A question about climate change/global warming.

what's worse, encouraging fatalism or encouraging people to keep their real feelings to themselves because publicly acknowledging them is counterproductive / depressing / encouraging fatalism? tbh the idea that focusing on "objective" data is more important or relevant than how this is impacting lives feels like part of the problem. we've tried the dry scientific approach, it doesn't work

obvious villains aside the cautiousness of scientists and the limits of what can be said in a scientific or academic context has definitely been part of the problem here. as of course has the at-best-uselessness of liberal politicians and their rejection of the hopelessly modest proposals being called for, including by racist anti-radical environmental orgs that are already considered dangerously extreme by the state...

ahead of wildfire season starting, having finished the second driest spring since 1895, and 410 active fires on state land, Gov Inslee has declared a state of emergency and new rules to protect outdoor workers

CW: climate dread

this is an absolutely incredible thread derived from a US army document, which basically says "we've fucked it lads, we're all going to fucking die, and all the people who favour social progress are soon going to realise it's our fault" https://t.co/j8hQSG418N

— small-C communist 🏴‍☠️ (@_____newt) July 14, 2021

if only the original document actually said anything resembling that. read between the lines, sure. but it is very, very far from "which basically says "we've fucked it lads, we're all going to fucking die, and all the people who favour social progress are soon going to realise it's our fault". it's not written like that at all. that's what it's been 2 1/2 years since it was published and someone just noticed

The US army wouldn’t say “lads” cmon

Let alone “favour”

the army lads

Amazon rainforest now emitting more CO2 than it absorbs

ezra klein op ed piece in nytimes i'm not going to link to, someone read the niemanlab article lol.

making suv drivers scared is a good psyop.

I went out to dinner last night and as soon as we sat down the waiter said to us, sorry, no west coast oysters. They all died as a result of the PNW heat wave.

— Angela Lashbrook (@lemonsand) July 16, 2021

During late June’s heat wave in the Pacific Northwest and parts of Canada, sea creatures on the coast were cooked alive by the millions in the scorching heat. Beach goers, some who had headed to the water to cool off, were greeted with putrid stench of shellfish baking in the sun.

“I was pretty stunned,” says Chris Harley, a marine biologist at the University of British Columbia. On Vancouver’s Kitsilano Beach where Harley stood, tens of thousands of dead mussels, clams, sea stars, barnacles and snails blanketed the sea rocks as far along the coastline as his eye could see. In particular, the mussels had split open, their freshly baked flesh still nestled inside.

Temperatures soared to a record-breaking 121 degrees Fahrenheit in British Columbia that weekend. ... Harley estimates the death toll of seashore animals along the Salish Sea coastline is over a billion.

https://therealsarahmiller.substack.com/p/all-the-right-words-on-climate-have

Let’s give the article she was starting to maybe think about asking me to write that I was wondering if I could write the absolute biggest benefit of the doubt and imagine that people read it and said, “Wow this is exactly how I feel, thanks for putting it into words.” What then? What would happen then? Would people be “more aware” about climate change? It’s 109 degrees in Portland right now. It’s been over 130 degrees in Baghdad several times. What kind of awareness quotient are we looking for? What more about climate change does anyone need to know? What else is there to say?

I find this totally bizarre. Of course people are going to ignore uncomfortable knowledge until it personally affects them. There are a ton of people who just tuned out climate change warnings who are now realizing they won't be able to avoid it. They're not going to comb the archives for your past gems! Please get one theory of change.

what she is saying, i think, is what is the point of writing about it? the point was to warn people about it, maybe, to get them to change something so it wouldn't happen. and she's realizing - that's not how it works for most people. as you said, lukas, people have to feel it directly. the show me state. therealsarahmiller is feeling a sense of emptiness and smallness - she is the kind of person who takes a warning and acts upon it, without having to directly experience the awful thing. she sensed that others were like that, so she spent a good portion of her personal life and career trying to do a good thing by warning others, believing that at least some of them would be like her and use their brains instead of being forced to deal with the tragedy. "It’s 109 degrees in Portland right now. It’s been over 130 degrees in Baghdad several times. What kind of awareness quotient are we looking for? What more about climate change does anyone need to know? What else is there to say?" - she's saying here, what is the point of my life? it's too late now. should i keep warning people who have already shown that they cannot learn? what am i doing here?

believing that at least some of them would be like her and use their brains instead of being forced to deal with the tragedy.

