Grist’s Nathanael Johnson has a good article up discussing the Anthropocene – a term that describes Earth influenced by mankind. I highly recommend reading it, then thinking through what Andy Revkin and Clive Hamilton discussed.
I for one disagree with Clive Hamilton’s language. Some examples:
I don’t accept this idea that we consumers in the West are irrevocably attached to cheap energy.
This from a person in Australia (dominant energy source: cheap coal) using 1st world technology to talk with Johnson and Revkin across the planet using Skype. Those technologies are also powered, by and large, by cheap energy. He continues with:
It’s easy for us in the US and Australia to forget that some countries in Europe have less than half — a third — of our emissions per person. And with strong public support, I’m thinking of Germany here, for policies that cut emissions. I think Western consumers can quite easily be weaned off high-polluting energy sources.
This ignores easily verified objective data that shows if the developing world used German-level energy, global energy consumption would triple or quadruple. The developing world, like the developed, will expand energy production as cheaply as possible – and that means fossil fuels. How will we meet stated climate goals with 3x more dirty energy? Moreover, the West has not weaned itself from high-polluting energy sources. If it was easy, we would have done it by now. If we want to achieve the deepest emissions cuts pathway modeled by the IPCC, we need one 1GW carbon-free energy plant to come online every day between now and 2050. That simply isn’t happening.
Or we can look at it with open eyes, and allow it to blast away all our utopian imaginings, and say, well, we are in really deep trouble, and it’s extremely unlikely that we are going to get out of it unscathed. So what do we do in that situation? And what does it mean for how we act? Does it mean we go for the muddle-through approach even though we know the consequences are likely to be catastrophic? Or do we fundamentally try to rethink and change strategies?
The “utopian imaginings” Hamilton refers to are solidly based in reality. They are projections that new technologies will allow people in the future access to low-polluting energy at prices lower than today. These technologies include renewables, carbon capture and sequestration, and things we can’t envision today because they haven’t been invented. That’s not utopian. By analogy, Hamilton would have said in the 1880s that mechanized transport will never exist and so stop imagining utopia. But I also have problems with his characterization that we “are in really deep trouble”. This is based on the concept of “civilization collapsing” and “catastrophe”. I have written at length against this language since I read social science peer-reviewed literature that using it immediately makes people shut down anything else you have to say. Thus, Hamilton and others continue to accomplish exactly the opposite of what they want.
Thankfully, Johnson immediately followed up with what Hamilton’s suggestion might look like. You know, suggest something practical and not purely philosophical. Hamilton’s response:
I don’t have an answer to that, Nate, except to say the first thing we must do is face up to the facts.
This is the fundamental problem for climate activists in my opinion. They don’t have practical suggestions for solutions. But they want everyone else in the same disaster-based landscape that the activists are in. Only after everyone is miserable and paralyzed can we talk about ways forward. This is not the solution. Or it’s not my solution, anyway. I just wrote a post about what happens when you present facts to people without the appropriate context. In that example, N.C. residents directly challenged “the facts”. And instead of long-term sea-level policy, N.C. now has short-term sea-level policy because a Commission did what Hamilton suggests without offering practical ways forward. There isn’t evidence that Hamilton can be persuaded on this, as he ends with this:
It’s a question of a bad or less bad Anthropocene.
Good luck getting people to react to that in ways that advance a clean energy future. Because history quite clearly tells us it won’t happen any time soon. Hamilton in this instance advocates for a distopia while disdaining others’ viewpoints because he thinks they are distopian. We should not replace one for the other.