Moving Beyond the Hope/Despair Climate Debate
One of the most common debates regarding climate change is whether or not we should be fearing for our lives about it. Most of those up-to-date with the material know the climate change’s effects will be severe, but there are two camps involved which consistently argue about whether we should be hopeful or fearful for our future.
Initially, there are climate pessimists. Those who think that this existential planetary threat of our creation will have catastrophic effects that we are reacting to far too late. Then there are the optimists, who believe that if the world tries hard enough we can solve this problem with time to spare.
With the ousting of Trump, there seems to be plenty of climate optimism from across the pond. Some of the moves Biden has been making, such as axing the Keystone XL pipeline, have been promising. Yet, a recent article supporting this positive energy from environmental writer Emma Marris, which was retweeted by Barack Obama, recently caught my eye. Despite the message of hope she offers, I fear she omitted some pieces of information as they may not have quite fit with the desired narrative. As it is such a short article, this is not too surprising. However, as the climate debate is critical to our future, concerned readers need as much information as possible, however positive or negative it may seem.
Before I go any further, a small disclaimer. Marris is an excellent writer and an expert in the field. I am not trying to discredit her in any way. I am just a bored ex-student attempting to add my voice to the debate and flex my writing muscles a little in lockdown on an issue I am passionate about. My post should not be placed on an equal intellectual footing with hers, but I think trying to clear the picture surrounding this debate is profitable.
Vertebrate Focus
In her article, Marris goes out of her way to point out that humans have the power to save species from extinction if we put our minds to it, citing data from a recent review of biodiversity loss suggesting that less than 3% of vertebrate populations are crashing. She notes that if we can target these sporadic falling populations effectively, they can be easily saved.
However, the keyword to note here is vertebrate. Most life on the planet doesn’t have a backbone and should be a part of this argument. Indeed, a recent review found that 40% of insects, the critical invertebrates responsible for numerous ecosystem services such as pollination and pest control, are in decline. Furthermore, these critters are also the basis of most food webs and are often critical components for ecosystem health. If their populations crash or become extinct, most of the vertebrates we would have spent all of our money protecting would face another existential pressure.
This focus on vertebrates seemingly reflects a bias towards charismatic animals for conservation funds. For instance, and on a more personal level, I remember a TV show I used to watch called Saving Planet Earth on the BBC, a landmark telethon which raised funds for conservation. A very positive step in principle, but the problem was that much of the funding was based on previous episodes they ran investigating specific species. None of them were invertebrates. That is not to say raising funds for charismatic species such as Rhinos and Tigers is not vital, but focusing on particular species whilst the rest declines doesn’t fill me with hope for the future. If they go it is far more likely that the rest will follow.
Two Degrees and Feedbacks
Another assertion that Marris makes is that there are no temperature threshold changes that are not worth fighting for. She notes that the Paris agreement targets of aiming for less than 1.5 degrees of warming and having two degrees as our absolute limit are political numbers, and do not represent the climate thresholds that, when passed, spell the end for humanity.
However, it is worth noting that these targets aim to guide international action based on the best available science. Furthermore, just because the threshold isn’t necessarily two degrees does not mean that it is not out there. The nature of positive feedbacks proves this.
Positive feedbacks are cycles present in the world that amplify their own effect. Good examples of this can be seen in economics. If the price of a good drop, sellers will panic and sell, causing the price to drop further and more panic selling to occur, increasing the effect.
These interactions are critical regarding climate change. There is likely a warming threshold that, if crossed, will trigger further effects which we can not do anything to stop. For instance, the more ice melts the weaker the earth’s albedo becomes (how much solar radiation the earth’s surface reflects back to space). A weaker albedo means that more solar radiation is captured by the greenhouse effect, warming the planet and reducing ice cover further.
Personally, the potential feedback I am most concerned about are interactions surrounding methane hydrates, deposits of methane gas held at the bottom of the ocean in crystalline form. If ocean temperatures rise enough, these will start melting, releasing a greenhouse gas 30 times more effective at warming the planet than CO2. This will almost certainly cause more warming and more hydrate melting in a vicious cycle no amount of renewable energy provision or carbon capture could hope to mitigate.
Marris’ attempt to take the emphasis away from the Paris targets is interesting. Recent analysis suggests that if world governments pursue their current climate targets, there would be around 2.7 degrees of warming by the end of the century. The cynic in me would argue that this assertion may be part of a narrative of acceptance around the global failure to meet Paris’ targets, but that is not to say governments will not increase their ambition in the future. Although given the erratic, radical nature of global politics, offering a decent prediction of future climate action seems impossible to me.
Getting over the debate
Yet despite the points made, I agree with almost everything else in Marris’ article. She notes that this new presidency should not be an excuse for climate inaction, and by solving many of the world’s other systemic problems such as wealth inequity and racial justice we can also tackle environmental issues.
That is the critical issue with the whole pessimist vs optimist debate. However we attempt to frame the issue, climate solutions remain similar to many (the extremes of that particular debate can wait for another day). Moreover, as I hope I have proven, solely focusing on hope or despair can lead to the omission of crucial information from said narratives, leading to an unproductive argument cycle whilst the world burns around us.
Many people would now suggest that we should be climate realists, letting the two viewpoints apathetically balance each other out. I often infer dangerous inaction from climate realism; that we need not focus on transformative change and that we can carry on as normal. The common viewpoint from this field is that yes, climate change will be negative, but as long as we decouple carbon from our society we will be fine, no extra change needed. That is not true in my eyes. A consistent drive for growth above all else, hoping that some invisible hand will guide us in the right direction, is the economic and social philosophy that put us in this dire position.
However, I would advocate for climate recognition; acceptance of both of the extremes. Yes, we know that climate change and environmental loss are existential threats to humanity, but we have the means and ability to transform how we organise ourselves to meet both that challenge and all the other interlinked challenges that authors like Marris describe. I would strongly recommend reading the Universal Declaration of Rights of Mother Earth as the prime example of such a mindset.
To start meeting the challenges climate change poses, we have to move past this debate and recognise that hope and despair are not mutually exclusive. Utilising both may have the most power in producing positive change.
