Climate Change

I think these whack jobs in politics that are into distracting culture wars are really working hard to ward of climate anxiety. The greater denial, the larger the toll the mind is that it disconnects from reality. Not totally. But more so. 

I read that the more oppression of women, the more the society uses denial to cope with the horrors of oppression. 

It's pretty dire, but you can channel your emotions towards good. Read the New Yorker article by Jia Tolentino. It's brilliant writing as it flows from the personal to the subjective to the science of climate change, and one person's journey to try and channel his feelings.

"Still, Davenport’s advice about the Serenity Prayer reminded me of Andreas Malm’s assessment, in his book “How to Blow Up a Pipeline,” that the climate movement thus far has been “gentle and mild in the extreme.” The luxury I had of pondering my emotions at length was evidence of how much closer I was to the problem than to the solution: climate change’s worst effects will always fall on the poor and disenfranchised, both locally and globally, and in this context it was hard to believe that the project of teaching the world’s most fortunate people how to feel was more than another form of self-absorption. I wondered whether I was getting the wrong lessons, however right they seemed."

There are great examples of organizations started, like Kids for Kids in Manila. They would raise money for typhoon impacted kids. That is an excellent example of how to channel your climate anxiety. Or perhaps write a brilliant article in the New Yorker that inspires people. I sent it to my children. Who knows who's going to be triggered to come up with a brilliant organization to channel emotions. 

Tolentino mentions the orange haze in New York, where she writes. She has lovely quotes:

Learning to Die in the Anthropocene by Roy Scranton: “We can continue acting as if tomorrow will be just like yesterday, growing less and less prepared for each new disaster as it comes, and more and more desperately invested in a life we can’t sustain. Or we can learn to see each day as the death of what came before, freeing ourselves to deal with whatever problems the present offers without attachment or fear.”

I really feel like this article provided some therapy on me, allows me to read this article:

Guardian: why climate tribalism only helps the deniers

"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."

"These cracks can start at an even higher level. For some it is not about the specific technology we deploy, it’s about the fact that we see technology as a solution at all. There are those who believe that technology will fix everything. Their detractors think this techno-optimism is naive; only radical economic and social change can save us."

"The American economist Michael Munger wrote about this very same tension in economic policy, describing how the world is split into “directionalists” and “destinationists”. Directionalists back any solution that takes us towards the final goal."

"Destinationists are less flexible: they have an ideal outcome in mind. They block and reject anything that doesn’t fit their perfect vision. If they want to see a car-less world, they push against electric vehicles (EVs), even if they would cut emissions by a lot."

"Destinationalism is a problem. Sure, we all have our favourite solutions. But the reality is that we can’t afford to be choosy. The answer to almost every climate dilemma is “We need both”. We need renewables and nuclear energy (even if that means just keeping our existing nuclear plants online). We need to tackle fossil fuels and our food system; fossil fuels are the biggest emitter, but emissions from food alone would take us well past 1.5C (34.7F) and close to 2C (35.6F). Not everyone can commute without a car, so we need electric vehicles and cycle-friendly cities and public transport networks. We can’t decarbonise without technological change, but we need to rethink our economic, political and social systems to make sure they flourish."

"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."

Some good book recommendations:

A Climate Scientist’s Case for Hope and Healing in a Divided World by Katharine Hayhoe 

Speed and Scale: A Global Action Plan for Solving Our Climate Crisis Now by John Doerr