wearing thin.
posted by GenderNullPointerException at 6:15 AM on November 7, 2018 [2 favorites]
Ah fuck, I was clearly naive to think this would be a useful corrective to Mefi's bitterness around climate change. It's saddening to see examples of exactly the kind of attitude the article decries.
Counterpoint: Guardian
posted by doggod at 8:13 AM on November 7, 2018
Counterpoint: Guardian
posted by doggod at 8:13 AM on November 7, 2018
That's not actually a counter-point.
posted by tobascodagama at 8:16 AM on November 7, 2018
posted by tobascodagama at 8:16 AM on November 7, 2018
That's not actually a counter-point.
I think it is, in a manner of speaking (not to the article, to the notion that we are being too pessimistic in a counter-productive manner).
There's so many of us - and all of us matter in one way or the other in this debate. Complacency can be as dangerous as alarmism/ fatalism. In terms of reporting, I think it is a matter of continuously shifting between too much bad news (we're screwed because we won't do the right thing in time), leading to dispair and paralysis, and too much good news (it's OK, we'll come up with the technology/ it's just one of many climate shifts, whatever), leading to inaction and complacency.
The trick is to move enough people to move enough governments. Various groups/ individuals will be moved by a different rhetoric, and, in many cases, the same person will be moved by various things from one time to the next, depending on their current situation.
I mean, if your aim is for us all to do something before it is later than late, we need to talk to people - and each other - where we are: those who handwave climate issues as made up/ not stringent/ to be avoided via some deus ex machina mechanism, or those who are galvanized by the prospect of awful development need one sort of language, those who know enough to be discouraged by the seemingly relentless negativity, another.
posted by doggod at 8:25 AM on November 7, 2018 [1 favorite]
I think it is, in a manner of speaking (not to the article, to the notion that we are being too pessimistic in a counter-productive manner).
There's so many of us - and all of us matter in one way or the other in this debate. Complacency can be as dangerous as alarmism/ fatalism. In terms of reporting, I think it is a matter of continuously shifting between too much bad news (we're screwed because we won't do the right thing in time), leading to dispair and paralysis, and too much good news (it's OK, we'll come up with the technology/ it's just one of many climate shifts, whatever), leading to inaction and complacency.
The trick is to move enough people to move enough governments. Various groups/ individuals will be moved by a different rhetoric, and, in many cases, the same person will be moved by various things from one time to the next, depending on their current situation.
I mean, if your aim is for us all to do something before it is later than late, we need to talk to people - and each other - where we are: those who handwave climate issues as made up/ not stringent/ to be avoided via some deus ex machina mechanism, or those who are galvanized by the prospect of awful development need one sort of language, those who know enough to be discouraged by the seemingly relentless negativity, another.
posted by doggod at 8:25 AM on November 7, 2018 [1 favorite]
My response to being asked to choose between degrees of appalling horrificness is to shut down.
Keep in mind that most of the things we're doing to reduce carbon emissions or sequester carbon have immediate positive local effects. Fighting to have trees planted in your city, or for transportation options other than personal automobiles, may not save billions of lives years from now. It is going to save kids with asthma right now. It's going to save pedestrians from being run down by drivers right now. Hell, it's going to save us all in health care and transportation costs right now.
Shutting down is not an acceptable response when the third pedestrian has been killed in two weeks at the same goddamn intersection (but I suspect that's what Colorado Springs will end up doing, because inconveniencing drivers is unpopular.) Fighting for local change is tough and nobody's doing postcards to voters for city council elections, but if you want to see visible improvements as a result of your own work, start where you live.
posted by asperity at 9:14 AM on November 7, 2018 [4 favorites]
Keep in mind that most of the things we're doing to reduce carbon emissions or sequester carbon have immediate positive local effects. Fighting to have trees planted in your city, or for transportation options other than personal automobiles, may not save billions of lives years from now. It is going to save kids with asthma right now. It's going to save pedestrians from being run down by drivers right now. Hell, it's going to save us all in health care and transportation costs right now.
