Newly published in Nature is a study by researchers about adapting to climate change. The gist, according to EurekAlert, is that we’re making a mistake in concentrating on the mitigation of global warming, and that this has been at the expense of adaptation. (Now, I may have dramatized it somewhat with those words – such research findings are much more dry and circumspect by comparison – but forgive me, because I think it is, at the very least, a fair conclusion to draw from the findings as described. But don’t take my word for it.)
I hope we begin to see more of this sensible approach to the world’s problems. It is just one among many and should be tackled in a rational way. Currently, climate change porn has us westerners in paroxysms of indulgent self-loathing, which has nothing to do with making the world better.
I’m interested in the whole mitigation vs. adaptation argument. As with many things, bits of both will likely be required for a good solution. But it seems likely that the best kinds of mitigation are industry- and government-led actions to develop more efficient and cleaner fuels, and things like CO2 storage, which is looking much more promising now with the publication this week of research findings by the University of Leicester and the British Geological Survey, in the journal Planet Earth.
The big problem I have is with the misanthropic moralizing; with the idea that humanity is a blight on the planet, an idea that is (a) useless, and (b) full of contradictions. That developed countries should be guilty of their advancements, and that developing countries should refrain from their own development, are views that seem very common amongst greens, and media commentators of that colour. I feel it is only misanthropy, or an antipathy to civilization, that must lie at the root of these views.
I have many opinions surrounding these issues, but let me leave you with a modest contention: species self-loathing, the idea that there are too many people and that we are “killing the planet”, is all part of the spirit of the times, and is not a good guide for action aimed at solving the world’s problems; and the facts of climate change are distorted when seen from this perspective, leaving us less able to deal with it sensibly. Fair?
There is no doubt that large amounts of hype is produced in the name of environemtnalism and the only changes of any significant value are those to be made by industrial government complexes looking at advanced cleaner technologies. However given that governments only respond theoretically to the voting requirements of the public that put them in office and the quickest way to make change is to shock the public especially the american public then climate porn is a good thing and any action at all, if you or your children want a planet to live on in the next 50 years, is essential and therefore self loathing misanthrpism cant be all bad!! and the answer is in redistribution of, not only wealth, but information as there is no reason for Developing countries (other than western greed) not benefiting from and making quicker advances from the ‘Knowledge’ that the developed countries have discovered.
Thanks for the comment. It looks like you’re promoting the idea of a “higher truth”, where exaggerations and lies can be told if they convey some message which is thought to be of vital importance.
I am very opposed to the idea. For one thing, technical challenges are best tackled in a level-headed way, with as many people as possible appraised of the facts. Also, history shows that, despite your understandable suspicion of capitalism, industry does clean up after itself as it progresses, thanks to regulations which have been motivated by sensible, unsensational environmentalism. And lastly on this point I believe that the notion of a “higher truth” is profoundly undemocratic and patronizing. People make the best decisions when they have the opportunity to come to their own conclusions based on useful, well-presented, unsensational facts, and reasonable points of view.
But really I think you have succumbed to the climate change porn yourself, because you repeat the words of sensationalist journalists and campaigners who say we must act “if you or your children want a planet to live on in the next 50 years”. How on Earth do you conclude that there will be no planet in 50 years? Your words confirm to me the importance of pointing out, as I did in my post, that “species self-loathing, the idea that there are too many people and that we are ‘killing the planet’, is all part of the spirit of the times, and is not a good guide for action aimed at solving the world’s problems; and the facts of climate change are distorted when seen from this perspective, leaving us less able to deal with it sensibly.”
I agree with your choice to move away from sensationalism, media trivia and “conventional wisdom” but I’m not after a higher truth. If we have learnt anything from our industrial past and advances why let developed countries make the same mistakes we did when we can “enlighten” them and bypass those errors which were based on misunderstanding or lack of knowledge? – thats not patronising thats education – surely you approve of education?
And yes there will be a planet in 50 years just not one that we probably want to be on – im a biologist and feel that nature/the universe will inevitably have the last laugh, for sure the dinosaurs arent here anymore and humanity has been here for just a small proportion of earth history.
Yet science does agree on the fact that living the unsustainable existance we do in the west (and that the east is currently scrabblilng to achieve) is having a greater impact on the planet in the last 20 years than the last 2000 – stop putting yourself and everyone else in denial and accept the data. humanity is greedy and lazy and seeks the easiest route to a comfortable life without consideration of the consequences hence the destruction of the dodo and even our own species when they are in the way of gold/oil/diamonds/our religous dogmas.
We need to move to a sustainable society instead of this wasteful materialistic society and both mitigation and adaption will be part of that as there is no doubt we cannot stop the impact of humanity on the environment we live in and are a part of.
I’ve said elsewhere in my blog that currently it is common to see all changes as leading to disaster and eventual distruction. At the risk of repeating myself, I’d say that this is another example of the zeitgeist.
How can you agree that sensationalism is bad and then say that in 50 years our planet will be “not one that we probably want to be on”? Am I to take this seriously?
I agree that the developing world can learn from our mistakes. This is in fact happening to some extent in China, which is beginning to apply anti-pollution measures in its industrial revolution. Obviously, this needs to happen more. However, it is noy a matter of curbing consumption, but of making technology better.
You mention “religious dogmas”. Your last paragraphs strike me as a kind of religious preaching, using the mantra of sustainability. In any case, why should we accept your recommendations as to how we should live, when you say that – with obvious distaste – “humanity is greedy and lazy”? It seems disingenuous.
Dear Jam Jar,
Can I suggest you remove the ‘Post a Comment’ feature? Too often I find myself unsettled by the contradictions, indolent interpretations, or repetitive, iconolatrous supposition of your readership.
Perhaps a postal reply system, i.e. a PO Box, might help disuade a few of the more bourgeois commenters. At the very least, removing the anonymous reply option should truncate a recent and sadly ham-handed class of return.
I must defend the commentors against your unwarranted ad hominem attack. In future please stick to the topic at hand.