The Problem with Climate Change (hint: it’s an us problem)

Climate Change isn’t the Problem.

Look, we know it is a problem. It’s the most urgent environmental challenge we face. Something that could destroy us; is degrading biodiversity; that creates famine and water shortage; one that results in untameable wildfires, sea-level rise, loss of people and productive land. The list goes on: water scarcity, disease spread, climate migration, conflict and war, pandemics, poverty, the collapse of soil health and declining water quality. So much for “carbon myopia” hey?

But solving climate change is not solely about solving the technical things, it's about persuading people of the need to solve it in the first place.

And it’s not about scaring people into action. It’s about sharing the cross-cutting depth of impact of a once stable climate in crisis. And about showing how much better, safer and more abundant our world will be if we solve it and correct the systems that lead to it.

It’s about dismantling the arguments of the alt-right, conspiracy theorists and deniers; using science. The rise of populism and conspiracy is the most urgent problem that we face.

Where are we?

In the past we have been persuasive: we have persuaded people to wear sunscreen in a world that used to use tanning oil; we have come together as countries and manufacturers to change the ozone-damaging technology in fridges, aerosols and degreasing equipment; we have even persuaded people that One Direction were headed in one direction.

But let’s just look at climate. Right now we are accelerating towards a world with an increasingly unstable climate, where unpredictable weather creates extreme events, where expecting clean drinking water to come out of the tap is not a given, nor is swimming in the river without being ill, and in some cities where the air we breathe is harming us.

We’ve tried to scare people into action (and that’s understandable as a climate crisis is a scary prospect). But it’s not working. We still can’t fully visualise what a 2 degree warmer world would look like; what it means to our lives and businesses; and what it means for the food and health systems that keep us alive. Let alone how to stop it.

The problem

It’d be really easy to focus on the sustainability problems that we face, and we don’t want to downplay these, but there are others:

We have failed to apply our storytelling skills to make science mean more.

We have failed to explain complexity - how things interconnect, integrate and intersect.

We have failed to deal with misinformation and post-truth.

And this has led us to not understand science. The scientific approach of starting with a hypothesis. The imagination necessary to visualise this approach. The duality that science gives to creativity and creativity gives to science - they are not disconnected subjects like the signs on classroom doors proclaim. They are intertwined.

The same is true of the false opposition in ecology and economy. The prefix “eco” is derived from the Greek word Oikos, meaning home. More deeply, Oikos was the word used for the basic unit of Greek society. It is often translated as home but in reality means everyone living in a given house.

Ecology is the legend or logic of a place, whilst economy is the management of a place. They are intertwined. There is no economy without ecology.

Over time these words have been placed in opposition to each other.

In a classically reductionist approach we have been sold the line that climate change is one problem to be solved (wrapped up in its own confusing lexicon of net zero commitments, carbon accounting and transition plans), rather than a symptom of a number of broken systems. Namely our disconnection to nature and our recognition that we rely on nature to stay alive - the air we breath, the water we drink and the food we eat. This has created a weird opposition to carbon metrics within the environmental world itself, let alone a bigger opposition outside of it.

One of the problems here is the way we talk about the climate crisis. As a limiter to our lifestyles, as a remover of fun, as something we must ‘fight’, as a one time phenomenon that is happening ‘to us’. Ultimately to the once fringe (and now increasingly mainstream) view that it is an artificial construct created to limit freedoms.

Coupled with greater polarisation of our society that sorts us into believers and skeptics (or sheep and truth-finders as the skeptics would have us believe) we have created uncertainty and inertia.

This is in turn exacerbated by our collective lack of scientific understanding that creates distrust and denial of the layers of evidence that have built science. The fact it relies on the input of different people from different backgrounds to draw conclusions, that it’s constantly evolving and almost ‘self-regulates’ as the existing evidence is constantly re-evaluated.

Our ‘chimp’ brains love certainty, and a populist ‘black and white’ choice offers this, instead of the healthy debate and discourse of the scientific approach. Furthermore, there is an elitism in sections of the population that centres around some people being truly enlightened and seeing through the “lies” of science. Hence the rise in those believing flat earth (or disc earth) theories. This level of ignorance is alarming but we truly have no-one to blame but ourselves.

Even the most cynical of climate deniers such as Clarkson are now seeing through the lies to the science.

So what is the answer?

How do we widen the public understanding of science? Of urgency? Of possibility? It starts with imagining a better, more abundant world.

Creativity is simply imagining a world that hasn’t arrived yet and it’s much more engaging and motivating to imagine a better world than a worse one.

Combining science and imagination is the key. If we can paint a picture of the impact of a changing climate; on our natural systems, on biodiversity, and ultimately upon ourselves we can invite a conversation that embraces a vision of a better, fairer and more abundant world.

This feels counterintuitive but it is essential if we are to motivate people to get positively engaged in reducing the extreme impacts of climate change. Allowing time and space for discussions around misunderstanding, learning and enterprise is essential. As a society we aren’t good at this. Our polarised view of the world seeks disagreement, seeks outrage even. We look for things to fight against rather than agree upon; look for things to throw out rather than rally around. Only when we can visualise a better future, rather than the problems that stand in our way, will we be released to look at our broken systems and reimagine a post-fossil fuel world.

About the Authors:

Steph Barnes is a changemaker, strategist and climate activist. A ‘Women of the Future: Rising Stars in ESG’ Listee, One Young World Ambassador and previous Sustainability Manager at Pfizer UK, she is currently seeking full time opportunities so please get in touch.

Mark Shayler is an environmental thinker, author and consultant who has been working in sustainability for over 30 years and in innovation and communication for 15 years. He runs www.thisisape.co.uk