Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Why climate tribalism only helps the deniers...
Cross-posted from General DiscussionHere are excerpts from an essay published in The Guardian that I believe applies to some recent discussions here on DU...
Full Essay: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/jul/10/the-big-idea-why-climate-tribalism-only-helps-the-deniers
From nuclear power to electric vehicles, battles between activists risk getting in the way of reducing emissions.
Hannah Ritchie
Mon 10 Jul 2023 07.30 EDT
-snip-
"What we want to achieve is the same: to reduce carbon emissions. The problem is that we are stubborn about how we get there. (...)The nuclear zealots want to go all-in on building new power stations. The renewable zealots want no nuclear at all. Some promote electric cars; their opponents want car-less roads. Vegans advocate for cutting out animal products; flexitarians feel judged when they eat their weekly roast chicken."
-snip-
"These battles are not just neutral noises off; they actively help the other side. Fossil fuel companies don’t need to dunk on nuclear power because many environmentalists have done it for them. Take Germany, where nuclear plants were closed early, delaying the phasing-out of coal power. This was not only bad for the climate but for air pollution too. Many people on the pro-nuclear side didn’t help: their bashing of renewable energy technologies made anti-nuclear environmentalists even more defensive. Or there’s the claim that EVs can be just as bad for the environment, often trotted out even in green-leaning media. In response, people are persuaded to stick with their petrol or diesel car."
-snip-
"The solution isn’t to stop debating. I’m not claiming we should uncritically support every proposal on the table. That would waste money, time and resources. Our efforts would become scattered and diluted. We’d focus on the wrong things. We need to be intensely critical to make sure we invest in climate solutions that are effective and can scale. And no solution is a panacea – EVs, lab-grown meat, renewable energy, nuclear power – all have some impact. We need to be transparent about those impacts to reduce them as much as we can.
So how can we make these debates work better? First, we need to become less fixated on the ideal pathway. None of us will get precisely what we want; we need to compromise and take a route that reduces emissions effectively and quickly, using a combination of solutions.
Second, we need to be more generous when dealing with our rivals. Intellectual disagreements can quickly descend into name-calling. Real conversation stops and we talk past one another instead. We become more focused on winning the argument than understanding the other side. This makes the climate solution space hostile, which is counterproductive considering we want the world’s best minds to be there.
Third, we need to be honest about what is and isn’t true about the solutions we don’t like. “EVs emit just as much CO2 as petrol cars” is simply wrong. They emit significantly less, even if they emit more than the subway or a bike (and yes, this is still true when we account for the emissions needed to produce the battery). “Nuclear energy is unsafe” is wrong – it’s thousands of times safer than the coal we’re trying to replace, and just as safe as renewables. It’s fine to advocate for your preferred solutions, but it’s not OK to lie about the alternatives to make your point.
In short, we need to become better directionalists. To focus on moving towards our goals, rather than pinning all our hopes on an ideal means of getting there. Whether you’re a fan of nuclear or solar, electric cars or trains, lab-grown meat or lentils: we are all on the same team. Let’s start acting like it."
-snip-
"What we want to achieve is the same: to reduce carbon emissions. The problem is that we are stubborn about how we get there. (...)The nuclear zealots want to go all-in on building new power stations. The renewable zealots want no nuclear at all. Some promote electric cars; their opponents want car-less roads. Vegans advocate for cutting out animal products; flexitarians feel judged when they eat their weekly roast chicken."
-snip-
"These battles are not just neutral noises off; they actively help the other side. Fossil fuel companies don’t need to dunk on nuclear power because many environmentalists have done it for them. Take Germany, where nuclear plants were closed early, delaying the phasing-out of coal power. This was not only bad for the climate but for air pollution too. Many people on the pro-nuclear side didn’t help: their bashing of renewable energy technologies made anti-nuclear environmentalists even more defensive. Or there’s the claim that EVs can be just as bad for the environment, often trotted out even in green-leaning media. In response, people are persuaded to stick with their petrol or diesel car."
-snip-
"The solution isn’t to stop debating. I’m not claiming we should uncritically support every proposal on the table. That would waste money, time and resources. Our efforts would become scattered and diluted. We’d focus on the wrong things. We need to be intensely critical to make sure we invest in climate solutions that are effective and can scale. And no solution is a panacea – EVs, lab-grown meat, renewable energy, nuclear power – all have some impact. We need to be transparent about those impacts to reduce them as much as we can.
So how can we make these debates work better? First, we need to become less fixated on the ideal pathway. None of us will get precisely what we want; we need to compromise and take a route that reduces emissions effectively and quickly, using a combination of solutions.
Second, we need to be more generous when dealing with our rivals. Intellectual disagreements can quickly descend into name-calling. Real conversation stops and we talk past one another instead. We become more focused on winning the argument than understanding the other side. This makes the climate solution space hostile, which is counterproductive considering we want the world’s best minds to be there.
Third, we need to be honest about what is and isn’t true about the solutions we don’t like. “EVs emit just as much CO2 as petrol cars” is simply wrong. They emit significantly less, even if they emit more than the subway or a bike (and yes, this is still true when we account for the emissions needed to produce the battery). “Nuclear energy is unsafe” is wrong – it’s thousands of times safer than the coal we’re trying to replace, and just as safe as renewables. It’s fine to advocate for your preferred solutions, but it’s not OK to lie about the alternatives to make your point.
In short, we need to become better directionalists. To focus on moving towards our goals, rather than pinning all our hopes on an ideal means of getting there. Whether you’re a fan of nuclear or solar, electric cars or trains, lab-grown meat or lentils: we are all on the same team. Let’s start acting like it."
-snip-
Full Essay: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/jul/10/the-big-idea-why-climate-tribalism-only-helps-the-deniers
1 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
