As Nick Kristoff of the NYTimes wrote many years ago, “the media likes to cover planes that crash, not planes that soar!” This focus on the negativity leads to hopelessness, which leads to inaction. We need to talk about this with our friends, family, colleagues etc.... Remind people that the legacy media makes money by focusing on the negative and that this negative focus is not balanced with what’s really happening.
There is really a tremendous amount of good news. Zion, you pointed out a few great examples. There are many environmental success stories from the ozone hole getting smaller to amazing recovery of rivers and other bodies of water getting cleaned up and wildlife returning (Mother Nature is VERY RESILIENT!!!). So many people working together to make the planet better isn’t headline news.
Many times people don’t want to spend a little time doing research (I’m guilty of this sometimes 😀). Dig deeper, reading opposing viewpoints outside of our echo chambers is important.
Let’s have examples of these success stories handy to share with everyone. Remind them that they can make a big difference in this world. This narrative can be flipped. It will be hard but it starts with one conversation at a time. I have a close friend whose daughter is REALLY depressed and hopeless. What I am going to do after typing this loooong comment is send this article to my friend to give to his daughter. I’m not sure it will help but it is a start. Then next time I see her I’ll discuss this article, see what she thinks. I’m interested to see how much it helps. I’m optimistic it will!
Thank you for reading my comment. I’m looking forward to reading your comments and learning something from you that I can use when I wake up tomorrow - and see the beautiful sunrise that isn’t going ANYWHERE!
I am not part of extinction rebellion because I agree that their methods are counter effective and as someone who studied nuclear energy engineering I don't like how they are dogmaticly anti-nuclear.
I do at times find it hard to stay optimistic. Not because I fear a collapse coming in the coming years but because I can see the effects of climate change and am bothered by the lack of government action (or even moving backwards such as Germany is doing).
I agree with you utterly. Perhaps you can share some conversations you have had when discussing the various aspects of climate change, green energy vs the benefits of oil and gas as an energy source, etc. with someone hell bent on doomsday scenarios. Thanks for the article.
Get them interested in outdoor sports. Let them see that the same places are there under similar conditions each year. Scuba diving, hiking, snow skiing, fishing, camping, hunting. Let them see the are part of that ecosystem, how it works, what threatens it, what helps it. Teach them the history of environmental messes in America like Love Canal, Times Beach, Missouri, and the Cuyahoga river (actually) on fire. Then how we started to get wealthier and care, passed laws to put an end to that type of thing. The further laws (Clean Air Act. or CAA; Clean Water Act, or CWA).
Today, while a long way from perfect. we are not creating any new Love Canals or Times Beaches.
Whatever approach, teach them that panic is the worst thing to do.
Fear mongering has a price, and many young people are receptive to it. Being a parent changes you.
It's also nice to see someone with your background/history come around to see that nuclear has to play a role in decarbonization and electrification.
We can have balance between increasing human prosperity and reduced environmental impact.
The environmental Kuznets curve is a very real phenomenon, but it requires increasing prosperity to a level (per capita GDP) that society will choose to spend wealth to reduce environmental impact once its needs are met and the wolf isn't at the door.
Although the situation is not as extreme as the most doomist sayings are it is super dangerous to not worry immensely. Potentially billions of people will die from the climate crisis and even more will be displaced. We shouldn't have to have a total apocalypse before we start to care. Also the media and politicians are not reflecting the situation as given by sciences in the level of seriousness and crisis attitude it deserves. They do need to "tell the truth". We are in an extremely dangerous situation. We are in the middle of a mass extinction. We need to stop the denial and cognitive dissonance about this. A lot of developments are going the right way, but they are nowhere near stopping the catastrophe. We need to stop "doomerism" with facts and hope. But the facts are not pretty and the hope is too slim. Activism is justified until we are on a path that can guarantee a livable future. And yes a future with lack of food, water and 3 billion climate refugees is not livable even though it is not "total" apocalypse.
People need to understand the publication to headline pathway that accelerates from gloom to doom from the beginning
Off the starting line, what studies often do is take a high emissions pathway to measure their modeled effect. This way they can get a clear result and improve their chances of a newsworthy headline. This is known as RPC 8.5, an emissions projection where nothing is done whatsoever and coal triples by 2100
Then the media pick up on the catchiest headline among the results, taking the extreme outlier from a case based on the extreme outlier
The perfect example of this was the study that got the headline "187 million people flooded yearly by 2100". In the actual paper this number wasn't even among the range of possibilities. They just said, "If everyone stops building dikes and the maximum sea rise occurs, then 187 million would be in flooded areas." In their actual range of possibilities it went as low as 5000 people being flooded in 2100 as societies invest in flood protection. This would cost .04% of GDP and people would be safer from floods than today
The impressive thing is that RPC 8.5 is becoming considered to be outside the range of reasonable possibilities as temperature rise continues to be on the lower side of projections. What really puts the icing on the cake is that a very inexpensive backup insolation reduction technique is available in marine cloud brightening. This is already accidentally in effect from cargo ship emissions that make clouds more reflective and reduce global temps by .25°
It's not just that the worst case is purely a result of bad information ecosystems but that if the worst started happening it would be as simple as building a fleet of ships to spray sea salt into clouds, allowing time to get everything else buttoned down
That is not reliable, and incorrect. Scientist are definitely raising the highest alarms. You may know Scientist Rebellion? Also projections of heating and extreme weather are below what we observe not above. Also the most extreme scenarios are not being conveyed. What you are spreading is just cherry picked bad science understanding. Climate change is in irreversible in our time and tipping points are coming very close. What do you expect to achieve here? Why don't you cite some sources?
