Jesus pledged that he would never allow another mega-global disaster after the Great Flood to harm his loyal devotees, or so many evangelicals interpret the Bible. It’s a natural phenomenon, and it will cycle back to the way it once was, say others. It’s greatly exaggerated if you listen to most red state governors. Unless everyone on earth is on board, which will never happen, our implementing climate-friendly rules and technologies won’t make a difference. Technology will solve the problem, so don’t worry.
Most scientific experts believed that if they provided the public with enough substantiated evidence of the pending and actual damage from the greenhouse effect of burning fossil fuels, the public would demand that their governments take action. With wildfires, hurricanes, floods, coastal erosion, searing temperatures and disappearing arable land, you would think these realities would make their point even stronger. Obviously not.
As world leaders met in Dubai in late November at the United Nations conference on climate change (COP28), it seemed strange that this was hosted by a nation that made/makes its fortune based on regional oil extraction. No one is expecting the leaders to implement what they promise anyway. Despite the massive evidence of escalating disasters, the world and its leaders are hopelessly behind in implementing the levels of pledged actions, and climate issues have been eclipsed by our elections, wars in Ukraine and the Middle East and the cost of living. The problem is that the problem is so huge that people just cannot cope with that reality.
Well, Canadian climate researchers from Victoria University, Celeste Young, collaborative research fellow, sustainable industries and livable cities (ISILC), and Roger Jones, professorial research fellow, began examining this global phenomenon of marginalization and denial when people should or even know better. This recalcitrance to accept reality, they discovered, was the desire that most people feel when confronted by such issues – the disconnect evidenced in their chart reproduced above – versus the reality of what is happening and what must be done. As they reported in the November 26th FastCompany.com (reproduced from the Conversation):
“For many people, [the enormity of the problem] triggered cognitive dissonance, where they knew climate change was happening but acted like it wasn’t. After all, many people still smoke, even though they know it is bad for their health. And many of us still fly to Italy—even though we know how many extra tonnes of carbon dioxide we put into the atmosphere… [This marginalization exists] because of public and private narratives we have grown up with. Our expectations of life are geared toward wanting comfort and stability.
“This means not everyone has developed the ways of thinking needed to deal with the impacts (such as natural hazards) we are now facing. Sudden changes caused by these—such as the loss of a home—are almost invariably shocking and can create a sense of disbelief. How could this be? When do we get back to normal? Surely it won’t happen again?... Our research on systemic risks such as climate change adaptation suggests this disconnect is common. Because we expect and hope for stable normality, we find it hard to truly believe the changes we are seeing will continue.
“There’s also a divide between who benefits and who pays. Your family trip to Iceland pays off for you in shared memories and good times. The damage in terms of emissions is spread across the globe. Often the damage done has less impact on the people who have done most to cause it, compounding inequality and eroding the ability of those most at risk to respond.
“Adapting to the climate and working to reduce further heating can be an uncomfortable and at times painful process where we have to embrace and acknowledge our grief for the changing world. We’re often taught to avoid potentially dangerous or painful things—especially if they are unfamiliar. But now, doing what we’ve always done is not safe.
“Then there are the limitations of individual action. No matter how committed you are to cutting your own climate impact, it makes very little difference if others aren’t doing the same… Action needs to be collaborative and sustained over the longer term, favoring public good over individual vested interests and short-term gains. The politicization of action in Australia’s climate wars has polarized opinion and eroded trust in the research. It has also left some people feeling that their actions are too small to matter.
“All of this means we can find it surprisingly easy to detach our own daily actions—driving to work, holidays, watching Netflix—from the broader goals of getting emissions down to zero as soon as possible… Many of us understand the risks of climate change full well, but we do not accept the responsibility. That, in turn, means we may feel okay not to act. Or we may understand and accept the risk, but not have the resources or ability to act.
“We know that presenting climate change as a problem without a solution or using fear tactics disengages and demotivates us. It can also feed anxiety, which undermines action… So, the first step to overcoming climate inaction is to identify where you can act directly, such as switching your second car to an e-bike, investing in solar panels, working on local re-vegetation projects, or making climate-friendly consumer choices… Where you have influence, apply this through voting, education, or advocacy. Humble actions matter because they accumulate to create change.”
You can watch this denial as people rebuild their destroyed homes, the victims of climate change devastation, or chant the “once in a hundred years” anthem that clearly is no longer valid. You watch red state voters, those actually slammed with life changing climate change devastation (hurricane and tornados), reelect state and national representatives who pledge to repeal climate change containment legislation, promise to “save jobs” by extracting more oil and gas (even though there are more jobs in alternative energy), and support energy independence (which has no impact on price), because we cannot justify big government anymore. Ah, we can justify cutting taxes for the rich but not one penny to save our planet, our homes and the quality of our lives?
I’m Peter Dekom, and I am heartened that at least the rising generations, the ones who would suffer the most, are sounding the alarm on climate change and demanding that we fight back.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment