The Dangers of Climate Change Apathy

In a world where even parts of the infamously mild and miserable United Kingdom saw temperatures of 20C and devastating wildfires on a winter weekday in February, it is becoming impossible to deny the prevalence of climate change.

Despite the clear warnings that there is something deeply wrong with the weather, climate change scepticism is still rampant in parts of the world. Even in those that accept climate change there is a worrying tendency towards unhelpful behaviours.

There’s the ever-growing push for one solution in individual consumption, from veganism to ditching plastic straws, but equally as worrying is a strong sense of apathy coursing its way through the public consciousness on the footsteps of the growing acceptance of climate science.

Last week, during the unseasonably warm weather, an amusing, if anxiety-provoking, comic did the rounds on social media. The comic by the hilarious Sarah Scribbles, created in 2017 and relevant every year since, sums up the conflict of enjoying a “lovely” sunny winter day and the internal screams of watching the earth dying.

On these kinds of posts reactions often seem to edge towards almost the polar opposite of climate change denial, a complete acceptance of our path towards catastrophic global warming. Comments shrug off the impacts we are currently seeing as just the death throes of humanity rather than the finale of earth itself, which, once we are gone, will simply regenerate and start afresh, better and stronger without us.

These arguments are not only defeatist but also show the extreme arrogance of our species, the creature of the anthropocene, whose actions have so dramatically altered the world in just a few centuries.

While it may be true we are signing our own death warrants we are also including the majority (if not all) of the species of plant, animal and insect which share the world with us.

It is now widely accepted that we are in the sixth mass extinction event on planet earth. We are watching dozens of species go extinct every day. Many disappear before we’ve even discovered them. The WWF puts losses since 1970 at roughly 60 percent.

These are shocking figures, and not a trend that the earth is going to recover from overnight. It is likely it will take at least 5 to 10 million years for biodiversity to recover but depending on our impact it could be more. The mass extinction event which took place 250 million years ago, at the end of the Permian period, was the largest seen on earth with at least 90 percent of species wiped out. It took at least 30 million years for ecosystems to fully recover.

The last event of this kind, possibly the most popular mass extinction, was that of the dinosaurs 66 million years ago. This catastrophic event saw the disappearance of roughly 75 percent of life on earth and a significant shift in the globally dominant species, from reptiles to mammals. Only a handful of hardy species cling on today.

Is this the fate we want to resign the creatures we share our planet with to? Creatures which have taken millions of years to perfectly evolve to their environment which we are now ripping up.

The red panda, for instance, was linked to it’s distant cousin the giant panda by a common ancestor 40 million years ago. In the intervening time these two have evolved into two distinct species, one related to bears, the other closer to ferrets and weasels. Despite their now distant connection both species evolved a similar false thumb to help them eat their chosen diet, bamboo.

This fantastic convergent evolutionary phenomenon will not be repeated in the same way once we are gone. The red pandas, the giant pandas and even their beloved bamboo will be wiped out, possibly while we are still clinging onto our burning planet.

Those that are happily awaiting humanity’s destruction to let in a new flourishing era on earth are callously overlooking the accompanying losses. This kind of extreme apathy is just as destructive as those who deny climate change altogether. It produces the same inaction and acceleration of climatic catastrophe.

Instead we need positive action. A willingness to take a stand and try to change paths towards a more hopeful future. Dismantling the current destructive model of business as usual and creating a greener world for everyone.

Extinction Rebellion (XR) is such a group striving for this through non-violent direct action. The movement, which began in the UK but is already rapidly growing across the world, aims to create mass disruption to shake governments into action on climate change and is a direct response to the ongoing anthropocene mass extinction.

An approach that that combines a cohesive grand narrative and a focus on building local communities has already had significant attention and success. Bursting into life last November it saw thousands take to the streets in London and other cities across the UK.

Actions have included symbolic funeral processions throughout the country. A coffin for dead and dying species, as well as for our planet as a whole, is slowly marched through the streets. I will be joining one such protest this Saturday with my local group in Colchester. This alternative to the usually jubilant protest marches give the space for attendees to grieve for our current situation while also uniting to find solutions.

With the next mass event planned for a full week, commencing the 15th April, XR focuses not only on action but also creating a regenerative culture, bonding those who are terrified by climate change and breaking down the walls of alienation which create paralysing apathy.

Groups across the country are planning walks over the days leading up to the 15th to converge in London, an action symbolic of the resistance to modern day environmentally destructive living and the coming together of those who oppose it.

Our self-destruction through climate change isn’t going to see humanity wiped out and then every other species breath a sigh of relief that we’re gone. We’re dragging them down with us and in fact throwing them in the fires first. The planet may recover but it is likely to be a very different place.

There may be studies that say we’re already too late but I don’t think that is a reason to give in. We can try to lessen our impact, give life as it currently stands more time and if all else fails at least create a more green and healthy system for us all to live in.

