In case missed, here's an essential essay from Mike Hulme of Cambridge University, along with my conversation with him on his (and my) concerns about "climatism."
Since before 2016 when Trump was first running, I've thought and feared that the climate activists, including The Guardian, NYT, and hundreds of others that Hulme does not mention, helped Trump win, both times, by demonizing as "climate deniers" or "enemies of humanity" many legitimate criticisms now offered by Hulme. I, too, criticized the exaggerated climate crisis narratives and the easy and all wonderful energy transition. Many hundreds of thousands of such critics were demonized. Calling us climate deniers and enemies of humanity created real hurt and real anger . I know. I was so demonized. I think it helped turn most of those hundreds of thousands, many who might otherwise have voted Democratic, into Trump supporters.
You’ve made an apt observation (sadly). Just think of all the energy that was wasted blocking roads to force Joe Biden to declare a climate emergency and push policies too hard - in ways that have now completely and utterly imploded. I’ve had to write too much about that, and my “climate hawk” friends chose to ignore it. Not saying life would be better if they’d been more open to a range of climate-action pathways but certaintly the push-too-hard strategy is a resounding fail. Here’s a relevant webcast and post: https://revkin.substack.com/p/the-election-is-a-pivotal-test-of?utm_source=publication-search
Political realism is such a dirty word that most people just wrinkle their nose. But it was always disturbingly naive to believe that Putin, Xi, Trump, MbS etc. would sit down and abandon their strategic priorities. A climate policy that is compatible with realism is different from idealistic governance dreams such as a unified carbon tax or the like. UN with IPCC can support the diagnosis, it can not offer a therapy. Santa‘s bag is empty no matter how loudly Greta yells. Realistically, the dreams that AI would come to the rescue also fall apart quickly. Geo-engineering is a stopgap. Fusion is the newest idol, but not really young either. And here we are, unwilling to face a wicked problem. We have been told so by Smil early, but pleasing voters with promised miracles was just too tempting. The problem will be solved, but the price may be harsh. At least not everyone will be out of a job.
A naive scientist thinks everybody listens to science and since yes scientists are right about climate change, the world will naturally listen and change, and now he realizes powerful interests don't really care if the world floods and fries. Boo-hoo-hoo. I mean, wake up dude.Also, he's rather blase on the suffering climate change will bring over the next few decades. Scientists need to read more history, economics and literature and get out of the lab, some of them. The big question is whether there will be an understandable tipping point and people will wake up and demand change.
What? With the outmost respect this article sounds to me like two people about to retire, deciding to give up and trying to justify that by attacking themselves and all those that fought with them. This is not realism this sounds like a combination of depression and giving-up-ism to me. We saw what happened. Greed won. Insecure humanities love of bling won. Sociopathic growth at all costs won. Overwhelming fear and weakness at embracing change won. But let’s not attack ourselves and millions of others for doing everything we could, we can, to stop the insanity of runaway climate change which we are already experiencing don’t you think? Or do you not think climate change is happening and is caused by humans? No one changed anything for the better anywhere by not combining realism with endless hope for a better future for everyone. Are you both depressed? What am I not getting? Again, with respect
You’re not getting that this framing is all about identifying effective pathways that cut climate risk and bolster trully sustainable development for all humans (including saving functional space for non-human life). To much of climate activism is actually, sadly, more paralytic because it sets impossible goals about CO2 and misses what can be done now to cut climate RISK on the ground. Pair this piece by Mike with this talk by me: https://revkin.substack.com/p/what-ive-learned-and-unlearned-in?utm_source=publication-search
I think many anti-climatists base their position on an assumption that there will be a happy outcome. The last 50 years has been pretty good after all. Kudos for Hulme to make no such assertion, especially if it turns out that Hansen is right about climate sensitivity.
Since before 2016 when Trump was first running, I've thought and feared that the climate activists, including The Guardian, NYT, and hundreds of others that Hulme does not mention, helped Trump win, both times, by demonizing as "climate deniers" or "enemies of humanity" many legitimate criticisms now offered by Hulme. I, too, criticized the exaggerated climate crisis narratives and the easy and all wonderful energy transition. Many hundreds of thousands of such critics were demonized. Calling us climate deniers and enemies of humanity created real hurt and real anger . I know. I was so demonized. I think it helped turn most of those hundreds of thousands, many who might otherwise have voted Democratic, into Trump supporters.
You’ve made an apt observation (sadly). Just think of all the energy that was wasted blocking roads to force Joe Biden to declare a climate emergency and push policies too hard - in ways that have now completely and utterly imploded. I’ve had to write too much about that, and my “climate hawk” friends chose to ignore it. Not saying life would be better if they’d been more open to a range of climate-action pathways but certaintly the push-too-hard strategy is a resounding fail. Here’s a relevant webcast and post: https://revkin.substack.com/p/the-election-is-a-pivotal-test-of?utm_source=publication-search
Political realism is such a dirty word that most people just wrinkle their nose. But it was always disturbingly naive to believe that Putin, Xi, Trump, MbS etc. would sit down and abandon their strategic priorities. A climate policy that is compatible with realism is different from idealistic governance dreams such as a unified carbon tax or the like. UN with IPCC can support the diagnosis, it can not offer a therapy. Santa‘s bag is empty no matter how loudly Greta yells. Realistically, the dreams that AI would come to the rescue also fall apart quickly. Geo-engineering is a stopgap. Fusion is the newest idol, but not really young either. And here we are, unwilling to face a wicked problem. We have been told so by Smil early, but pleasing voters with promised miracles was just too tempting. The problem will be solved, but the price may be harsh. At least not everyone will be out of a job.
A naive scientist thinks everybody listens to science and since yes scientists are right about climate change, the world will naturally listen and change, and now he realizes powerful interests don't really care if the world floods and fries. Boo-hoo-hoo. I mean, wake up dude.Also, he's rather blase on the suffering climate change will bring over the next few decades. Scientists need to read more history, economics and literature and get out of the lab, some of them. The big question is whether there will be an understandable tipping point and people will wake up and demand change.
What? With the outmost respect this article sounds to me like two people about to retire, deciding to give up and trying to justify that by attacking themselves and all those that fought with them. This is not realism this sounds like a combination of depression and giving-up-ism to me. We saw what happened. Greed won. Insecure humanities love of bling won. Sociopathic growth at all costs won. Overwhelming fear and weakness at embracing change won. But let’s not attack ourselves and millions of others for doing everything we could, we can, to stop the insanity of runaway climate change which we are already experiencing don’t you think? Or do you not think climate change is happening and is caused by humans? No one changed anything for the better anywhere by not combining realism with endless hope for a better future for everyone. Are you both depressed? What am I not getting? Again, with respect
You’re not getting that this framing is all about identifying effective pathways that cut climate risk and bolster trully sustainable development for all humans (including saving functional space for non-human life). To much of climate activism is actually, sadly, more paralytic because it sets impossible goals about CO2 and misses what can be done now to cut climate RISK on the ground. Pair this piece by Mike with this talk by me: https://revkin.substack.com/p/what-ive-learned-and-unlearned-in?utm_source=publication-search
I think many anti-climatists base their position on an assumption that there will be a happy outcome. The last 50 years has been pretty good after all. Kudos for Hulme to make no such assertion, especially if it turns out that Hansen is right about climate sensitivity.
I'm planning more with Jim H and others on his recent research. Thanks for this reflection.