Shutting down is not an acceptable response when the third pedestrian has been killed in two weeks at the same goddamn intersection (but I suspect that's what Colorado Springs will end up doing, because inconveniencing drivers is unpopular.) Fighting for local change is tough and nobody's doing postcards to voters for city council elections, but if you want to see visible improvements as a result of your own work, start where you live.
posted by asperity at 9:14 AM on November 7, 2018 [4 favorites]
The citizens of state of Washington declined to vote in a carbon tax. It's hard to be fired up and optimsitic when even a blue state turns down such an opportunity.
posted by PhineasGage at 9:15 AM on November 7, 2018 [3 favorites]
posted by PhineasGage at 9:15 AM on November 7, 2018 [3 favorites]
PhineasGage, I read your comment here and I think that yes, we should have an ongoing climate change thread.
posted by whistle pig at 9:58 AM on November 7, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by whistle pig at 9:58 AM on November 7, 2018 [1 favorite]
PhineasGage, I'm heartbroken about that, but there are some complex reasons the Washington climate initiative failed - for one thing, no one knew what the fuck was in it and the oil and gas companies took advantage of that, pouring millions of dollars into the state to spread misleading information about it.
And this actually points to one of the things that makes the climate fight so difficult - it has to do with complex scientific issues, and the energy industry, which is extraordinarily complex. So the solutions are often really complex as well - which makes it easy for opponents to come in with a lot of money and some over-simplistic arguments, and sway people who are not scientist or economists.
(and to anyone who thinks it would be easy for "everyone" to go vegetarian: that is so culturally blind. Changing diets on a macro level is just about one of the hardest things for cultures to do.)
posted by lunasol at 10:46 AM on November 7, 2018 [3 favorites]
And this actually points to one of the things that makes the climate fight so difficult - it has to do with complex scientific issues, and the energy industry, which is extraordinarily complex. So the solutions are often really complex as well - which makes it easy for opponents to come in with a lot of money and some over-simplistic arguments, and sway people who are not scientist or economists.
(and to anyone who thinks it would be easy for "everyone" to go vegetarian: that is so culturally blind. Changing diets on a macro level is just about one of the hardest things for cultures to do.)
posted by lunasol at 10:46 AM on November 7, 2018 [3 favorites]
Explaining the basic principles of a carbon tax isn't that difficult. Getting public support for it is apparently much harder.
posted by PhineasGage at 11:37 AM on November 7, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by PhineasGage at 11:37 AM on November 7, 2018 [1 favorite]
A big problem with ballot measures in general, it seems to me, is that the general stance of most people, in general, on any given issue more complicated than, say, "Should marijuana be legal?" or "Should gay or transgender people have equal rights?" is going to be something along the lines of "I don't understand all the implications, let's just keep what we have." So all the anti- side really needs to do is say, "Gosh, this is complicated, isn't it" and most voters will say, "Yeah, it is! Let's do nothing!"
Basically what I'm saying here is that as popular as the ACA ended up being, it never in a million years would have passed as a ballot measure. Bold-but-wonky just doesn't look good on a ballot, you need a major, coordinated push to sell it, and usually that means having a popular politician to serve as the face of the issue. (Hence, Obamacare.) Which works for legislation but not for ballot measures.
posted by tobascodagama at 11:54 AM on November 7, 2018 [3 favorites]
Basically what I'm saying here is that as popular as the ACA ended up being, it never in a million years would have passed as a ballot measure. Bold-but-wonky just doesn't look good on a ballot, you need a major, coordinated push to sell it, and usually that means having a popular politician to serve as the face of the issue. (Hence, Obamacare.) Which works for legislation but not for ballot measures.
posted by tobascodagama at 11:54 AM on November 7, 2018 [3 favorites]
and to anyone who thinks it would be easy for "everyone" to go vegetarian: that is so culturally blind.
One reason I found it illustrative is precisely because people in general, including many readers of metafilter who are concerned about climate change, can easily see why it's not easy. Whereas "energy efficiency" for example -- gee, everything gets more efficient and we all win -- is more complicated by just enough that the difficulties of doing a large amount of it on a global scale are so much easier to ignore. Quite a lot of people are all too familiar with the typical meat-eater's reaction to the suggestion they should give it up, and reflecting on that might provide some needed insight into the way society collectively reacts when it's suggested we should all drive less, switch to more-expensive heating systems, or otherwise change our habits.
posted by sfenders at 2:18 PM on November 7, 2018 [4 favorites]
One reason I found it illustrative is precisely because people in general, including many readers of metafilter who are concerned about climate change, can easily see why it's not easy. Whereas "energy efficiency" for example -- gee, everything gets more efficient and we all win -- is more complicated by just enough that the difficulties of doing a large amount of it on a global scale are so much easier to ignore. Quite a lot of people are all too familiar with the typical meat-eater's reaction to the suggestion they should give it up, and reflecting on that might provide some needed insight into the way society collectively reacts when it's suggested we should all drive less, switch to more-expensive heating systems, or otherwise change our habits.