typos and missing half-phrases: the Z_TBD story. what i meant here is that she hoped that by writing and spreading "awareness" of what was coming with climate change, that at least some people would take precautions and maybe even change their behavior a little bit, and maybe spread that "awareness" some more. but in real life, a bunch of people are already "aware", and a bunch more people are "ready to die and go to heaven and don't care if other people also die". in real life, it's 130 degrees and we're all aware of it now. well, not all of us, but you know

the awful, kind of unique, part about climate change is that by the time people personally experience it, are affected by it, it's too late to "fix". yes, this group of hypothetical people who will suddenly "get it" (i remain skeptical that they ever, EVER will - they will make excuses for it and say they were correct the entire time. that's my personal experience with these people. they are never wrong. ever.) can maybe change their behavior now and pretend like they're helpful people. but it's too late to "fix". now it's about degrees of tragedy, and trying to create a less tragic tragedy. to me, that ALSO does not seem like something that human beings are good at, especially those that are politically polarized and have been on the anti-environment team for well over 30 years now

all of that is to say that the "theory of change" that relies on people directly experiencing the thing and then changing, like usual, does not work with climate change. that's why people spent the last 30 years trying to warn everyone and create the change before the direct experience.

it did not work. or, actually, maybe it did. maybe, because of the efforts of climate advocates over the last few decades, the hellhole we live in right now is about 25% better than the hellhole we would have lived in without their efforts.

anyway, i deeply sympathize with people like sarah miller that have just given up on humanity. public service, doing things for people - it's fucking draining when the people you're trying to help are actively fighting against you. medical staff in the COVID wing really are heroes, and also i totally get it when they burn out and never help people ever again

Yeah, I should have more empathy for her. I dunno why I'm so mad. I view it differently than ICU nurses for some reason.

yeah, it's not a great comparison, heh. ICU nurses face it much more acutely, and they have the opportunity to see the uselessness of their words and logic, directly on the face of the person who refuses to be vaccinated. climate change is much more of an indirect life-long, slow burning betrayal of trust

What it reminds me of an excerpt I read of Patricia Lockwood's recent book. Something like ... her father had never believed her about something, for years. And then one day he saw or heard something that made him realize she was right. And her response was anger - "THIS is what changes your mind?"

I also had trouble understanding that at first. I understand intellectually that the anger is about the accumulated years of denial. I just can't remember responding like that personally, maybe I'm wired different or have had different experiences.

you probably just have another way of dealing with it! i don't think anger is the best option, even though i do feel it sometimes. but i also don't think there's really a correct way to feel about it. we need at least some people to keep functioning and to keep fighting, trying to persuade, trying to change things for the better. and those people can't be subsumed by anger, if they're going to be effective.

i was like that way, too, for about 33 years, until the dam broke a few years ago. and maybe i'll be that person again, later. or maybe i'll stay angry about covid and climate change and turn my attention to other things that haven't cut away at me yet

Now to face the future we've made.

This is what the future looks like, arriving.pic.twitter.com/kGLnGxb35S

— James B (@piercepenniless) August 7, 2021

The Dixie Fire, started above a dam in central California three weeks ago, is now the largest wildfire in Californian history.

Spoke to a very senior official in the Greek government today who told me there are fears that up to 10% of the country’s forests might have burned down. #greeceisburning pic.twitter.com/OujzFySbpL

— David Patrikarakos (@dpatrikarakos) August 10, 2021

Biden administration decides that the IPCC climate change report "does not present sufficient cause" to halt its plan to vastly expand offshore drilling, opening 78 million acres of the Gulf Of Mexico to fossil fuel exploration.

same in uk, the day after banning plastic cutlery because single use plastic is bad, m'kay

can we do a quick poll of how depressed we are about climate change? WHAT ARE THE PARAMETERS: whatever you think they are, as always, the parameters have, ultimately, always, been about whatever you thought they were were, BUT WHAT DO YOU THINK THE PARAMETERS ARE: ok so when you think "climate change", and give yourself a median drift toward what it actually means, and at least 30 seconds go by, from a scale of 0 = 'i'm cold in the winter and that means it's good!' and 10 = 'i cannot move, i am actually thinking of killing myself because of climate change, what a way to go, at least you kind of helped'

9.4

aw shit, best new douche is sad

I am very depressed and alarmed about climate change but have given up any sort of hope around the issue except for the possibilities of new communities and ways of living coming together as a result of more and more intense destabilizing events happening.

This is what real cause for hope looks like to me (rather than the manufactured consensus of technophile magic fusion fairy hope promoted on Reddit etc etc):

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/oct/06/offshoring-wealth-capitalism-pandora-papers

It may appear discouraging at first glance but it’s hopeful to me because we are finally starting to have serious discussions about the systemic issues at work here.

who is having the serious discussions?

sorry, snarky question on my part.

that's a great article by monbiot

i have no hope

Nah it’s a perfectly valid question. Clearly the scope of this sort of discussion is still very limited, and not happening at all in the corporate media in the USA where it’s so sorely needed.

cool thread, everything's fine

Take seeing electric vehicles as a solution. A simple switch to private electric vehicles from petrol and diesel cars, will cause a surge in demand for minerals, that will devastate natural habitat, leading to bigger biodiversity loss.https://t.co/z6N6D1f1Em

— Stephen Barlow (@SteB777) October 19, 2021

By now it ought to be clear that the best thing that could possibly happen to all non-human life forms on earth is for humans to experience a massive and immediate die-off of about 90% to 100%, without it being caused by a nuclear war. The chances of this happening on that scale and with sufficient speed, without a nuclear war, are so close to nil that you may treat them as being non-existent. The best remaining options among those with a non-zero probability all require a collective will and a collective sacrifice, driven ahead by foresight, compassion and perseverance.

iow, we're fucked.

