Positive Double Prime

Anyone who thinks we can "solve" the climate emergency is deluded. Not that any kind of accomplishment isn't worthwhile, but at this point it only seems realistic to hope things might get worse less quickly.  And improved scientific understanding tells us even that requires massive social change. Jonathan Franzen offers his thoughts on what that change would look like.

The first condition is that every one of the world’s major polluting countries institute draconian conservation measures, shut down much of its energy and transportation infrastructure, and completely retool its economy.

The actions taken by these countries must also be the right ones. Vast sums of government money must be spent without wasting it and without lining the wrong pockets.

Finally, overwhelming numbers of human beings, including millions of government-hating Americans, need to accept high taxes and severe curtailment of their familiar life styles without revolting.

Few people are willing admit that's not much upon which to hang any sort of "hope". And so Franzen wonders "what might happen if, instead of denying reality, we told ourselves the truth". His article immediately attracted critics, but I don't think his argument is reckless.

First of all, even if we can no longer hope to be saved from two degrees of warming, there’s still a strong practical and ethical case for reducing carbon emissions.

In fact, it would be worth pursuing even if it had no effect at all. To fail to conserve a finite resource when conservation measures are available, to needlessly add carbon to the atmosphere when we know very well what carbon is doing to it, is simply wrong.

More than that, a false hope of salvation can be actively harmful. ... [I]f you accept the reality that the planet will soon overheat to the point of threatening civilization, there’s a whole lot more you should be doing.

Does it sound like admitting defeat? Is he really calling "the fight against climate change useless"?

If your hope for the future depends on a wildly optimistic scenario, what will you do ten years from now, when the scenario becomes unworkable even in theory? Give up on the planet entirely? To borrow from the advice of financial planners, I might suggest a more balanced portfolio of hopes.

Any good thing you do now is arguably a hedge against the hotter future, but the really meaningful thing is that it’s good today.

There may come a time, sooner than any of us likes to think, when the systems of industrial agriculture and global trade break down and homeless people outnumber people with homes. At that point, traditional local farming and strong communities will no longer just be liberal buzzwords. Kindness to neighbors and respect for the land—nurturing healthy soil, wisely managing water, caring for pollinators—will be essential in a crisis and in whatever society survives it.

I'm guessing there's a lot of people who would like to be able to "solve" the problem and not really change anything else. I assume I'm part of the global one percent and I don't know what sacrifices might be in store. Poor choices now might prolong my comfortable life style for a while, only to come crashing down later.

Update (September 13):  Kate Marvel promises we are not doomed as she tells Franzen to "shut up". But she gives an odd defense for hope:

The risk of something terrible increases with the concentration of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.

But it is precisely the fact that we understand the potential driver of doom that changes it from a foregone conclusion to a choice, a terrible outcome in the universe of all possible futures. I run models through my brain; I check them with the calculations I do on a computer. This is not optimism, or even hope. Even in the best of all possible worlds, I cannot offer the certainty of safety. Doom is a possibility; it may that we have already awakened a sleeping monster that will in the end devour the world. It may be that the very fact of human nature, whatever that is, forecloses any possibility of concerted action.

But I am a scientist, which means I believe in miracles.

Faith is comforting, but not much of a basis for hope. Guy McPherson thinks Franzen actually hedges too much and attacks Marvel for using essentially fascist tactics. I think a full discussion is important to make the best decisions, but it is troubling that McPherson really does advocate doing nothing -- he argues that cutting emissions will increase warming due to the reversal of "global dimming". But the magnitude is disputed which makes choices even harder. If advocates of a Green New Deal are portrayed as the bad guys (as calling for something not just futile but actively harmful), that only seems to bolster the climate deniers.

Update (September 16):  Carl Safina defends Franzen.

This is thoughtful stuff, not deserving of a shrieking, “Shut up.” His information is correct, his reasoning is logical, his conclusions thoughtful, his tone caring, his call to action on all fronts could correctly be viewed as energizing.

Franzen offered food for thought. Me, I need all the nourishment I can get, even if it comes seasoned with a pinch of reality.

Update (September 17):  Robert Jensen would seem to be on Franzen's side with the point of view he takes in a review of Naomi Klein's book On Fire: she's too inspirational.

At the conclusion of these 18 essays that bluntly outline the crises and explain a Green New Deal response, Klein bolsters readers searching for hope: "[W]hen the future of life is at stake, there is nothing we cannot achieve." It is tempting to embrace that claim, especially after nearly 300 pages of Klein’s eloquent writing that weaves insightful analysis together with honest personal reflection.

The problem, of course, is that the statement is not even close to being true.

Jensen says the truth is that we're going to have to accept our limits.

Our challenge is to highlight not only what we can but also what we cannot accomplish, to build our moral capacity to face a frightening future but continue to fight for what can be achieved, even when we know that won’t be enough.

At the same time, both authors acknowledge what Jensen's friend called a "state of profound grief". It's Jensen's reason for not relying on hope.

At best, we struggle to come to terms with a “bleak and austere” future.

But that’s exactly why we need to engage rather than avoid the distressing realities of our time. If we are afraid to speak honestly, we suffer alone. Better that we tell the truth and accept the consequences, together.

This appeal to reality comes as an article in Nature summarizes a "tough Arctic summer" and as new climate models suggest warming as been faster than previously understood.

Earth’s average temperature could rise a "terrifying" 6.5 - 7.0°C above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century if dramatic action is not immediately taken to slash carbon emissions.

Update (October 22):  It does seem that "staying positive" is not quite the same as "having hope". Hoping for a solution that is no longer possible doesn't seem as helpful as taking the best positive action available. Bringing a community together for a common purpose is still worthwhile even as our material lives deteriorate.