posted by sfenders at 2:18 PM on November 7, 2018 [4 favorites]
The Terrifying Science Behind California’s Massive Camp Fire
This is what a climate change reckoning looks like. “All of it is embedded in the background trend of things getting warmer,” Lareau says. “The atmosphere as it gets warmer is thirstier.” Like a giant atmospheric mosquito, climate change is sucking California dry.Climate Change May Increase Heat Waves, Coastal Damage, & Wildfires In California
The consequence is fires of unprecedented, almost unimaginable scale. California cities are no longer safe from fire, and with climate change, things are only bound to get worse from here.
“Mass shootings and mass burnings,” Pyne says. “Welcome to the new America.”
The California Natural Resources Agency recently released a new statewide climate change assessment. According to the report, climate change impacts in California will increase in severity over the coming decades. Rising temperatures will result in more heat waves, and by 2050 there might be an extra 11,000 heat-related deaths each year. It is expected there will also be more wildfires. Rising ocean levels will cause billions of dollars in damage to coastal areas. Heather Williams, the Communications Director for CNRA, answered some questions for CleanTechnica about the assessment.posted by homunculus at 9:52 AM on November 10, 2018 [1 favorite]
And as seems appropriate in every MeFi thread discussing climate change, here's another plug for T. C. Boyle's prescient and touching novel A Friend of the Earth, written nearly two decades ago. Every day it seems to become a more and more prescient examination of the realities and implications of climate change in California and beyond...
posted by PhineasGage at 10:06 AM on November 10, 2018
posted by PhineasGage at 10:06 AM on November 10, 2018
Footage of Fire Whirls Gives a Terrifying Look at the Infernos Tearing Through California
CNN Meteorologist Explains Why President Trump Is So Wrong About California's Wildfires
posted by homunculus at 1:29 PM on November 12, 2018 [1 favorite]
CNN Meteorologist Explains Why President Trump Is So Wrong About California's Wildfires
posted by homunculus at 1:29 PM on November 12, 2018 [1 favorite]
Climate Scientist Who Fled CA Wildfire: We’re Going to Keep Paying Price If We Ignore Climate Change
posted by homunculus at 9:23 AM on November 13, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by homunculus at 9:23 AM on November 13, 2018 [1 favorite]
The Big Meltdown: As the Antarctic Peninsula heats up, the rules of life there are being ripped apart. Alarmed scientists aren’t sure what all the change means for the future.
Here at the bottom of the world, a place all but free of human settlement, humanity is scrambling one of the ocean’s richest wildernesses. Fossil-fuel burning thousands of miles away is heating up the western peninsula faster than almost anywhere else. (Only the Arctic compares.) The warming is yanking apart the gears of a complex ecological machine, changing what animals eat, where they rest, how they raise their young, even how they interact. At the same time, the shrimplike krill upon which almost all animals here depend for food are being swept up by trawlers from distant nations. They’re being processed into dietary supplements and pharmaceuticals, and fed to salmon in Norwegian fjords and to tropical fish in aquariums.posted by homunculus at 4:37 PM on November 13, 2018 [1 favorite]
So much here is changing so fast that scientists can’t predict where it’s all headed. “Something dramatic is under way,” says Heather Lynch, a penguin biologist at Stony Brook University. “It should bother us that we don’t really know what’s going on.”
« Older Tonight we dine in 1491 | Modernity has failed us Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
...which, yes and no? Like, even in a system prone to nonlinear threshold responses, the difference between 500 gigatons of carbon in a hundred years and 5000 gigatons of carbon in a hundred years is gigantic. In other words, we can't allow ourselves the luxury of thinking that there's a cliff right over there, and we're about to go off it, and then absolutely nothing we do will matter anyway. Because that's not true. We are skidding down a hill, but we (as a society) are very very capable of pumping the brakes so that when shit does crash, it will not crash quite so hard. The rate of change matters. Climate has changed a great deal in the past -- it's only when it changes this quickly that things go really bad.
posted by Vic Morrow's Personal Vietnam at 12:49 PM on November 5, 2018 [46 favorites]