I'm a big believer in the premise that people who want to effect real change can't just tell people to say no. You have to offer them something to say yes to. In politics, something, no matter how awful, nearly always beats nothing: witness Trump vs Hillary. The nihilistic Republicans vs the corporate Democrats.
I've been thinking about this is relation to denial of the reality that climate change has been massively accelerated by human activity.
I think that most climate change denialism is not really based in actual belief that there is no human component. Most don't reject the science because they actually disbelieve it. They do so because accepting the science would imply action... action that might well be, in the short term, nothing less than self-harm. Climate change activists given little thought to addressing this narrative.
Such denialism is largely based on the belief that getting rid of - or at least shrinking the fossil fuel industry - will cause major economic damage, given the absence of other jobs to take their place. This is not, in fact, an irrational fear.
I feel that one of the areas that climate change activists have failed is in developing alternative economic opportunities for people who work in fossil fuel industries or who live in regions whose economies are dominated by said industry. Or rather, in pushing politicians to do the above. This is indispensable to softening opposition to needed environmental actions. Instead, climate change activists have largely opted for the tactic of shame and that's clearly not enough.
People aren't going to voluntarily abandon their way of life and their often already meager wages for the vague promise that maybe some unknown alternative economic sector might be realized at some indeterminate point in the future.
They see how the deindustrialized northeast and midwest have largely been left to rot. And it's wholly irrational to expect them to do so. And wholly counterproductive to shame them for not doing so.
Climate change activists need to recognize that those affected by their desired shrinking of the fossil fuel economy are real people with real bills to pay and that if they want those people to go along with serious action to repair the climate crisis, activists have to ensure they have some other way to feed their families.
1 comment:
Part of dealing with climate change head on is understanding that there aren't going to be enough jobs or enough food for eight billion people. And there won't, whether we act or not. I agree the sooner we act the better the chances of ameliorating some of the suffering that is to come, but after burning up hundreds of millions of years of energy in just 200 years, well, there is a lot of suffering ahead. We've deferred it and deferred it, but sooner or later physics and math will sort this all out, and our corpses will be the fossil fuels of the far future, if there's anything left to make use of it.
Post a Comment