This article from top climate scientists are already projecting 10C degrees warming. That is apocalyptic levels. I would rather have some doomerism if that actually leads to some action. Also using chemicals to "cool down" is a massively terrible idea. We should stop trying to think the climate can be easily fixed.
If you consider the IPCC to be cherry picked we have little basis for conversation!
The concept of marine cloud brightening is that sea salt is shot into the air. It is true that this is a "chemical" but if we are experiencing irreversible climate change with tipping points very close, without any doubt, I unreservedly propose that we do it. There is no world in which we are facing a catastrophe where marine cloud brightening is off the table
The problem with doom is that it promotes ineffective policies. There is a time horizon dynamic with climate policy where we can choose short term more costly and less effective emissions reductions or shift emphasis to medium term enabling technologies that will cut emissions by more over the century. Both Bill Gates who has a doom outlook, and Bjorn Lomborg who has a rosy outlook promote a massive increase in investment into green technology reaching $100 billion per year. The reason is fairly simple - the majority of emissions now come from developing countries who are at this time building a lot of coal. Wealthy countries can spend $6000 per electric car in subsidies and accomplish a small amount of near term emission reduction or they can spend it on developing technology that can displace new coal buildouts and start to make a huge difference in 10 to 20 years. Advanced nuclear is a great candidate. Current nuclear is a great candidate. I think the shipbuilding concept of producing shippable SMRs at shipyards is high on the list of potential game changers
Hello Friends!
Great article Zion!
As Nick Kristoff of the NYTimes wrote many years ago, “the media likes to cover planes that crash, not planes that soar!” This focus on the negativity leads to hopelessness, which leads to inaction. We need to talk about this with our friends, family, colleagues etc.... Remind people that the legacy media makes money by focusing on the negative and that this negative focus is not balanced with what’s really happening.
There is really a tremendous amount of good news. Zion, you pointed out a few great examples. There are many environmental success stories from the ozone hole getting smaller to amazing recovery of rivers and other bodies of water getting cleaned up and wildlife returning (Mother Nature is VERY RESILIENT!!!). So many people working together to make the planet better isn’t headline news.
Many times people don’t want to spend a little time doing research (I’m guilty of this sometimes 😀). Dig deeper, reading opposing viewpoints outside of our echo chambers is important.
Let’s have examples of these success stories handy to share with everyone. Remind them that they can make a big difference in this world. This narrative can be flipped. It will be hard but it starts with one conversation at a time. I have a close friend whose daughter is REALLY depressed and hopeless. What I am going to do after typing this loooong comment is send this article to my friend to give to his daughter. I’m not sure it will help but it is a start. Then next time I see her I’ll discuss this article, see what she thinks. I’m interested to see how much it helps. I’m optimistic it will!
Thank you for reading my comment. I’m looking forward to reading your comments and learning something from you that I can use when I wake up tomorrow - and see the beautiful sunrise that isn’t going ANYWHERE!
Have a great night
John
Thank you for writing this.
I am not part of extinction rebellion because I agree that their methods are counter effective and as someone who studied nuclear energy engineering I don't like how they are dogmaticly anti-nuclear.
I do at times find it hard to stay optimistic. Not because I fear a collapse coming in the coming years but because I can see the effects of climate change and am bothered by the lack of government action (or even moving backwards such as Germany is doing).
I agree with you utterly. Perhaps you can share some conversations you have had when discussing the various aspects of climate change, green energy vs the benefits of oil and gas as an energy source, etc. with someone hell bent on doomsday scenarios. Thanks for the article.
Get them interested in outdoor sports. Let them see that the same places are there under similar conditions each year. Scuba diving, hiking, snow skiing, fishing, camping, hunting. Let them see the are part of that ecosystem, how it works, what threatens it, what helps it. Teach them the history of environmental messes in America like Love Canal, Times Beach, Missouri, and the Cuyahoga river (actually) on fire. Then how we started to get wealthier and care, passed laws to put an end to that type of thing. The further laws (Clean Air Act. or CAA; Clean Water Act, or CWA).
