It's fascinating to read the thoughtful commentary by the students quoted in the piece. Both individual and collective action are of course important, and it's easy to lose sight of that in these discussions. Nuance here matters.
What I note in The #NewClimateWar is that individual actions are important, but an *exclusive* focus on individual behavior alone can crowd out needed discussion about systemic change/policy:
I discuss peer-reviewed research that suggests that this is actually the case:
But I am unambiguous about the importance of climate-friendly lifestyle choices. The point is that we cannot let pollutors use individual action framing as a means of deflecting attention from policy action:
I spend a whole chapter telling the cautionary tale of the "Crying Indian" ad, and past industry-funded campaigns to divert attention from systemic change to individual responsibility. We know what happens to those who fail to study history...
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1. The climate problem is “too complex” to solve w/ existing technology. That’s false. Research Gates inexplicably neglects shows we can get there w/ existing renewable energy. See my @Newsweek commentary, “The Right Path Forward on Climate Change” newsweek.com/right-path-for…
2. The insistence that “today’s zero-carbon technologies are more expensive than their fossil-fuel counterparts”.
That’s false. See this report from Lazard (and associated graphic): lazard.com/media/451086/l…
In his posthumously published (1997) book "Billions & Billion", the late great Carl Sagan provides an interesting discussion of "rules of the game", e.g. different codes of behavior/policy, such as the "Golden Rule", the "Silver Rule", the "Iron Rule", etc. 🧵
Sagan discusses the "science" (game theory) & human experiments that have been done to assess the effectiveness of competing strategies. The conclusion is that the so-called "tit-for-tat" rule out-performs the others, i.e. leads to greatest likelihood of a positive outcome.
This strategy can be summarized as "initial friendliness, willingness to forgive, and fearless retaliation". If you like, it amounts to using both "carrot" and "stick".
We (@Rahmstorf et al) reached that conclusion in a 2015 @NatureClimate study (nature.com/articles/nclim…). It featured a reconstruction over the past 1000 years of the sub-polar "cold blob" (below) that is indicative of an AMOC slowdown.
There's a lot of "friendly fire" in the #NewClimateWar (publicaffairsbooks.com/titles/michael…). Despite having some of the best climate journalists on staff, @NYTimes editorial decisions have often played into the tactics of climate inactivists (presumably unwittingly). Some examples (thread):
The @NYTimes engaging in "deflection" (i.e. it's all about individual lifestyle change rather than systemic change)
The @NYTimes providing editorial page space for a low blow attack on youth climate advocate @GretaThunberg
Congratulations #PresidentBiden!
Now let's get to work.
We must reassert the climate leadership that was lost under Trump.
A lot of us stand ready to help!
Here's my full statement below.
Let's hit the ground running in January! 🙂 #NewClimateWar facebook.com/MichaelMannSci…
Congratulations to President Elect @JoeBiden!
And congratulations to US for having used the power of our vote to create an opportunity for meaningful progress on climate going forward (thread)
Biden's victory ushers in a new era of global cooperation, allowing us to begin to repair the damage that was done by Donald Trump over the past four years both to domestic climate efforts and to our reputation on the world stage.
Short thread on what it was like to be a climate scientist a decade ago for some, courtesy of excerpts from "The Hockey Climate Wars" (amazon.com/Hockey-Stick-C…) 1. Being targeted for assault by national white supremacist groups for being part of a purported Jewish climate cabal.
2. Actionable death threats against you and your family. FBI testing your office for anthrax after receipt of a powder-containing envelope.
3. Investigations by Congressional Republican Committee Chairs aimed at intimidating you and discrediting you and your research.