Scientists are once again warning about #climate armageddon. Thousands vetted the best science out there. More extinction, death and disease is in store if we don't act fast.
But I think we should focus on something uncomfortable: for many people, this is meaningless. /1
But I think we should focus on something uncomfortable: for many people, this is meaningless. /1
Let’s be clear: the IPCC report is a tour de force. Over 90 scientists spent years writing it, based on over 6,000 peer reviews. It says the planetary warming ALREADY caused “will persist for centuries to millennia.” It says we’re not acting fast enough to cut pollution. /2
The report adds to the vast global scientific consensus, based on an overwhelming body of evidence, that we’re pushing the planet into DANGEROUS and destructive warming conditions, by burning fossil fuels at industrial scales, and dumping carbon pollution into the air. /3
But for many, it doesn’t matter how many scientists agree, or how much evidence there is, because they don’t trust experts.
Experts gave them the financial crisis, where no one went to jail. Experts told them to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, now a 17-year-old war. /4
Experts gave them the financial crisis, where no one went to jail. Experts told them to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, now a 17-year-old war. /4
Experts gave them the internet, where bots, scams and propaganda work to obscure the truth. Conspiracy theories are all over the place, pushed by algorithms, clickbait, personalities. It’s tough to always be vetting sources for authenticity. It can get tiring, real quick. /5
Then you have politicians and people in power — people who seem like smart, capable leaders — telling you conflicting information. Some of them ask you to trust them on the science. Others say that nothing we’re doing will make a difference. Others still, say it’s all a hoax. /6
It’s not hard to understand the frustration. When people are told there is a looming planetary disaster, and that it’s the fault of faceless industries — and then they’re told to eat less meat, or ride the train instead of the bus — I can see where the confusion comes from. /7
Especially because people’s choices are limited by what’s on offer. How can we ask people to drive electric cars, for example, when they’re expensive, hard to find in dealerships, aren’t offered in sufficient varieties or aren’t sold near sufficient charging infrastructure? /8
Plus, climate science is HARD to understand. We’re experiencing rapid technological change; the iPhone, Twitter, Uber and Airbnb all happened roughly in the last decade. Who can even fully explain wireless technology, despite it being deployed in our pockets every day? /9
And let’s be real: the science is WILD. The world’s coral reefs and many species in the oceans could be dying. 100s of millions of people could face food +water scarcity. Coastal regions swamped from sea level rise. It’s big-picture stuff, and we're asking people to trust it. /10
The IPCC says we need to make drastic shifts now, like cutting carbon pollution almost in half roughly over the next decade. But these kinds of changes feel unrealistic when PRO-climate governments can’t even make their own targets, while others attack action as useless. /11
I don’t know how we’ll be able to get past all these obstacles. I hope I’m helping people understand by writing for @NatObserver. But I do know that we can’t keep telling ourselves that if we just yelled a bit louder, maybe more people would listen. We need a new approach. /end
