,
25 tweets,
9 min read
Read on Twitter
Ok, I've been holding off on commenting on the Franzen @NewYorker piece because I have mixed feels - some of which may be controversial - but I've been thinking about climate comms for 15 years now - so I do have some thoughts on it:
I have a knee jerk reaction when we start tone policing writers and artists - especially those outside the climate space - on the best ways to talk about it. Obvi, the climate movement doesn't know the best ways to talk about it - or we'd be in a very different place right now.
This whole thing is a bit reminiscent of how we first responded to @dwallacewells 's brilliant @NYMag story - it's too scary and focused on doom, not hopeful enough, doesn't abide by the strategic comms narratives laid out by the climate advocacy groups, etc, etc, etc.
In essence: get out of our lane.
I find this deeply problematic because we desperately need more writers and artists addressing the climate crisis - exploring it from a myriad of new and creative angles (some of which we'll inevitably disagree with)
When we attack their intelligence, work, character, or motives for trying to go there, albeit often imperfectly (though clearly NONE OF US knows how to do this perfectly), I fear we scare off artists and writers from getting in the game when we need them the most.
I also think the climate movement (at least in the US) has been overly focused on hope/solutions/rainbows/windmills - at the expense of allowing honest and authentic explorations of how terrifying and f*cked all of this is -
which can seem disingenuous and divorced from reality and people's feels & experiences - and prove to disempower or alienate the people we're trying to reach and mobilize. (@reneelertzman has a lot of insight on this dynamic)
It also ignores the fact that our world is already being harmed by climate change - people are dying and getting hurt and we're losing places we love. We can't "solve" or "win" climate change for millions of people or places.
So those narratives don't work for many (myself included - we're not likely to "save" my beloved home on the Gulf Coast of Alabama) - and yet they're still commonplace in how most advocacy orgs talk about the climate crisis.
That said, this isn't over yet - and here's where Franzen goes very wrong IMHO. We still have a window of time - 10, 15 years - to go all-in to save millions of lives and many of the places we love. For the science on this, see:
As @emorwee eloquently points out here: "Maybe it’s because I’ve watched too many superhero movies, but Franzen’s logic—that all-out war against the fossil fuel industry only makes sense if it’s “winnable”—seems incredibly (sorry) pigeon-hearted to me."
"you shouldn’t need the guarantee of success to fight for what you know to be right; especially when that fight will determine whether millions of people live or die." heated.world/p/bird-man-cri…
For more on this, see brilliant climate scientist @DrKateMarvel 's @onbeing essay "We need Courage, not Hope" - a beautiful piece that has become both my rallying call and morning meditation. onbeing.org/blog/kate-marv…
And as @DoctorVive elegantly says - "human nature" is a bullshit construct of a hurdle and a "pure ideology, hiding the real (and contingent) material conditions of our existence behind the lie of natural inevitability." slate.com/technology/201…
And while I agree we need more connected local communities in light of the changing climate - Franzen's seeming relinquishment of the possibility of wide-scale systematic + political action is BULLSHIT.
I know this firsthand b/c one of my besties (& @nplhpodcast co-host) is @maryannehitt - who leads @BeyondCoal which has transformed our energy system and shut down 297 coal-fired power plants and counting -
- even when no one really cared about climate change and even under the horrors of Tr*mp administration. So, SYSTEMATIC CHANGE IS POSSIBLE.
All big societal changes - every single one - felt impossible, until it was done. It is some privileged and dangerous bullshit to give up fighting when we still have a chance at averting the worst impacts of climate change - and saving millions of lives.
And as @rgunns nails here: "privileged white men – arguably the safest group when it comes to climate change – don't get to decide what's "reasonable" when it comes to deciding how we should respond to the climate crisis."
"the people who will be worst impacted get to decide. they should decide how far is too far. they should be the ones drawing the battle lines. they are the ones who get to set the pace. because "accepting" the climate apocalypse could get them killed."
Which leads me to my final thought on this (for now) - I'm all for more creative takes on climate change and welcoming new and different voices to the table - but for f*ck's sake - we need more POC and women at this storytelling table, asap. @MaryHeglar is a GREAT place to start.
If there's one notable thing the literary world and climate movement has in common: it's an overdependence on the authority and stories of privileged white dudes (at the expense of other critical voices). How those voices have shaped the world is clearly not working for anyone.
"The hardest thing in the world is to have courage—to work toward a goal despite pain, or grief, or really crappy odds. But that’s what solving the climate crisis will require." - @emorwee
/fin
/fin
@JohnFBruno @NewYorker thank you for the RT @JohnFBruno! I'm a UNC alum ('07) - studied Climate Comms under Robbie Cox (who is one of my most cherished mentors) in the @UNCDeptComm. Also studied under Greg Gangi and others in the ENST dept - would love to hear what you're up to at @UNC!
