Thread by @StefanAykut

I just watched #DontLookUp AND we just published an article on climate activism. Both ask: why don’t we react adequately to a global crisis, when the facts seem crystal-clear?
A 🧵on how the film (mis)represents the climate crisis & how a social science perspective helps.
1/14

On #DontLookUp: It’s a good film, sometimes hilarious & often painfully precise in depicting the self-referentiality of social systems, esp. politics & media. For a blockbuster, it also finds a reasonably good metaphor for the climate crisis, even though it’s not perfect.
2/14

BUT #DontLookUp also reproduces some problematic views on the climate problem, which are characteristic for the current debate. These problemativ views concern three aspects of the film: the framing of the problem, the question of agency, and the proposed solution.
3/14

(1) the problem: the asteroid is so big & apocalyptic that everything else disappears. Inequality, racism, relations of exploitation are secondary in the film. Yet, these are fundamental features of the climate crisis & central to understanding inaction.
4/14

(2) agency: there is no society in the film, only individuals & elites. No organized groups, no parties, no trade unions, no social movements. When people act together, they are massified as violent mobs or indistinct cheering publics. Hence, collective action is impossible.
5/14

(3) the solution: because there is no society & no collective agency, the only possible solution to the pb is technology. Here: nukes. For climate, the website of the film advocates for renewables & carbon capture. But technofixes alone won’t do.
6/14

So how can a social science perspective help?
This is the central question in our collective reflection piece:
**It’s not enough to be right! The climate crisis, power, and the climate movement**
ingentaconnect.com/content/oekom/…
7/14

We start with a simple question: The demands of the climate movement for rapid & profound change are based on science and factually “right” (▶️ science.org/doi/10.1126/sc…), yet they often prove insufficient to operate the deep societal changes needed.
Why is this so?
8/14

1⃣ Climate policy is not a scientific, but a political problem.
“Listen to the science” is not an adequate political strategy, bc there is not 1, but many possible paths to climate neutrality. Applied to the film, this means the focus on 1 solution (‘nukes’) is misleading.
9/14

2⃣ Climate is (just) 1 pb among others.
It is very important, but there are other legitimate concerns. In the film, jobs & social justice are only distractions. In the real world, climate policy can only succeed when combined with other pbs. Issue-linkage builds coalitions!
10/14

3⃣ The fossil age rests on political-economic power relations.
Climate politics is not about applying science, but about disrupting power & building coalitions. Every analysis of the pb needs to start with this societal complexity, not with a sole focus on decision-makers.
11/14

4⃣ The transformation requires active societal involvement.
Climate policy is not a one-shot decision (like nuking the asteroid), but a long-term strategy. In plural societies, the key is to harness societal agency, i.e. active involvement of citizens, groups, movements.
12/14

We belive that climate activists, campaigners & politicians can benefit if they incorporate social factors more systematically into their reflections & actions. The focus must be on generating broad societal support for transformative change, not on elites & technofixes.
13/14

The link to our article:
ingentaconnect.com/content/oekom/…

14/14
@Engels_Klima @FelixSchenuit @antje_wiener @CssUhh @CENunihh @WorxJan