Are we all climate deniers?

by Clive Hamilton 16. April 2010 05:26

In his first blog post for Earthscan, Clive Hamilton introduces his new book Requiem for a Species: Why We Resist the Truth About Climate Change, published by Earthscan on April 16th 2010.

Read this extract on the roots of denialism, published on the Guardian books website today, and visit www.earthscan.co.uk/requiem for more author articles, videos and reviews, including a free download of the Preface.

 

It’s easy to jeer at the climate deniers for their obtuseness and fantastic theories.

But aren’t we all, by one means or another, denying the reality of a warming world?

Even a very optimistic set of assumptions about when global emissions will reach a peak and the rate at which they will then decline will see the world warm by around 4°C by the 2070s. That will make the Earth hotter than at any time for the last 15 million years. And of course the temperature will not stabilise at that level because feedback effects will have taken control of the Earth’s climate out of our hands.

The conditions of life on Earth will be wholly transformed, ecosystems will be remade, and humans will be retreating to the poles, with those already occupying the higher latitudes resisting the influx. All this will occur within the life-times of children born today.

Yet almost everyone, even those very concerned about warming, is going about daily life as though the future will be a gradually improving version of the present.

In Requiem for a Species I describe the “maladaptive coping strategies” we all use to avoid facing up to the facts of climate change or to blunt the emotional force of what the scientists are telling us. We reinterpret the threat, engage in pleasure-seeking, shift blame and cling to unfounded hopes.

One of the more pervasive forms of avoidance is the belief that engaging in individual actions, like changing one’s light-bulbs, is an effective response. Some green groups base their strategy explicitly on this delusion—“Ten things you can do to save the planet”—unaware that they are reinforcing the individualistic thinking and political passivity that consumerism has so diligently cultivated.

The transformation of citizens into consumers is a strategy beloved of the big polluters and reluctant governments, as it shifts responsibility from their shoulders onto those of “all of us”.

But we cannot consume our way out of the climate crisis; only mass political action has any chance of forcing governments to legislate for fast and deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. Yet here we come up against a democratic system corrupted by professionalisation, careerism, spin and money politics.

It is a system that must be recaptured, cleaned out and reinvigorated. At the best of times, system changes like that take many years, years the climate scientists say we do not have. So we need a circuit breaker. In Requiem I argue that civil disobedience is necessary and justified. Will it work? Who knows.

Clive Hamilton will respond to questions and comments posted on this blog, either individually in the comments section or in new blog posts.

 

 

Tags: , ,

Climate Change | Comment / Opinion

Comments

4/14/2010 3:18:48 AM #

In France the way is going the same, some "specialists" often deny the warming of the climate. It is a great debate and the ecologist party has to fight against these thoughts. It recently conducted the french governement to stop its projects of a new carbon tax. This is a shame because the climate is really in danger and we should right now change our habbits to protect the environment.

Fff Afghanistan

4/14/2010 5:19:38 AM #

Not the climate is in danger (I am sure it doesn't care, really). It's human beings that will have to adapt. What is really annoying, though, are those companies that simply don't care and keep lobbying our (widely ignored) puppet politicians with unsustainable proposals. But that's not necessarily a new phenomenon, I suppose ...

Florian United Kingdom

4/15/2010 11:21:19 AM #

a-sceptical-mind.com/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-hockey-stick
a-sceptical-mind.com/the-hockey-stick-vs-the-ice-cores-2

Please comment on the two postings listed above. This is the kind of information that must be dealt with effectively and not with ad hominem attacks and warm fuzzy thoughts about the climate. It seems to me that there is a significant problem with ignoring such clear, statistical analysis of the received wisdom.
Tom Burns

Thomas Burns United States

4/16/2010 10:38:34 AM #

I'm agree with Florian, but I think that it is more the work of the government, the citizens will follow.

guitare Afghanistan

4/19/2010 2:11:27 AM #

One of the more pervasive forms of avoidance is the belief that engaging in individual actions, like changing one’s light-bulbs, is an effective response. Some green groups base their strategy explicitly on this delusion—“Ten things you can do to save the planet”—unaware that they are reinforcing the individualistic thinking and political passivity that consumerism has so diligently cultivated.

