Wouldn't It Be Great If Climate Science Had It All Wrong?
Belief is surely one of humanity’s most dangerous forces. It ignites vast and ruinous battles; both ‘culture wars’ and real ones. It divides culture from culture; community from community; friend from friend; father from son. Belief is the heart of who we are and how we live our lives. And yet it is not what we think it is: not a product of intelligence or education or logic. There are invisible forces at play here. And I have no idea what they are.
Will Storr, The Unpersuadables, 2014
Imagine climate science had it all wrong. Wouldn’t that be an enormous relief? I am leading a very comfortable life in a very pleasant city right now. I immensely enjoy my holidays and my travel, and the comforts of my home. I would very much like to continue as usual.
So I have engaged in discussions with lots of people in the last few weeks who are less alarmed than I am, and have considered the kind of advice they have for me.
“I don’t read newspapers and I don’t watch news.” Well, this may give others peace of mind, but it does not work for me. I have always been curious about the world, and I don’t want to start living like an ostrich.
“Climate science is not unanimous, and I believe expert X rather than the IPCC.” Hmm, climate science is nearly unanimous, and the choices for expert X are a bit disappointing, to say the least. It is always the same chain of notorious lobbyists or muddleheads: Fred Singer, Bjørn Lomborg, Chris Horner, Christopher Monckton, Roy Spencer. In most cases, but not always, these guys are paid by the fossil fuel industry. Pointing this out to the believers sometimes helps, in particular when these people are also in the pocket of the tobacco industry (Fred Singer has infamously denied that passive smoking is harmful). If you want to educate yourself about climate change denialism, read the book Merchants of Doubt by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway, or watch the documentary.
“Greta Thunberg is an agent of the `deep state’.” Sigh. I have tried to counter the Greta Thunberg bashers by inviting them to read what she says about herself, but with remarkably little success. The attacks on her are attacks on the messenger, because her message is not welcome. If you hate to give up driving your big SUV or making lots of money in the fossil fuel industry, then it is hard to listen to a young girl who is telling you that you should change. Much easier to hate the child, or to subscribe to a conspiracy theory that she is funded by George Soros.
“Greta Thunberg has it right about the climate crisis. But the solutions she proposes are naive.” “How dare you pretend that this can be solved with just ‘business as usual’ and some technical solutions?” This is not what believers in technological fixes provided by clever enterpreneurs want to hear. So they say that a sixteen year old girl is not mature enough to express an opinion on such important matters. Therefore we better ignore her. But this condescending attitude is an easy way out. If you believe in technological fixes, then you should be able to answer the question how new technology is going to ‘fix’ the depletion of our planet, the fact that we are using up our non-renewable resources at an alarming rate. Technology cannot alter the fact that endless growth is impossible in a finite world, or the fact that one cannot eat money. Greta Thunberg is drawing attention to these facts. And there is one thing about her that makes many people very uneasy: the crystal clear way in which she distinguishes between fact and fiction, between knowledge and belief. There is much to learn from her, for many of us. And the fact that she is 16 and we, the learners, are much older is utterly and completely irrelevant.
“I don’t believe the mainstream media and I don’t believe the science.” There is a brilliant book by Will Storr, The Unpersuadables - Adventures with the Enemies of Science, about a broad variety of science deniers and conspiracy theorists. What Storr does is remarkable. Instead of arguing with them, he participates in their meetings and tries to find out what makes them tick. He even signs up for a trip to Auschwitz with a group of holocaust deniers, organized by the notorious right wing historian David Irving (convicted for holocaust denial several times). Huge amounts of emotional energy are invested in the state of denial, and that is what makes the science deniers unpersuadable.
There are excellent sources of information about climate science and global warming available on internet. A place to start could be the Wikipedia lemma on Global Warming. This is only useful, of course, for those of us who have some trust in the reliability of Wikipedia. My own trust in Wikipedia is based on what I know about how articles are created and vetted, and how controversy is handled. A useful website for climate science sceptics is skepticalscience.com: it has a list of 197 false sceptical claims, with their refutations. Again, this will only be convincing for those who have some experience with how science works.
OK, I have accepted what science has to say about the climate. And it frightens me. In fact, I am scared stiff. And as I adjust, I can reflect on what I - or you and I - can do with this very very inconvenient knowledge.
Change the way we look at politics. It was a huge mistake to leave politics to the politicians. Politics is about citizen involvement in public affairs. Our participation starts in our own neighbourhood. The global corporate system can only be changed from outside, through grassroot action. Our participation is needed. I have decided to join Extinction Rebellion. There is place for many more rebels.
Get informed, and stay informed, about the state of the world. Internet search gives us access to all kinds of information, but also to propaganda, conspiracy theories, and nonsense. It is difficult to distinguish the sense from the nonsense, but it is not impossible. Be aware that propaganda has a new face, these days. It is not any longer about imposing a viewpoint, but about stirring division and sowing hatred, as is explained in Peter Pomerantsev’s This is Not Propaganda. “Perhaps the most important global trend of the last few years has been the rise - and transformation - of information warfare. In the digital age, real military engagement matters less than how it is broadcast. The result is a constant deluge of lies, shock humor, absurdity, and fear-mongering - a circus atmosphere created to disorient us and undermine our sense of truth.”
Support reliable sources of information. I subscribe to a national newspaper (NRC Handelsblad) and to a magazine (De Correspondent). I support the Guardian, and I donate to Wikipedia. Access to reliable information is crucial, and it is naive to think that quality information can be for free.
We should protect our souls, and cater to the needs of our spirit. We have to create space in your life for doing nothing, for quiet reflection, for getting nourished by nature, and for recovering from the demands and the stress that a world in turmoil imposes on us. We have to find our sources of inspiration. I enjoy the poetry of the mystics, and inspirational writings of Buddhist teachers like Thich Nhat Hanh, Tara Brach and Pema Chödrön, but the choice is endless. Personally, I avoid spiritual teachings that promise me worldly success. Spirituality, for me, is about opening our hearts and about finding our way home, to ultimate reality.
Build and strengthen local connections. Our families, our friends, our neighbourhood, and our town need us. We should adjust the ratio between online contacts and face-to-face encounters, if needed, valuing our personal contacts over our online contacts. We should strengthen our relational skills if necessary. I have benefited from courses in authentic communication and conscious connection.
Change our transportation habits. We should learn to love our bicycles more than our cars, and we should think twice about air travel. Don’t engage in frivolous flying. If you think a yoga retreat in Thailand or Bali is not frivolous, think again. Is it really plausible that the climate effects of our long-distance flights can be compensated with planting a few trees? We have to plant as many trees as possible in any case, but that will not save us if we don’t cure our flying addiction.
Adjust our eating habits. Would we still eat meat if we knew how it is produced and how its production affects the planet? Read Jonathan Safran Foer’s article in the Guardian if you like to ponder this question. “Climate change is the greatest crisis humankind has ever faced, and it is one that will always be simultaneously addressed together and faced alone. We cannot keep eating the kinds of meals we have known and also keep the planet we have known. We must either let some eating habits go or let the planet go. It is that straightforward, and that fraught.”
If we shop less we can afford to work less. What will make us happier: more stuff or more time for ourselves and our loved ones? The advertisements try to suggest that buying new stuff will bring us joy. It makes sense to reflect on whether that is true. We might arrive at the conclusion that we already have all the material goods that we need, and more.
Slowly, slowly, we might discover that many of the needs that we thought we had were created by the advertisement industry. The best things in life are free: singing, dancing, making music, spending time with our families, meetings with friends, reading, learning a new language, writing poetry. There is so much to enjoy in a life that is not focussed on consumption.