The big idea: why climate tribalism only helps the deniers | Climate crisis
One of the most effective ways to be a climate sceptic is to say nothing at all. Why expend the effort slapping down climate solutions when you can rely on feuding climate activists to tear each other’s ideas apart? We tend to fight with those we are closest to. This is true of family. But it’s also true of our peers, which for me, are those obsessed with trying to fix climate change. Step into the murky waters of Twitter and you’ll often find activists spending more time going after one another than battling climate falsehoods.
These might seem like small squabbles, but they have a real impact. They slow our progress and play into the hands of the deniers, the oil companies, the anti-climate lobbyists. These groups push on while our heads are turned.
What we want to achieve is the same: to reduce carbon emissions. The problem is that we are stubborn about how we get there. We often have strong opinions about what the evils are, and how to fix them. The nuclear zealots want to go all-in on building new power stations. The renewable zealots want no nuclear at all. Some promote electric cars; their opponents want car-less roads. Vegans advocate for cutting out animal products; flexitarians feel judged when they eat their weekly roast chicken.
These cracks can start at an even higher level. For some it is not about the specific technology we deploy, it’s about the fact that we see technology as a solution at all. There are those who believe that technology will fix everything. Their detractors think this techno-optimism is naive; only radical economic and social change can save us.
Such inner-circle battles aren’t specific to climate. They are everywhere. The American economist Michael Munger wrote about this very same tension in economic policy, describing how the world is split into “directionalists” and “destinationists”. Directionalists back any solution that takes us towards the final goal. In climate, this means they support anything that puts a notable dent in emissions. Destinationists are less flexible: they have an ideal outcome in mind. They block and reject anything that doesn’t fit their perfect vision. If they want to see a car-less world, they push against electric vehicles (EVs), even if they would cut emissions by a lot.
Destinationalism is a problem. Sure, we all have our favourite solutions. But the reality is that we can’t afford to be choosy. The answer to almost every climate dilemma is “We need both”. We need renewables and nuclear energy (even if that means just keeping our existing nuclear plants online). We need to tackle fossil fuels and our food system; fossil fuels are the biggest emitter, but emissions from food alone would take us well past 1.5C (34.7F) and close to 2C (35.6F). Not everyone can commute without a car, so we need electric vehicles and cycle-friendly cities and public transport networks. We can’t decarbonise without technological change, but we need to rethink our economic, political and social systems to make sure they flourish.
These battles are not just neutral noises off; they actively help the other side. Fossil fuel companies don’t need to dunk on nuclear power because many environmentalists have done it for them. Take Germany, where nuclear plants were closed early, delaying the phasing-out of coal power. This was not only bad for the climate but for air pollution too. Many people on the pro-nuclear side didn’t help: their bashing of renewable energy technologies made anti-nuclear environmentalists even more defensive. Or there’s the claim that EVs can be just as bad for the environment, often trotted out even in green-leaning media. In response, people are persuaded to stick with their petrol or diesel car. Similarly, meat-eaters who are considering cutting back see claims about how “unhealthy” and “processed” some plant-based burgers are, and opt for beef instead.
The solution isn’t to stop debating. I’m not claiming we should uncritically support every proposal on the table. That would waste money, time and resources. Our efforts would become scattered and diluted. We’d focus on the wrong things. We need to be intensely critical to make sure we invest in climate solutions that are effective and can scale. And no solution is a panacea – EVs, lab-grown meat, renewable energy, nuclear power – all have some impact. We need to be transparent about those impacts to reduce them as much as we can.
So how can we make these debates work better? First, we need to become less fixated on the ideal pathway. None of us will get precisely what we want; we need to compromise and take a route that reduces emissions effectively and quickly, using a combination of solutions.
Second, we need to be more generous when dealing with our rivals. Intellectual disagreements can quickly descend into name-calling. Real conversation stops and we talk past one another instead. We become more focused on winning the argument than understanding the other side. This makes the climate solution space hostile, which is counterproductive considering we want the world’s best minds to be there.
Third, we need to be honest about what is and isn’t true about the solutions we don’t like. “EVs emit just as much CO2 as petrol cars” is simply wrong. They emit significantly less, even if they emit more than the subway or a bike (and yes, this is still true when we account for the emissions needed to produce the battery). “Nuclear energy is unsafe” is wrong – it’s thousands of times safer than the coal we’re trying to replace, and just as safe as renewables. It’s fine to advocate for your preferred solutions, but it’s not OK to lie about the alternatives to make your point.
In short, we need to become better directionalists. To focus on moving towards our goals, rather than pinning all our hopes on an ideal means of getting there. Whether you’re a fan of nuclear or solar, electric cars or trains, lab-grown meat or lentils: we are all on the same team. Let’s start acting like it.
after newsletter promotion
Dr Hannah Ritchie is lead researcher at Our World in Data.
Further reading
Saving Us: A Climate Scientist’s Case for Hope and Healing in a Divided World by Katharine Hayhoe (Simon & Schuster, £12.99)
How to Avoid a Climate Disaster: The Solutions We Have and the Breakthroughs We Need by Bill Gates (Penguin, £10.99)
Speed and Scale: A Global Action Plan for Solving Our Climate Crisis Now by John Doerr (Penguin, £16.99)
One of the most effective ways to be a climate sceptic is to say nothing at all. Why expend the effort slapping down climate solutions when you can rely on feuding climate activists to tear each other’s ideas apart? We tend to fight with those we are closest to. This is true of family. But it’s also true of our peers, which for me, are those obsessed with trying to fix climate change. Step into the murky waters of Twitter and you’ll often find activists spending more time going after one another than battling climate falsehoods.