This statement is over-simplified, assuming a necessary division in people's attitudes between either individualistic action, or being part of a collective social consciousness.

Change has to begin from within, looking inwards to change personal beliefs and behaviour - so invidual actions like changing lightbulbs is an important step in re-programming one's personal understanding and acceptance of the need to do something. The next step is to look outwards and start to thinking on a larger scale.

When addressing the issue of climate change, everyone should take into account both individual and social responsibility - the two things are inextricably linked, and equally important. I think it's important not to discredit one way of doing things in favour of another. There's already so much confusion and doubt at the moment concerning the fight against climate change, we really don't need to make things worse by appearing to be divided amongst ourselves...

AJ Spain

4/23/2010 10:04:38 AM #


You are convincing and no doubt right in your arguements... But, but,but you totally fail as a someone who instigates direct action  because you ask people to buy a book. A hardback book at that!  Civil disobediance does not stem from the covers of a hardback, or even a paperback. It might possibly from a pamphlet, fluttered down from the parapet.  Unfortunately, no one will take to the streets over climate change until they are actually hungry and that is the way of it. World food shortages are probably much, much nearer than we think.

jane schaffer United Kingdom

4/23/2010 2:47:43 PM #

AJ. Thanks for your comment. If changing individual behaviour does indeed lead people to become more politically engaged then promoting "ten things you can do" is helpful. It may be so, but I cannot find any evidence that it does so. I think it is more likely that those who do change their light-bulbs etc view it as discharging their responsibilities and giving them permsission to switch off. It's more likely that those already politically engaged feel obliged to change their light-bulbs, but so as to reduce the feeling that they are part of the problem rather than to convince themselves that individual action will solve the problem.  Clive H.

Clive Australia

4/27/2010 2:42:23 AM #

I definitely agree with Clive on this. Have you read this article on Treehugger?

www.treehugger.com/.../...g-leading-by-example.php

"All the organic tofu in the world will not make the slightest bit of difference if we continue to live in a world where the US can pull the plug on climate talks a month before they start."

Eco-preaching gets us nowhere!

Serina Wilkey United Kingdom

5/4/2010 3:35:32 AM #

I totally agree with Clive's point on consumerism. I am currently writing a PhD in political theory entitled 'The Limits to Change', in which I am basically making the same point and try to support it not only with evidence, but with an analytical framework.
My argument is that 'choice', the mode of agency of the marketplace, is inefficient in bringing about change. It does not eliminate the options not chosen, but keeps them in the game (unless a huge majority would choose not to choose them). What is required for effective change are 'decisions', a quite tough mode of agency, because it eliminates the options we do not select in a path-dependent way. Collective decisions can be made only by governments or electorates. Unfortunately, as I argue in my PhD thesis, liberal democracies are structurally ill-equipped to make decisions - they normally try to have 'change' made by 'choice' (market) or 'solutions' (techno-administrative sphere). What is needed, however, is a form of change that inflicts ruptures to our modes of production, consumption and distribution without destabilising the political framework. This, precisely is what liberal (capitalist) democracies are simply unable to provide. Hence (as I would not phrase it in my Phd thesis), we seem to be screwed unless we quickly develop new democratic institutions to break that deadlock of agency.

Daniel Hausknost United Kingdom

5/4/2010 3:30:57 PM #

Clive Hamilton's suggestion that civil disobedience will be required to prompt the change required in the political awareness is obviously true, at least in Australia.

So the next question is, how can like minded people get themselves organised to accomplish that goal. How can we harness the Internet to raise awareness of the "urgency of now"? This is what forums like this can be used for, not just chit chatting about everyones opinion.

I suggest we brainstorm on how we can leverage experience from other public awareness campaigns, public education campaigns, public protest campaigns, civil disobedience campaigns etc.

I will make a start. It seems resonable to me to withhold a proportion of individual tax payment in order to fund my families "Climate Change Mitigation Fund". What proportion it should be, and how to implement it, are concrete things we could accomplish here by harnessing the knowledge of fellow readers.

What say you?

