Playing Devil's Advocate: In the Heat of Climate Change, There's Reason to Keep Cool

By Janelle Clausen

It is very easy to be pessimistic about humanity’s ability to combat climate change, but analysis of many articles and lectures suggest that not all is lost. Even the darkest articles in the media seem to provide some shred of hope. 

Since America’s first surviving colony of Jamestown in 1609, America’s history was largely governed by unrestrained instrumentalism, a largely European concept where nature exists for man’s benefit. Colonists hunted down species to the brink of extinction, plowed through exuberant amounts of land, and virtually wiped out Native American ideologies that saw the planet as alive. Industrialization took over the land and became the country’s economic base, even if it meant decimating the land, polluting our drinking water and spewing greenhouse gases like there’s no tomorrow (which, they didn’t realize, could someday become literal).  As Professor Heidi Hutner, Director of Stony Brook University’s Sustainability Studies Program, noted in class, ecofeminism has a valid point: there is a strong parallel between men’s language with women and how they viewed the land (raping the land, mountains as breasts, planting his seed, etc.). It was something they felt they owned. 

As Corbett notes in Communicating Nature, conservation and preservationism, sought to preserve resources for human benefit (practical and aesthetic, respectively). A shift toward these ideas in the late 19th and early 20th centuries began reshaping the course of the United States. These ideologies were present within legislation that oversaw the protection of lands like Yellowstone Park, Yosemite National Park and others. Her writing, however, suggests a progression rather than separation. Preservation and conservation still fell within an anthropogenic viewpoint that could resonate with humanity, but were more ecological. Corbett shows that the green movement, which featured ideologies like Ecological Sensibility, Deep Ecology and Ecofeminism, take qualities from the rational, somewhat scientific conservationism, and writers’ conservationist portrayals of nature is “sacred,” even divine. The establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency and legislation like the Endangered Species Act and Clear Air Act, children of the ecological movements, were based on rational numbers and ethical appeal. 

While climate change is occurring rapidly, we have technically come very far very quickly in the context of hundreds of years of land ravaging. I am not inclined to disagree that more needs to be done. Earth's average temperature has already risen 1.4°F over the last century due to humanity's mass burning of fossil fuels, leading to carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas build-up that traps heat in the atmosphere, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. This has meant more floods, droughts, severe heat waves, melting ice caps and more because of the changing climate. Temperatures are projected to climb anywhere between 2 and 11.5°F in one hundred more years. 

Bill McKibben’s article in Rolling Stone, Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math, paints a fiery picture of the future. It simplifies it into three different numbers with a corresponding sections. He uses math based upon emission statistics to make it seems inevitable that we will jump 2 degrees Celsius in a matter of decades (we have already risen 0.8 degrees Celsius and will rise 0.8 more) and will be unable to, realistically, curb emissions beneath 565 gigatons of emissions that the Earth can take before reaching that turning point. Nearly 3000 gigatons of coal, oil and other fossil fuels are meanwhile ready to be burned. McKibben’s message is clearly that big business is the enemy, since they are the primary perpetrators of these greenhouse emissions. It at least notes that “Germany is one of the only big countries that has actually tried hard to change its energy mix; on one sunny Saturday in late May, that northern-latitude nation generated nearly half its power from solar panels within its borders” and that nearly two thirds of Americans cited in a poll would “back an international agreement that cut carbon emissions 90 percent by 2050 if brought to the brink. 

According to Mark Schapiro, a renowned environmental journalist and author with over 30 years of experience, the world is at a point called the "end of stationarity," the baseline at which scientists measure change. But even he said he is not a “subscriber to the apocalyptic notions.” As said in his book, Carbon Shock, and in a recent talk at Stony Brook University, companies and major government entities are acknowledge costs associated with climate change, while people are pushing for solutions.

“What’s interesting in right now, this time period we're in- thank God you guys are all studying this in one form or another- is you're in a period of enormous dynamism when it comes to the responses to climate change, which are beginning to rewrite the fundamental legal, regulatory and financial rules in response to this huge challenge we all face," Schapiro said in his presentation. This is significant because, despite there being an unknown trade war with American airlines and Europe, Schapiro is rationally approaching the “carbon shock” and climate debate. His tone is not alarmist, so much as it is narrative and engrossing.  

