“So I was wondering whether you thought climate change could be an issue that could
unite us all, on left and right, moving us beyond debates about c16 to discussions at
the UN Katowice next month, where perhaps humanity might finally discover its global
map of meaning?” “No.” *Laughter* “How dare you!” *Laughter* “You have stolen
my dreams!” *Laughter* On the 23rd of September 2019, Greta Tunberu
(and yes, that is how her name is pronounced – “My name is Greta Thunberg”), gave
a ‘passionate’ speech to World Leaders at the UN.
“People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in
the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and fairytales
of eternal economic growth. How dare you!” And like a forest fire in the Amazon, it spread,
fast, garnering both massive support and praise. “Greta Thunberg terrifies me, and I love
her for it! She doesn’t want to inspire us or give us hope, she wants to give us nightmares
because we deserve them! And conversely, it garnered massive backlash
and criticism. “She’s a kid. She talks nonsense. She
knows little, and does less. She should be at school, but we see this sort of attention
instead, and she tells the climate alarmists exactly what they want to hear.”
But luckily, after some admittedly initial friction, the polarising groups were able
to calm down and discuss the topic amicably and respectfully. They listened charitably
to one another, and eventually, the sceptics conceded that the science is overwhelming
– human-induced climate change is a very real issue that demands our immediate, collective
attention; that not everyone who claims to care about the climate is virtue signalling,
and that we can all (easily) make small changes to our lives that will have large results.
“Take your canvas bags to the supermarket.” And likewise, the climate activists conceded
that there is a bit of a quasi religious eschatology around their movement (“The world is going
to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change”), that their leaders applauding
Greta only to then fly home IS hypocritical, and that as wonderful and passionate as Greta
is, she has been deliberately weaponised for political gain. They all then smiled, hugged,
had a good cup of tea (which was free trade, of course, but delivered via airfreight, so
that everyone was unhappy), and then they worked together to find nuanced solutions
that are considerate of everyone’s concerns and -- no, it was a shitshow, obviously!
“You stole my childhood! Do what I want you to do or else you’re evil! How do you
respond to statements like that? The truth is, you can’t respond, and of course, that’s
the point.” “Greta’s campaign has brought out a fierce
backlash from misogynists, because preserving a liveable planet has somehow become a threat
to the entitlements of masculine primacy.” “Greta Thunberg is not about the environment!
She’s about aiding and abetting left-wing neo-Marxists and their bid to dominate the
Western political order.” “This last week, led by Greta, you know…
the world’s children are striking. You know, I think there’s a-- there’s an emergency
that we are-- it’s a race against time, and one in which we are losing.”
“To many activists it isn’t about science or facts, policy or debate… it’s faith.”
“According to a recent study, men might even be less likely to recycle just because
they’re worried people will think they’re gay.”
“Belief in something greater, something they don’t necessarily understand, can’t
explain, and won’t comprehend, like the Judaea Christian religion.”
“The world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change.” “We’ve
got 12 years to take incredibly bold action on this crisis!”
“I can’t wait for Steven King’s sequel, Children of the Climate.”
"There’s no excuse for not knowing that, and I think that the most troubling part of
it is that I don't believe that there's anyone in this world that can deny science."
Oh, my Price, you and your privately educated buddies would be surprised. But it’s not
the science that I’d like to talk about in this video – rather, I’d like to discuss
the utter failure of discourse around this topic. I’d like to explore the frustrations
of, and empathise with, those who accept the science of human-induced climate change, but
have not, and likely will not, change their behaviour accordingly.
But before doing that, I’d like to quickly make a disclaimer. In the past, when I’ve
shown two or more extreme views, I’ve been accused of committing a Middle Ground Fallacy,
but as is the case with those other subjects, is also the case here – I’m not implying
that the answer is bang in the middle of these views (it’s not), rather, I’m emphasising
that the answer is SOMEWHERE between the far-right libertarians who’re convinced that it’s
their right to shit in your water supply, and the far-left Marxists who’re also convinced
that it’s their right to shit in your water… because your water is their water.
Put simply, I’m just trying to make the discourse a little more amicable. I want people
to understand the concerns of others more accurately. I want people to be more empathetic
with one another, not to demonise them. I want to fight, effectively, against the uphill
battle that is polarisation. “Yeah, good luck, pal – that’s almost
impossible-- oh, you did it. Nice.” So, with that, I’m Stephen Woodford, thanks
for joining me, and this is When Facts Are Not Enough.
[Intro] At its core, climate change (and to what extent
we are contributing) is strictly a scientific enterprise.