Rob Thompson Australia

5/4/2010 5:34:51 PM #

Clive, just finished Requiem and I've been thinking for some time about the viability of civil disobedience as the most effective way to force change. I think we can harness the power of the Internet by mobilizing lots of folk who are totally frustrated at the current impasse, and that may agree with this strategy.
I would propose that we use the combined experience, the hive-mind of the Internet, to build a consensus on what effective civil disobedience may consist of. In other words, let's start the brainstorming.

I believe combined with a grass roots movement, (think of the Tea Party movement, but with a rational cause)that focuses on public education and awareness, we could have an impact. I would give as examples the combined efforts of people that participated ( and still do) in blogs like Fluwiki to raise awareness of, and  preparedness for,influenza pandemic in 2005 with the emergence of the H5N1 virus etc. It became quite influential in providing thought leadership, all starting with a simple blog that rolled up the shirtsleeves and got things happening.

What say you all?

Rob Thompson Australia

5/6/2010 7:15:52 PM #

I have spent a number of years working in environmental education, community behaviour change, social marketing campaigns, etc.  The campaigns that were more participatory, with greater 1-to-1 interaction with people gave me insight into some interesting viewpoints.

I am generalising, but a definite theme that came through was that 'people do want to do the right thing, BUT they don't want to have to think about it'.  I know i was dealing with a fairly self-selected group who had decided to take part in the programmes, but not all were already converted.

I found this across the board for issues around waste, transport, energy use, water, consumerism; bascially everything.

Participants told me that they like choice, but are happy for the govt to legislate to ensure that products are designed to be sustainable.  E.g. all plastics have to be made to be easily recycled; all electrical goods have to be energy efficient; farming systems have to reduce chemical inputs and farm to conserve soil; fisheries have to be properly managed; car manufacturers can only produce efficient vehicles; and so on.

People's lives are busy, too busy.  This is part of the problem. Getting kids to school, getting to work, paying mortgage, trying to see family, doing the shopping, finding some time to relax; other things like being mindful of the envirionment all the time tend to drift away.  

If the only choices on offer were eco-friendly ones, it would all be much easier.  People don't really want to buy factory farmed, industrial food, but without a constant reminder that this is what they are buying and subsidies to the industrial farming system going, it is easy to just take what is on offer and is affordable.

It is too easy to do the wrong thing concerning the envirionment, and not easy enough to do the right thing.  People would ride more bikes, but safe and convenient cycle paths are not built.  People would take their own bags with them but plastic bags aren't legislated against.  People would only use eco-friendly washing powder if legislation ensured that this was only what was available.

But companies complain & can lobby harder than an electorate that is mainly just trying to get by and have an easy life without too much hassle. I suppose this is what clive is getting at with his book: we don't really want to see ecosystems fail & masses of environmental refugees but right now its too far away and doing the right thing isn't being made easy enough.

Unfortunately it does come down to governments to make legislate on peoples behalf, and it comes down to individuals to tell governments as much as possible what they want.  Its just that we can't really be bothered to do it.  

And any politician that says that there is not enough money in the world to fix the environment is full of shit.  $800 billion is spent on weapons every year.  It is a political decision to spend that much money on stuff that kills people.  It is a political decision not to use that money to fix the environment & eradicate poverty.

alextacy Indonesia

5/26/2010 12:43:25 PM #

Hi Clive:

AN interesting thought excerpt from your book, I would expect...
Have not read it and probably won't... just don't have the time for "whole books thing" as such..
I agree basically with all that you state and in my opinion anyone with reasonable intelligence and a few ounces of objectivity can come to the correct conclusions about climate change, its broad stroke causes and the most likely outcomes... So, where does that leave us...???...
Well, our behavior observed is really most simple... all behavior when not in a group is as an individual... I don't mean that to be trite... If I act as an individual and replace "my world" with CF's, programmable thermostats, extra attic insulation, Solar thermal heat, 5 more PSI in my tires, etc., etc. I know the outcome is certain, positive in nature and will not, by itself invoke climate change. However if 300 million of me do the same, the outcome MAY be different.
As a reciprocal, I also know that if I am, to quote you in meaning, "civilly disobedient", I will probably end up in jail, have my entire life turned upside down and my family destroyed, etc., etc. and I also will not invoke climate change, by myself... Direct actions of the individual are guaranteed... Direct actions of the individual in a group are not...
To act in a manor to invoke immediately a high probability personal disaster, based on the possibility of a long term probable but maybe litigable outcome, is foolish and goes against basic survival instincts. A long term outcome is unavoidable as determined by existence, but is irrelevant if the short term is not survived.....
Our problem is, I believe, that a world based on currency is not sustainable. If true, our course was set in motion thousands of years ago...
We will end up dealing with the situation reactively, as we do most things, based on the corridors we built for ourselves.. if I had a solution to man's genetic predispositions that the currency model attempted to marginalize, I would offer it up freely (no pun premeditated).
Thank you for the exercise in thought… always enjoyable to me…

