Climate Conversations
I recently came across a thought-provoking observation by the psychiatrist Dr. Udo Boessmann, who wrote:
Climate consciousness obviously concerns perceptions and experiences that have thus far been reserved for us human beings. That is, it can be counted as a higher, culturally-mediated form of consciousness, and as such, it doesn’t function like the primary, biological consciousness that animals have also developed. That means first of all that it is only possible for humans like us to experience and to describe the world or even the climate. We can acquire speech and narrative, and we can use symbolic technologies (like writing), and have a self-consciousness or consciousness of “I.”
(From “Über das Bewusstsein der Klimakrise” in Psychologie der Klimakrise, Lea Dohm et. al., Psychosoczial-Verlag, 2021. My translation.)
To extend this idea a bit, the causes and effects of climate change are global in scale, reaching every corner of the Earth, sea, and sky. As a result, most of what we know about it does not come from direct experience. We know it indirectly, through stories, articles, pictures, videos, and other forms of communication. Without these culturally-mediated forms, most of us wouldn’t know about the devastating floods in Pakistan or the dried-up Yangtze river, and we wouldn’t know that greenhouse gas emissions are a major contributing factor.
To put it another way, not only our social response to climate change but our knowledge of climate change itself is fundamentally interpersonal, and in that sense, it’s always part of a larger conversation. Without interpersonal communication, there would be no knowledge of or action related to climate change.
On an individual level, personal conversations about climate change are crucial for a variety of reasons. Conversations allow us to exchange information, coordinate action, support one another, and help clear up doubts among people who aren’t certain that global warming is a serious issue.
Despite the importance of climate conversations, it appears that a lot of us aren’t having them. According to a national survey conducted in 2018 by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communications (YPCCC), around six in ten US residents said that climate change is important to them, but only 35% talk with friends and family about it, with 65% of respondents saying they never talk about it.
In part, this reflects the fact that it can be daunting to have these conversations. Climate change can be a controversial topic, and people may be apprehensive that they will have conflicts that will make them feel uncomfortable. As it happens, bad actors may intentionally amplify political polarization around climate change precisely to try to shut down the conversation; see, for example, Melting the Polarization Around Climate Change Politics in the Georgetown Environmental Law Review.
In my experience, it can help to deal with this kind of reluctance by using just a bit of structured reflection up front, in which we think through what kinds of conversations we’re up for. We need not let the fact that some discussion are unpleasant keep us from having any discussions at all.
There are a number of ways that we can talk about the subject, from contentious debates with strangers to rousing speeches at demonstrations to quietly sharing our thoughts and feelings with friends. Most of us are drawn to some of these interactions more than others, and when we have a sense of what we prefer, it can be a lot easier to target the conversations we want to have and to avoid the ones that have a low probability of a good outcome.
To offer a simple framework for thinking about what kind of climate communicator you might be, I have drawn from personality typologies and interaction style models in psychology, such as the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the interaction models described by David Keirsey and Linda Berens. I’ll start by proposing four hypothetical spectrum traits we can use to clarify our engagement style.
Spectrum 1: introverted vs. extroverted
For our purposes, we’ll say that extroverts are usually energized by being around a lot of people while introverts usually find it draining. Note that both introverts and extroverts need both solitude and intimacy at times, and introverts can have extremely sharp interpersonal skills.
Spectrum 2: analytical vs. feeling-oriented
Some people tend to make judgments by focusing first on rational analysis while other people attend to their feelings. Stereotypes aside, feeling-type people do not necessarily make irrational decisions - they can have a well-honed sense of feeling is essentially used to communicate the outcomes of their deliberations to themselves. It’s primarily a difference of processing styles.
Spectrum 3: cautious vs. risk-taking
Conversations can involve risks, particularly when they get heated or adversarial. Some people are energized by a high-stakes conversation, while other people feel shut down.
Spectrum 4: issue-oriented vs. people-oriented
Conversation can be as much about connecting with other people as the discussion topic itself. We can also use conversation to bring people into alignment or conflict, to forge connections or signal opposition, or to coordinate action.
These are only four of the many possibilities we could use, but let’s leave it at this for now.
As a simple exercise, rank yourself in each spectrum and give each ranking a weight from one to ten. For example, I fall strongly on the analytical end of the spectrum, so I’d say I’m an analytical 9. I’m more cautious than a risk-taker, but that’s more toward the middle, so maybe I’m a cautious 4 or 5.
Now let’s consider five hypothetical climate communication styles. These are also non-exhaustive and non-exclusive, but I think these are recognizable types:
Activist: Zealously advocates to motivate action and persuade.
Educator/reporter: After careful research, explains findings in a structured, formal way.
Science or technology geek: Deeply into climatology, renewable energy, or related fields. Likes engaging with other specialists at a high level.
Debater: Gets a kind of sporting pleasure out of debunking bogus arguments and refuting skeptics.
Private conservationist: Concerned about climate change, but not drawn to open communication about it. Prefers to speak to trusted friends and family.
It’s worth noting that all five of these types can contribute to combating climate change in important ways. For example, the private conservationist may be the most likely to persuade climate skeptics, who are most likely to respond to deep, ongoing conversations with someone they know and care about than to any data. For more on this, check out the previously-mentioned YPCCC study or this short video by Katharine Hayhoe.
Now we can go back to our hypothetical personality types and score them on our four characteristics. I’d give it something like this:
To take myself as an example, I’m introverted, analytical, cautious, and issue-oriented, so it shouldn’t surprise you to find me writing this newsletter, as my style is a fit with the educator/reporter type. I also have to agree with my chart here, that my style is not a good fit with activism, so I know that engaging in that way would be at risk for high stress and a poor outcome.