Today, while a long way from perfect. we are not creating any new Love Canals or Times Beaches.
Whatever approach, teach them that panic is the worst thing to do.
Well done, Zion.
Fear mongering has a price, and many young people are receptive to it. Being a parent changes you.
It's also nice to see someone with your background/history come around to see that nuclear has to play a role in decarbonization and electrification.
We can have balance between increasing human prosperity and reduced environmental impact.
The environmental Kuznets curve is a very real phenomenon, but it requires increasing prosperity to a level (per capita GDP) that society will choose to spend wealth to reduce environmental impact once its needs are met and the wolf isn't at the door.
I appreciate your courage.
Although the situation is not as extreme as the most doomist sayings are it is super dangerous to not worry immensely. Potentially billions of people will die from the climate crisis and even more will be displaced. We shouldn't have to have a total apocalypse before we start to care. Also the media and politicians are not reflecting the situation as given by sciences in the level of seriousness and crisis attitude it deserves. They do need to "tell the truth". We are in an extremely dangerous situation. We are in the middle of a mass extinction. We need to stop the denial and cognitive dissonance about this. A lot of developments are going the right way, but they are nowhere near stopping the catastrophe. We need to stop "doomerism" with facts and hope. But the facts are not pretty and the hope is too slim. Activism is justified until we are on a path that can guarantee a livable future. And yes a future with lack of food, water and 3 billion climate refugees is not livable even though it is not "total" apocalypse.
People need to understand the publication to headline pathway that accelerates from gloom to doom from the beginning
Off the starting line, what studies often do is take a high emissions pathway to measure their modeled effect. This way they can get a clear result and improve their chances of a newsworthy headline. This is known as RPC 8.5, an emissions projection where nothing is done whatsoever and coal triples by 2100
Then the media pick up on the catchiest headline among the results, taking the extreme outlier from a case based on the extreme outlier
The perfect example of this was the study that got the headline "187 million people flooded yearly by 2100". In the actual paper this number wasn't even among the range of possibilities. They just said, "If everyone stops building dikes and the maximum sea rise occurs, then 187 million would be in flooded areas." In their actual range of possibilities it went as low as 5000 people being flooded in 2100 as societies invest in flood protection. This would cost .04% of GDP and people would be safer from floods than today
The impressive thing is that RPC 8.5 is becoming considered to be outside the range of reasonable possibilities as temperature rise continues to be on the lower side of projections. What really puts the icing on the cake is that a very inexpensive backup insolation reduction technique is available in marine cloud brightening. This is already accidentally in effect from cargo ship emissions that make clouds more reflective and reduce global temps by .25°
It's not just that the worst case is purely a result of bad information ecosystems but that if the worst started happening it would be as simple as building a fleet of ships to spray sea salt into clouds, allowing time to get everything else buttoned down
That is not reliable, and incorrect. Scientist are definitely raising the highest alarms. You may know Scientist Rebellion? Also projections of heating and extreme weather are below what we observe not above. Also the most extreme scenarios are not being conveyed. What you are spreading is just cherry picked bad science understanding. Climate change is in irreversible in our time and tipping points are coming very close. What do you expect to achieve here? Why don't you cite some sources?
This article from top climate scientists are already projecting 10C degrees warming. That is apocalyptic levels. I would rather have some doomerism if that actually leads to some action. Also using chemicals to "cool down" is a massively terrible idea. We should stop trying to think the climate can be easily fixed.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Global-warming-in-the-pipeline-Hansen-Sato/ef787b3f1a10d3ad0bfa16ae5ca60f03ecaf5fa2
Page 13 IPCC summary, most extreme scenario projecting a little over 4 degrees as of 2100 - https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM.pdf
If you consider the IPCC to be cherry picked we have little basis for conversation!
The concept of marine cloud brightening is that sea salt is shot into the air. It is true that this is a "chemical" but if we are experiencing irreversible climate change with tipping points very close, without any doubt, I unreservedly propose that we do it. There is no world in which we are facing a catastrophe where marine cloud brightening is off the table
The problem with doom is that it promotes ineffective policies. There is a time horizon dynamic with climate policy where we can choose short term more costly and less effective emissions reductions or shift emphasis to medium term enabling technologies that will cut emissions by more over the century. Both Bill Gates who has a doom outlook, and Bjorn Lomborg who has a rosy outlook promote a massive increase in investment into green technology reaching $100 billion per year. The reason is fairly simple - the majority of emissions now come from developing countries who are at this time building a lot of coal. Wealthy countries can spend $6000 per electric car in subsidies and accomplish a small amount of near term emission reduction or they can spend it on developing technology that can displace new coal buildouts and start to make a huge difference in 10 to 20 years. Advanced nuclear is a great candidate. Current nuclear is a great candidate. I think the shipbuilding concept of producing shippable SMRs at shipyards is high on the list of potential game changers