However, I live in hope that we still have time to stop our own extinction and that of many of the creatures we share our planet with. But time is running out. Rather than resign ourselves to denial and apathy we can reach out to others and fight.

Who needs water when you have money? II

This video is not the one mentioned in my article but a brief overview of the protest against fracking at Balcombe (a village in Sussex UK) that I believe summerises this descent from beautiful resistence to violence that I mention in the first paragraphs.

Yesterday I watched a video that brought me to tears. I watched as on the news a good friend was roughly held to the floor by police and felt completely lost as there was nothing I could do about it. However the tears were quickly swept away by anger as I listened to the commentary over the video of two reporters talking about what was going on at Balcombe. I could do nothing but seethe at my laptop screen as the reporter in the studio asked whether it was the protestors that had escalated the protest to this violent level and his man on the ground tried his best to twist his words so he could say that the police (who as he talked were roughly shoving a group of protestors & dragging along confused looking individuals) definitely weren’t to blame for the current state of what was on the days before then a beautiful non-violent show of resistance.

These types of tactics, where the violence of the police and the commentary of the media work hand in hand to distort the image of the protestors, is nothing new and we have seen it being used to varying degrees for years to shape public opinion. Of course it is not always the case that the protestors are completely non-violent but in the case Balcombe (& many environmental protests) the non-violent mantra is key to the way the protest is carried out. But for the everyman who reads in the news that a protest like Balcombe has turned to violence they do not know this to be the case. The media has worked so well to create the false link between protestors and violence our uninvolved observer will often believe it was the protestors who began the violence and the police only did what they did as necessary retaliation (when in many cases the opposite is closer to the truth).

But this is just one of many ways that various institutions are shifting the public’s opinion on who protestors are and by proxy what they are campaigning for. Increasingly the government has lost all subtly in their attempts to make the public value the environment in the same way that they do (as I discussed in a previous post https://eeleereynolds.wordpress.com/2013/08/17/who-needs-water-when-you-have-money/). They are trying to insure that the ideology of capitalism reigns supreme over the environmental concerns.

Recent moves make these goals transparent as the government suggests paying off local communities that will be most affected by fracking happening in their area. They are offering a £100,000 initial pay-out and even suggesting a further 1% of the revenue from shale extraction (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/estimates-of-shale-gas-resource-in-north-of-england-published-alongside-a-package-of-community-benefits). Here they are encouraging the locals to think of what is happening near them in a very different way. They are hoping this incentive will cause them to push aside the debates over water contamination or lower bills for the rest of the country and, in the manner of the capitalist investor, consider fracking in terms of their own well-being. The nearby well becomes in their interests, an investment for them.

In a strange turn of events (that feels like the situation is being held up in a hall of mirrors, refracting and reflecting again and again) Ladbrokes has decided to offer odds on fracking asking their punters to place bets on where they think fracking will commercially take off first. So here we have a company deciding to make a profit off the decisions of the government and other companies (which are in it for the money) by encouraging people to try to make their own profit off the turn of events. So who cares if you get fracked you might win with some great odds! Sadly, I think this example shows that this way of thinking is already embedded in many people’s mind and an opinion on something will be shaped on personal gain rather than considering a wider picture.

There are so many places that have it in their interests to perpetuate the value of money over the environment. And these sorts of tactics of trying to shape the public’s opinion on a matter based on money are also employed for protests in general. Last week police estimates put the costs of the Balcombe protests at £700,000 (http://www.sussex.police.uk/pressline/2013/08/16/balcombe-policing-costs-approach-%C2%A3750,000) and after the last few days that figure can only have risen significantly. The police are often fond of publicly announcing the cost of protests, particularly environmental ones, to the public purse. This perpetuates the negative image in the public mind of protestors, making them believe they are just causing trouble and costing YOU money!  They are encouraged to be blinded to the often selfless and wider motives by blaring sirens of public costs.

And as I pointed out with the Ladbrokes example I think it is fair to say that for many people it works and as much as I hate to say it I think retaliation from activists is going to have to play by those rules. For example when the public costs of protests are announced why not try to switch the blame. Show that these costs have come from suppression of public opinion and, as Caroline Lucas pointed out after being arrested at Balcombe, non-violent direct action often comes after attempts to use democratic processes have simply been ignored (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/10252660/Fracking-protests-police-arrest-Green-MP-Caroline-Lucas.html). If the government started to listen to the opposition to these procedures rather than only listening to the companies that have them in their pocket than these high costs of policing would not occur. This point and the other potential public costs should be highlighted, to turn their own ploys against them.

I don’t want to play by the capitalist’s game. I don’t want to have to convince people that their planet matters because it’ll save them money but this way of thinking is going to be difficult to shake people out of. These sorts of tactics could be the first steps in getting people to walk away from capitalism; these things can’t be changed overnight. Maybe twisting their ideology against them is the first baby step towards complete change. Whatever the paths taken it’ll be a dedicated process that might take some time, so along the way we might just have to play their game (to an ever so minimal extent) so we can start sorting out this planet for future generations.