I won’t break down each of the 16 possible combinations, we’re just getting a sense of the possibilities. Once you’ve gotten a sense of your engagement style, it’s easy to identify conversations that are likely to fit or to clash with your type. For myself, I can see that writing reflective, analytical posts or talking to experts or concerned lay people would be a good fit, while trying to persuade climate skeptics or to rile up a crowd would be a bad fit.
Because climate change is such a large problem, I don’t have to do everything myself, and neither do you. Even if you’re wary about getting caught up in acrimonious debates, don’t let that stop you from having the kinds of conversations that are suited to your style.
Call to Action: Have a climate conversation in the next few weeks
Now here is my challenge, should you choose to accept it. Once you have a sense of the kinds of conversations you’re up for, make a point of having one of them in the next week or two. You could talk to a friend over coffee about your thoughts or concerns, or about an area you’d like to know more about. Or you could take a deep dive on /r/RenewableEnergy/ and try to kick off a substantive discussion about a technology you’re interested in. Or beg to differ with a climate skeptic in an epic 20-Tweet takedown and respond to all comers. Whatever would energize your process instead of wearing you down.
News roundup
Patagonia Clothing donated to fight climate change
Let’s start with some good news. Yvon Choinard, the founder of the Patagonia clothing company, and his family have agreed to give the company away to a special trust which will donate its profits to combating climate change in perpetuity. They’ve really raised the bar for charitable giving by billionaires.
The Guardian: Patagonia’s billionaire owner gives away company to fight climate crisis
New York Times: Billionaire No More: Patagonia Founder Gives Away the Company
Ethereum’s energy use plummets
More good news! On September 15, Ethereum, the world’s second-largest cryptocurrency, implemented a major change that reduced the amount of energy their currency consumes by more than 99%. It got a lot of coverage, in part because the gigantic electricity needs of cryptocurrencies like Ethereum and Bitcoin has long been a source of controversy. As Ars Technica pointed out, before last week’s change “Ethereum's annualized power consumption was comparable to the country of Chile's, and its carbon footprint was similar to Hong Kong's.”
Gorging on this much power has led to some appalling developments, such as when a decommissioned coal power plant in upstate New York was purchased by a private equity firm and brought back online to power the firm’s massive array of servers for bitcoin mining in 2021.
If you’re not too up on cryptocurrency and want to better understand this change and its implications, I highly recommend CoinDesk’s article The Ethereum Merge Is Done, Opening a New Era for the Second-Biggest Blockchain. It does a good job walking through the technology and the details in a reader-friendly way.
US Senate approves climate treaty banning HFCs
By a strong bipartisan majority, the US Senate voted to to adopt the 2016 Kigali Amendment, the first time the US has ratified an international climate treaty in 30 years. The treaty targets a group of potent greenhouse gases called hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), which are frequently thousands of times stronger than CO2 in retaining heat in the atmosphere. The treaty requires reducing production of HFCs by 85% over 15 years. According to the New York Times, “scientists estimate [eliminating HFCs] would prevent up to 0.5 degrees Celsius, or roughly 1 degree Fahrenheit, of warming by the end of this century.”
The move is largely symbolic, as the US had already committed to equivalent reduction targets. Still, it still sends an important signal that the GOP can be motivated by the right incentives - both Politico and the New York Times attribute its Republican support to strong backing from the business community.
EU takes limited action on old-growth logging for fuel
Last week’s roundup led with a disturbing NYT investigation that found EU green subsidies are providing billions of euros to cut down old-growth, protected forests in Europe for firewood. The European Parliament just took action to phase out the practice, but in deference to the incipient energy crisis, they left key details undecided and the changes are at least a year out. The decision has come under fire by numerous critics and activists.
The Guardian: EU limits subsidies for burning trees under renewable energy directive
New York Times: European Union Signals a Move Away from Wood Energy
“Sunshine Project” raises public health concerns
This sounds like it’s from a George Orwell novel, but it's true: the town of Welcome, Louisiana, mostly populated by Black descendants of slaves, is set to be home to the Sunshine Project, a massive plastics recycling plant being built by the Formosa Plastics Group. After a judge threw out the company's air permits, which would have permitted the plant to emit EPA-recognized carcinogens and more greenhouse gas emissions than three coal-fired power plants, the company said they're going to build it anyway.
Inside Climate News: Judge Tosses Air Permits For $9.4 Billion Louisiana Plastics Plant
New York Times: In ‘Cancer Alley,’ Judge Blocks Huge Petrochemical Plant
Climate Tipping Points Conference
In last week’s report, we looked at a major study warning that even meeting our current ambitious climate goals would leave the world vulnerable to at least five major “tipping points,” such as an irreversible melting process of the Greenland ice sheet being set in motion. If you’re interested in the topic, Carbon Brief has great coverage of a conference at the University of Exeter on the subject of tipping points.
UN greenlights exploratory deep-sea mining
Apparently, around half of the Earth’s surface is the sole jurisdiction of a tiny, secretive UN agency based in Jamaica, and they’re starting to greenlight exploratory deep-sea mining projects with mining concerns with whom they’ve become suspiciously cozy.
EcoWatch: UN Agency Approves Controversial Deep-Sea Mining Tests
New York Times: Secret Data, Tiny Islands and a Quest for Treasure on the Ocean Floor
Photo essay: drought impact on the world’s waterways
In case you missed it: this haunting photo essay from August chronicles the punishing effects of droughts on the world’s great rivers, including the Loire, the Po, the Yangtze, the Colorado, and many more.
Join the conversation!
Any thoughts about this week’s newsletter? Something you’d like to add, or that you disagreed with? Anything you’d like to see more or less of in the future? Please let us know in the comments below!