“The absolute… absolute consensus is that human action is leading to an increase in
average temperatures.” But the question of why we don’t accept
or act according to the evidence is multifaceted – it involves psychology, ideology, politics,
education, economics, and… privilege (“Just a routine privilege check”), and within
this video I’m going to touch upon each of these. The most significant facets (at
least in my opinion) are psychological, but we’ll address them last since they’re
predicated upon other contributions, and thus will be easier to unpack later. Given this,
let’s begin with a criticism that is both straight-forward and frequently given: that
being, that many climate activists are naive. “The fact that stopping economic development
is even being advocated by some of the world's most privileged students (I don't want to
use the name or the word spoiled, but that's what many outside these facilities may think
about the kind of comments we've heard), reveals how far removed – how far removed this green
bubble is from the harsh reality of billions of people who are desperately trying to escape
poverty.” “This is a diverse and multifaceted world,
and undergoing rapid development, and people in Asian, in Africa, want to have the same
living standards as a Swede.” Put simply, many critics see many activists
(and especially those with economic ideologies) as dangerously naive. They see them as essentially
walking into impoverished countries and saying “Hey, you know how we had the industrial
revolution, and that because of it we are now a global super power that’s exploited
you many times over? Yeah, well, you’re not allowed the same revolution. I know, I
know, you’re just trying to cook that rat on a bonfire to feed your starving family,
but you have to understand, you’re robbing a Swedish child of her childhood, and that
makes you a monster!” This satire, of course, seems hyperbole (and
to an extent it is), but it’s also not; it is, after all, a paraphrased fusion of
some of the top comments on Benny Peiser’s speech. These critic argue that, as it stands,
green energy sources are seldom viable to impoverished people, and if we hamstring such
people by taxing energy sources that are viable to them (such as oil, gas and coal, which
together constitute 87% of worldwide energy), we stand to cause the poor massive personal
and economic harm – and furthermore, we stand to benefit the rich.
“Just imagine who is reaping the hundreds of billions that are going into renewables…
its landowners. It's the people who can afford solar panels, solar farms, by a guess it's
those people who can afford all this green stuff, paid by ordinary families, by poor
families, who are forced to pay the rich for their virtual signalling.”
But to get back on track, the point being is that many find climate ideologues to be
naive, and whether you share this view or not, it’s healthy to at least understand
why others have this perspective. A second criticism of note, which is in part
an extension of naivety, is that climate change a first-world, privileged problem. To be clear,
those who state this are not saying that climate change will only affect first-world countries,
but rather that only affluent social classes can afford to take the threat seriously. For
example, here’s how Brendan O’Neill puts it:
“I actually think it's morally repugnant that in a world in which 3 billion people
still live in poverty, the discussion that is obsessing privileged, mostly white Westerners,
is how can we slow down economic growth?” Now, the goal of climate activists is not,
of course, to slow down economic growth, and Brendan knows this... he’s just employing
some good old British sarcasm. And yeah, that’s right. It’s ours. We invented sarcasm. We
trademarked it. Just as we trademarked the oil in many countri-- *Beep*.
*clear throat* Anyhow, and here’s Jordan Peterson expressing the same sentiment:
“Except, the data that I’ve read indicate that if you can get the GPD of people up to
about $5,000 a year, then they start caring about the environment and the environment
cleans up.” The argument that’s being presenting, more
than less, is that we need to spend money to make money – we need to produce more
CO2 to ultimately reduce our production of CO2. Now whether you endorse this argument
or not, there is indeed data to support it. While people (including my former self) drastically
underestimate how much the poor care about the environment, the poor do statistically
care less than other classes, and from a psychological perspective, this isn’t a surprise. If one’s
physiological and safety needs are not met, one cannot afford to care about such concerns
as climate change. Again, a response might be, “Bro, green
energy is actually much more viable to invest in, especially given the long run”, and
a reply to this response might be “Yes, but brosive, the truly poor won’t have a
long run if they invest in green energy”, and then a reply to this might be “Bro,
seriously, my dad will beat the absolute crap out of your dad!”
“You stole my childhood!” But the underlining, very serious problem
here, is that we don’t have time to test the hypothesis of producing more CO2 so that
we can then not produce as much CO2. The apocalyptic claim of the world ending in 12 years is no
doubt ridiculous, but if our data and interpretations are correct (that is, if the vast majority
of our scientists are correct), another 12 years of apathy may just push us beyond a
safe-return. We do have to take this very seriously, and the moment, most of us don’t.
Moving on, a third criticism that given by many critics, is that many climate activists
are hypocritical – and often insufferable so.
“Lambasting the youth of the world for lassoing themselves to these protest marches and Greta
and so on, and then immediately going back to their laptops, their iPads, their iPhones,
their air-conditioned school rooms, their bathrooms, and so on and so on-- their mums
take them to school in nice gas guzzling cars.” In other words, many critics see many activists
talking a good game, but when push comes to shove, the activists themselves don’t even
practice the principles that they’re trying to force upon others. To illustrate this,
take, for example, the following clip from Earthling Ed’s channel. Ed is a vegan activist,
and he recently attended a climate change protest in London to encourage climate activists
to go vegan. He began by asking them how we can reduce our emissions.
“Name some ways that we can reduce emissions.” “Well… that’s for the government, you
know, we’re just here to protest. They figured it out, they’ve got the scientists.”
And after a bit of back a forth, the activists gave some great responses – such as cutting
subsidies for fossil fuels, – “Electric cars.” “Plastic!” “Yeah.”