…..Bill

William H Fitch III United States

5/27/2010 12:11:38 AM #

Anyone who seriously believes in man made climate change is a deluded fool. Clive and Co., stop wasting our miserable lives on a pseudo-science that has more holes than a Swiss cheese Smile))

Climatecon Australia

5/27/2010 8:34:56 PM #

Is this an example of the "collective sub-conscious" at work.  NVDA seems to be cropping up everywhere...

www.theecologist.org/.../...change_and_energy.html

If that breaks up, try Ecologist, then How to campaign : climate change and energy

The bloggers seem not to know much about NVDA : it doesn't always need big crowds : it can be very very powerful where just two or three likeminded people are focussed on getting things done.

I'm sad not to see any reference to our globalised freemarket capitalist economy : surely that's what's driving climate change.  Read for instance the short statement below and then start working out how we can all climb out of this abyss.

Dennis Kucinich told the US Senate: “Here is a very quick explanation of the $700 billion bailout within the context of the mechanics of our monetary and banking system:
  
The taxpayers loan money to the banks. But the taxpayers do not have the money. So we have to borrow it from the banks to give it back to the banks. But the banks do not have the money to loan to the government. So they create it into existence (through a mechanism called fractional reserve) and then loan it to us, at interest, so we can then give it back to them.
  
Confused?
  
This is the system. This is the standard mechanism used to expand the money supply on a daily basis, not a special one designed only for the "$700 billion" transaction. People will explain this to you in many different ways, but this is what it comes down to.”

So the system ensures that the bankers win every time.  And the Governments think the answer is to get consumers consuming again to grow GNP : but that's what's killing off the biosphere.

Oh dear!

Janet Alty United Kingdom

6/5/2010 1:30:21 AM #

US belief in climate science lowest since polling began 13 years ago:
www.guardian.co.uk/.../americans-climate-change-threat

It’s easy to jeer at the climate deniers for their obtuseness and fantastic theories.

If climate deniers theories are so obtuse and fantastic how come their winning the argument?

Kirby United States

6/6/2010 1:28:50 AM #

Its not that climate deniers are winning anything... it is simply that the economy and people being out of work has taken their attention. Understanding the basic and advanced concepts of "self reporting", that is, people explaining or answering questions about themselves or their beliefs, is not black and white when it comes to looking at "the data". Generally speaking, when the level of concern rises on an issue, the accuracy of the info. "shakeout" improves. But as people become more focused on "AN ISSUE", other issues take a back seat.... and usually a persons opinion about "something" that is really not of a big interest to them, or it was, but now is off their radar a bit, is apt to turn negative if the topic is still in dispute... its like flipping a coin that is just a tiny bit heavier on the heads side. You will still have tails come up, but over many flips, heads will predominate more than it should. It is fairly easy to create a poll or survey and implement it. Correctly bringing understanding to the data to extract real and correct information, is a different matter....

.....Bill

William H Fitch III United States

6/6/2010 2:31:29 PM #

Clive, what advice do you have for people such as myself, who have read everything they can get their hands on about climate change, and are now paralysed with overwhelming despair? I try to do as much as I can within the limits of family finances (we could afford a water tank but not solar panels) but when politicians seem to be bent on emphasising the importance of economic growth over preventing catastrophic climate change, I don't feel that there is much hope.

Manda Australia

Add comment




  Country flag

Click to change captcha
biuquote
  • Comment
  • Preview
Loading