To state the obvious, humanity is currently fighting a pandemic. Most of us are feeling the impacts of coronavirus in unprecedented ways as it continues to (at the very least) consume the news and confine us to our living rooms. Rightly so, it is our biggest concern, and will remain so for more than just a few months.
How odd that only about a month ago it felt appropriate to complain to oneself about the unbearable inaction committed by billions across the globe against climate change! Brainstorming ideas of how to convince people to care about the reality of the climate crisis was normal. Finding ways to attract people to follow scientific proof and take action without threatening their comfort seemed like an impossible, yet relevant task.
Now it just feels impertinent.
This is because any global attention regarding the importance of collective action is being directed at the coronavirus. Climate change has been cast aside as a negligible topic compared to the current pressures of social distancing, for example. This is to be expected.
However, a recent interview with Noam Chomsky, one of the world's greatest living intellects, has provided us with some hopeful insight into the reality of global crises. It is hopeful in the sense that it encourages serious conversations to be had about climate change, even during the COVID-19 pandemic.
"We have to consider a possible good side of the coronavirus, as it may bring people to think about what kind of a world do we want. Do we want the kind of a world that leads to this?"
Chomsky brings our attention to two major threats: "One", he says, "is the growing threat of nuclear war." The other, "of course, is the growing threat of global warming." He argues that "they might not disrupt life to the extent that the coronavirus does today, but they will disrupt life to the point of making the species unsurvivable, and not in the very distant future."
The point is that despite the coronavirus being an important issue with terrifying consequences that must be dealt with immediately, "there will be recovery." The virus itself is remediable, and life in a general sense will eventually return to normal. Unfortunately, the other major threats cannot be fixed with a vaccine. If they are not dealt with more diligently, there will be no recovery.
We have something to learn from the fact that it was well known in October 2019 that a pandemic was highly probable yet few necessary actions were taken. According to Chomsky, "the crisis was then made worse by the treachery of the political systems that didn't pay attention to the information that they were aware of." A familiar occurrence, it seems.
It also seems then that our best bet for overcoming these more dangerous crises "is an informed, involved public taking control of their fate. If that doesn't happen," suggests Chomsky, "we're doomed." Thus giving attention to the topic of climate change proves beneficial if we wish to avoid repeating the same mistakes that have led our species to this calamity which could have otherwise been prevented.
As someone desperately dependent on the solace offered by simple logic, my first idea was to remove any political pressure from the argument that a global effort to stop climate change from getting worse is imperative. Rather than criticizing the ignorance of political systems, my focus is on the simplicity of individual action. I am not claiming that individual action is a simple (or the only) solution to mitigating climate change, but that it is a valuable concept easy enough to follow.
Take, for example, the following basic logic. We'll call it "proposition x": Since humans are the only species capable of mitigating climate change, it would therefore make the most sense for myself, as a human, to do as many things that will help with this vital process.
There is nothing difficult to understand about this proposition. But understanding something and adopting it as principle is not the same. Of course one could reject the implicit premise that climate change must be mitigated. Or perhaps they accept the premise, but their concerns don't stretch far enough to reach the motivation needed to assist in any process of mitigation.
In that case, introducing the idea of being morally obligated to take action seems a bit counterintuitive. If the popular issues surrounding certain moral obligations related to climate change are seen as supplying two equally determined sides of debate, then already the debate is being mislead; How much do you care about the near future of humankind to protect it? How deeply have you been effected by the valid predictions of scientists to change your lifestyle?
Even something as simple as being morally obligated to be at least concerned about climate change is often presented in a way that foists individuals to contemplate whether or not they should heed climate scientists when undoubtedly they should.
Here I propose that the COVID-19 pandemic can inspire us to properly acknowledge the threat of the climate crisis. Suppose we switch proposition x to fit the pandemic: Since humans are the only species capable of mitigating the coronavirus, it would therefore make the most sense for myself, as a human, to do as many things that will help with this vital process.
And the same objections would follow. They would be introduced by those who believe that the coronavirus is nothing to be taken seriously, or they might not think that their individual action has any considerable impact on the total outcome of disaster caused by lack of social cooperation. Focusing mainly on the latter objection, science has proven that individual action is absolutely vital to the mitigation of the coronavirus, and every country has now experienced the chaos that results from any attitudes of carelessness or indifference to scientific claims or reputable suggestions.
It seems silly to have to articulate to someone why they should care about the state of the earth and those inhabiting it with them, hence why they should respect the related science. But if one feels that there is nothing to be concerned about, it becomes a struggle to seize their attention, let alone cultivate it.
Thus a new and more significant task presents itself: Convince people to take scientific proof seriously enough so that they feel motivated to do their part in a collective effort to minimize the anticipation of global damage caused by global warming. What separates this task from the typical climate activist's agenda is a special appeal to individual motivation.
What this means then, is that in order for the original proposition x to be taken seriously, we must first prove that the climate crisis is indeed a global issue that will negatively effect all species, including the human race, which includes individuals; you. We must then show the ways in which science has proven that humans can in fact help decrease the ill effects of climate change.
The final goal is to create a scientifically supported and aesthetically appealing piece of motivation for people to become more concerned about the climate crisis and therefore engaged in what should be done. It is to develop a sense of moral duty that encourages the idea of engaging in individual action to combat climate change, similar to the way in which social distancing has become a moral obligation; fulfilled for the wellbeing of our family, friends, and neighbours.
If the whole world can make major sacrifices to help fight the coronavirus, then it is possible for sacrifices to be made on a global scale in order to prevent a more dangerous and permanent threat. It is possible that the same people who recognize the need for individual action when it comes to minimizing social contact might now feel more inclined to learn about what can also be done to help ease the detriments of climate change.
Unfortunately, facts must first be fed to the public in a polite manner, which is quite difficult to do when disaster is the theme of the party. Fortunately, we are becoming more familiar with the theme.
Let us not allow it to desensitize us.
Comments