Bathtub gin

I never touch the stuff. My stainless steel straw makes sure of that.

yeah I feel like an asshole for being completely, miserably hopeless about all this, because if we don't act as if there's hope we can't do anything - but yeah, we're fucked.

I think it was 2014 or 15 when it really sank in for me that the world was going away, and when I think back to 2014, and how much more we're feeling the effects of climate change now, it feels like a different era. It's all sped up so much in just seven years - where will we be in another seven? It's terrifying to think about. Feels like we're about to go over Niagara Falls in a barrel, and the only question is how close we are to the edge.

"The world-as-resource perspective not only depletes our environment of the raw materials we seek; it ultimately depletes it of meaning."

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/11/01/our-planet-is-heating-up-why-are-climate-politics-still-frozen-colonialism-environment

Excellent article, I rate highly anything that cites Amitav Ghosh in the lede.

This part merges well with what's been said in this thread:

What Kate Aronoff shows, in her timely book “Overheated” (Bold Type), is that the “old-school” approach to corporate climate denial has given way to new, subtler strategies. Yesterday’s denialists insisted that climate change was a hoax, funding dodgy science and blitzing coöperative media outlets such as Fox News with industry “experts.” But under mounting public pressure many companies have withdrawn their support from denialist think tanks like the Heartland Institute...

“White Skin, Black Fuel” by Andreas Malm and the Zetkin Collective, of Scandinavia...shows how, in the political arena, arguments about economic rationality get woven together with hierarchical structures and the pursuit of domination, portending what it calls fossil fascism. In particular, its authors are struck by how the European far right has used the “funnel issue” of hostility toward immigration to promote hostility toward renewable energy.

They don't touch on the 'blame China' deflection but it's become so standard now among denialist trolls that I've seen, it's effectively like they're working from a script.

The article's naysaying about 'market solutions' and 'realism' is a bit heavy-handed given that the writers admit their proposed alternate solutions amount to a wish list. I don't really see the fundamental ideological opposition to carbon taxes. Barring a global communist revolution it looks like market-based economic systems are what we're working with, in which case taxation is basically the most consistently effectively method of the requisite wealth redistribution that will be needed to compensate for all the harm caused by the resource extraction industries and their financial backers.

Barring a global communist revolution it looks like market-based economic systems are what we're working with.

Capitalism and the global financial system are the only global powers extant. Any revolution capable of overthrowing them would take a very long time compared to speed at which the climate is shifting and that overthrow would be accompanied by a further period of chaos as society groped toward a new basis. We ain't got time for that.

at least justice can sometimes be served

Donzinger won indigenous clients a $9.5 billion settlement from Chevron for poisoning the Amazon. Now he's gone to jail after a US judge appointed a Chevron-linked private law firm to serve as prosecutor in a contempt of court case. (Federal prosecutors refused to try the case) https://t.co/G1tzD4902c

— ᴅᴇʀᴇᴋ ᴍᴇᴀᴅ (@derektmead) October 28, 2021

oh yeah this whole story is insane. the kind of thing we imagine happening in like equatorial guinea or angola, but not “here”

they cover this in the excellent Drilled podcast, several episodes iirc

you can start here:

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/s5ep1-lockdown-ad-free/id1439735906?i=1000528536507

I'm already familiar with the main details but I will give a listen when I have some free time.

The whole thing is so galling, particularly in terms of setting a precedent. Courts are widely recognized as effectively the main mechanism for international environmental justice and even in domestic terms, when I took an environmental policy course our main focus was on the role of the courts. Now we're in a situation where this sort of judicial capture is given a pass, and meanwhile Trump in one term packed the courts, something like a third of current federal appellate judges were appointed by Trump. At least we have coal baron Manchin on 'our' side amirite.

In other news, and in re: the recent US House hearings which questioned executives from major fossil fuel firms, this looks like a pretty good overview of how badly Exxon CEO Darren Woods was lying when he said Exxon's public statements on climate change “are and have always been truthful” and that the company “does not spread disinformation regarding climate change":

https://theconversation.com/what-big-oil-knew-about-climate-change-in-its-own-words-170642

And from Teh Grauniad, this list of America's 'worst climate villains' is worth noting.

From the second link:

In his own words: Woods once called carbon reduction standards “a beauty match, a beauty competition”.