Charles C. Mann’s recent article in The Atlantic, “How to Talk About Climate Change So People Will Listen,” draws upon facts and concerns from both sides. He criticizes the current reality, citing how monumental legislation was once upon a time not a partisan issue- action seems difficult, but may soon become necessary. The issue of climate change was not radicalized on both sides. Citing historian Patrick Allitt, author of A Climate of Crisis, he wrote “...time and again... activists and corporate executives railed against each other. Out of this clash emerged regulatory syntheses: rules for air, water, toxins. Often enough, businesspeople then discovered that following the new rules was less expensive than they had claimed it would be; environmentalists meanwhile found out that the problems were less dire than they had claimed.” In other words, the media can often exaggerate the climate change issue. 

My dissent here is not like what is seen in Everything’s Cool. The documentary that proves by creating doubt, some people suddenly seem to stop worrying. I know there are several reasons to worry. In fact, the group of people shown in the movie give even more reason to. But Everything’s Cool (everything is, as it shows via irony, not cool) goes a little over the top. In picking the redneck, preacher and other ignorant folks, it represents a radical fringe of society. It cherry-picks the worst looking opinions and did not present more moderate examples backed with some semblance of facts, just for the sake of shock value. This would be considered a no-no journalistically. 

Earth 2100 does a good job in balancing fact, fiction and hope. The documentary, made by ABC, presents a world ravaged by climate change through the eyes of Lucy from childhood to old age. This personal narrative connects a reader to the story, thus making hard scientific facts easier to digest. It plays out hard, potential realities and how it would actually impact people. This “worst-case scenario,” based off of interviews with authors and scientists, showcases water shortages, floods, desperate migrants, crippling droughts and a hyper-lethal disease that ultimately sweeps the planet. Earth’s once bulging population plummets by billions. It seems frighteningly plausible. It showed how easily society could collapse. 

But it also shows moments of hope- things we are even beginning to see today. Humanity showed it could respond to the challenge of climate change, even while on the brink- at least for awhile. New York City was not swept underwater too early on. It lived on to be called “The Big Green Apple” in the movie, known for its lack of emissions and greenhouse-like powering. Engineers there also undertook a massive floodgate project to try and protect the city, even though it cost billions of dollars. Meanwhile, as seen through Lucy’s cross-country trip and before, green towns and cities dot the American landscape and young people are innovating to change how people live.

The floodgate something that, in reality, came into serious consideration after Hurricane Sandy, a storm ironically mirroring Earth 2100’s storm that swept in at high tide, wreaking havoc on transportation systems, infrastructure and lives. The budget is daunting, but the idea interesting. It’s also worth noting that, like in the movie, New York is a leader in going green. According to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, more than 11 percent of the state is powered by alternative sources. This could expand to 40 percent by 2030. But like in the movie, New York is not alone in its green innovation. Nearly 30 cities across North America were noted for their green efforts in USA Today and towns like Greensburg, Kansas, have shown it’s possible to thrive by going green. This films optimism corresponding with reality suggests that humanity has a will to survive. 

To stay focused on the United States alone would be unfair, even though it is a large producer of the carbon that contributes to climate change. Climate change is a global issue. While many would assume conflicting interests are at odds, some breakthroughs have begun. As US News reported in late January “...two months after Obama won China’s first-ever commitment to cut its carbon emissions, the India agreements mark comparatively less ambitious but still crucial steps toward an expected international climate agreement at a U.N. summit in Paris in December.” The article, like many news reports, is simple. But it provides ample context in the first few paragraphs, as seen above, to understand the basics of a breakthrough in addressing excessive carbon emissions. 

One could argue that this post paints too rosy a picture. Perhaps it does. But nonetheless, it seemed worthy to note that amidst doomsayers, some parts of the media note that progress is slowly being made. Whether or not it’s too slow will soon be seen.