“Recycling! Woo! Don’t litter!” […] “Shop from charity shops.” “Yeah.” “There
we go. Yeah” “Yeah, second hand clothing – what else?” “Turn the lights off.
[…] What about what we eat?” “Go vegan.” “Just kidding! I love meat. I could never,
I love food. Nah, I love the environment, but I don’t love the environment that much.”
Ed then went to explain, with more patience than a few civilisations, that if one wants
to reduce their carbon footprint, then a sure-fire way of doing so is to reduce one’s consumption
of animal products. But the activist’s response was as indifferent as many critics are to
forgoing fossil fuels. “You think the taste of something is worth
the destruction it causes?” “Yeah, I’ll be dead one day.” “So why are you here
with that logic then?” [...] “We’re on our way to Subway, actually.” “They
do a vegan sandwich at Subway.” “Yeah, but it’s not as good as the steak and cheese.”
“What about the environmental impact?” “Well, the Steak and cheese is already there,
so me not eating it isn’t going to stop them.” “But so is the plastic and the
shelves and the diesel in the cars.” Now it’s important to note, as Ed himself
did, that one doesn’t need to be vegan to care about the environment (that would be
a form of purity testing, or No-True-Scotsman). However, the attitude of these activists is
hypocritical – they couldn’t come across as more disingenuous if they wanted to.
“When you're in subway, try the vegan sandwich. You never know. You never know.” “I will
not do that, but thank you for the suggestion.” “Well the environment is crying over that
decision. See you later guys.” “If you ever meet the environment, tell him I’m
really sorry, but I love meat.” If the activists had admitted their hypocrisy,
but conveyed that doing something is better than doing nothing, then they could be taken
more seriously. But when they fervently campaign against polluting industries and practices
that they personally don’t use on a daily basis, but callously defend polluting industries
and practices that they personally do use on a daily basis, they come across as aggregating
hypocritical. Couple this with the fact that most of them
enjoy central heating, air conditioning, hot baths, the latest clothing accessories, a
new iPhone every year, Amazon Prime, and high-speed internet, and the hypocrisy becomes insufferable.
Why should someone forgo his gas-guzzling truck (something that’s he enjoys on a daily
basis), if these privileged teens won’t forgo a bit of meat (something that they enjoy
on a daily basis)? Now a reply to this, which I think is fair, is that “These teens don’t
represent the climate movement, and the fact that critics act as if they do is no more
than a strawman fallacy.” And in reply to this, some critics will say “Bro, the same
is true of their leaders, just to lesser extent – they’re hypocrites.” And then some
activists might reply, “Bro, even mum could beat up your dad!” and we go back to shittopia.
“You Stole my childhood!” And last but not least, let’s talk psychology.
The YouTube channel It’s Okay to be Smart, has an excellent video dedicated to this very
topic, titled Why People Don’t Believe in Climate Science” - and honestly, I could
just link to that and be done with this video, but I want to emphasis many of the same points
and add a few of my own. Al Gore famously titled his 2006 climate change
documentary An Inconvenient Truth, and in my opinion, it’s a perfect title. Climate
change is an inconvenient true because we are utterly unequipped to confront it. We
evolved on the planes of Africa, dealing with immediate, personal threats, and so we are
not hard-wired to deal with threats that we ourselves won’t endure. We are, in fact,
wired to dismiss these threats – we are wired for hyperbolic discounting.
As George Marshall, Daniel Kahneman, and many others have emphasised, in our desire of avoid
the anxiety that climate change generates, “We actively conspire with each other, and
mobilize our own biases to keep it perpetually in the background.”
Our optimism bias comforts us with the delusion that climate change won’t affect us or our
progeny, just others. Our tribalistic tendencies (our need for social acceptance) warn us not
to rock the boat and risk ostracisation. Our bias toward the status quo, and fear of change,
prevents us from innovation. And to protect our cherished ideologies, we so easily endorse
headlines that confirm our presuppositions, and demonise and conflate those you don’t.
Or as Joe Hanson puts it: “Climate change is almost the perfect problem.
We’ve gotta do something about it, but every one of its attributes goes against our psychology.
It’s like that black cloud from lost. It has no identity, no home, no single cause,
and no single solution. It’s about more than science. It involved economics, morals,
human rights, ideology, technology… it’s really hard.”
Anyhow, in conclusion, my dad would definitely beat up your dad! Childish humour aside, I
hope that whatever your views on climate change are, and the politics that surround it, you
walk away from this video with a bit more empathy for those who don’t share your views.
Now, don’t get me wrong, there’s are nutters on both sides… well, more on one side than
the other (and I’ll let your cognitive bias assume which I’m referring to), and yes,
these people are pretty much untouchable. They’re convinced, and that’s that. They’re
essentially variations of the bible-bashers who proudly state that “If the bible says
it’s so, it’s so.” But most people are not like that – and
in this day and age of echochambers and outrage, we are in desperate need of amicable discourse,
and without it, we may all be in trouble. With that, I’m Stephen Woodford, and as
always, thank you kindly for the view, and an extra special thank you to my wonderful
patrons and those of you who’ve supported the channel via other means.