These might seem like small squabbles, but they have a real impact. They slow our progress and play into the hands of the deniers, the oil companies, the anti-climate lobbyists. These groups push on while our heads are turned.
What we want to achieve is the same: to reduce carbon emissions. The problem is that we are stubborn about how we get there. We often have strong opinions about what the evils are, and how to fix them. The nuclear zealots want to go all-in on building new power stations. The renewable zealots want no nuclear at all. Some promote electric cars; their opponents want car-less roads. Vegans advocate for cutting out animal products; flexitarians feel judged when they eat their weekly roast chicken.
These cracks can start at an even higher level. For some it is not about the specific technology we deploy, it’s about the fact that we see technology as a solution at all. There are those who believe that technology will fix everything. Their detractors think this techno-optimism is naive; only radical economic and social change can save us.
Such inner-circle battles aren’t specific to climate. They are everywhere. The American economist Michael Munger wrote about this very same tension in economic policy, describing how the world is split into “directionalists” and “destinationists”. Directionalists back any solution that takes us towards the final goal. In climate, this means they support anything that puts a notable dent in emissions. Destinationists are less flexible: they have an ideal outcome in mind. They block and reject anything that doesn’t fit their perfect vision. If they want to see a car-less world, they push against electric vehicles (EVs), even if they would cut emissions by a lot.
Destinationalism is a problem. Sure, we all have our favourite solutions. But the reality is that we can’t afford to be choosy. The answer to almost every climate dilemma is “We need both”. We need renewables and nuclear energy (even if that means just keeping our existing nuclear plants online). We need to tackle fossil fuels and our food system; fossil fuels are the biggest emitter, but emissions from food alone would take us well past 1.5C (34.7F) and close to 2C (35.6F). Not everyone can commute without a car, so we need electric vehicles and cycle-friendly cities and public transport networks. We can’t decarbonise without technological change, but we need to rethink our economic, political and social systems to make sure they flourish.
These battles are not just neutral noises off; they actively help the other side. Fossil fuel companies don’t need to dunk on nuclear power because many environmentalists have done it for them. Take Germany, where nuclear plants were closed early, delaying the phasing-out of coal power. This was not only bad for the climate but for air pollution too. Many people on the pro-nuclear side didn’t help: their bashing of renewable energy technologies made anti-nuclear environmentalists even more defensive. Or there’s the claim that EVs can be just as bad for the environment, often trotted out even in green-leaning media. In response, people are persuaded to stick with their petrol or diesel car. Similarly, meat-eaters who are considering cutting back see claims about how “unhealthy” and “processed” some plant-based burgers are, and opt for beef instead.
The solution isn’t to stop debating. I’m not claiming we should uncritically support every proposal on the table. That would waste money, time and resources. Our efforts would become scattered and diluted. We’d focus on the wrong things. We need to be intensely critical to make sure we invest in climate solutions that are effective and can scale. And no solution is a panacea – EVs, lab-grown meat, renewable energy, nuclear power – all have some impact. We need to be transparent about those impacts to reduce them as much as we can.
So how can we make these debates work better? First, we need to become less fixated on the ideal pathway. None of us will get precisely what we want; we need to compromise and take a route that reduces emissions effectively and quickly, using a combination of solutions.
Second, we need to be more generous when dealing with our rivals. Intellectual disagreements can quickly descend into name-calling. Real conversation stops and we talk past one another instead. We become more focused on winning the argument than understanding the other side. This makes the climate solution space hostile, which is counterproductive considering we want the world’s best minds to be there.
Third, we need to be honest about what is and isn’t true about the solutions we don’t like. “EVs emit just as much CO2 as petrol cars” is simply wrong. They emit significantly less, even if they emit more than the subway or a bike (and yes, this is still true when we account for the emissions needed to produce the battery). “Nuclear energy is unsafe” is wrong – it’s thousands of times safer than the coal we’re trying to replace, and just as safe as renewables. It’s fine to advocate for your preferred solutions, but it’s not OK to lie about the alternatives to make your point.
In short, we need to become better directionalists. To focus on moving towards our goals, rather than pinning all our hopes on an ideal means of getting there. Whether you’re a fan of nuclear or solar, electric cars or trains, lab-grown meat or lentils: we are all on the same team. Let’s start acting like it.
after newsletter promotion
Dr Hannah Ritchie is lead researcher at Our World in Data.
Further reading
Saving Us: A Climate Scientist’s Case for Hope and Healing in a Divided World by Katharine Hayhoe (Simon & Schuster, £12.99)
How to Avoid a Climate Disaster: The Solutions We Have and the Breakthroughs We Need by Bill Gates (Penguin, £10.99)
Speed and Scale: A Global Action Plan for Solving Our Climate Crisis Now by John Doerr (Penguin, £16.99)
Denial of responsibility! Techno Blender is an automatic aggregator of the all world’s media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, all materials to their authors. If you are the owner of the content and do not want us to publish your materials, please contact us by email – [email protected]. The content will be deleted within 24 hours.