Key Takeaways:
|
Severity should be viewed on a spectrum rather than "serious" or "not". This is because the range of what could be considered "serious" is enormous, and each place on the spectrum requires a different response.
|
|
We should constantly be looking to further our understanding of where reality lies on the spectrum in order to take a proportionate level of action that will result in the best outcome.
|
|
As most humans are optimists, the default position in the build up to any crisis is denial, and our optimistic nature as humans means that we're likely to underestimate the severity of the situation.
|
This (despite neither of the protagonists having quite such extreme views)… is The Trump-Thunberg Scale, and it is a scale of severity.
At one end of the scale you have climate change isn’t a thing, with increasing levels of severity… all the way up to “the end of all life on earth due to climate change”, something we’d like to point out is incredibly unlikely to happen.
Somewhere on this scale of severity lies “reality” and it’s in our best interest to figure out where it lies and then take action that is proportionate, as that will result in the best outcome. We must also appreciate that, as we continue to emit more carbon into the atmosphere, "reality" moves up the spectrum.
Often people say “I get that climate change is serious” but how serious? And how much is going to impact you personally?
The issue with viewing severity as “serious” or “not” is that the range of what could be considered serious is enormous, leaving a huge amount of room for poor decision making.
A core part of the last post was our optimistic nature as humans; the majority of us don't want to believe that we’re heading for trouble and therefore the default human position in the build up to any crisis, whether it’s in relation to health, a failing business, or “our planet and our future”, is the Trump End (that’s the starting point). Most of us have this strong subconscious bias dragging us down the scale meaning there is likely a gap between our beliefs and reality. If we’re being honest with ourselves, how many people took this seriously when scientists brought this to the public's attention over 30 years ago? I know I didn’t until fairly recently. Although opinions seem to be shifting quickly in the UK, I still think most of us sit between “This is a serious issue, we should do more about it” and “This is the most serious issue facing us, it needs to be our number one priority”.
Somewhere on this scale of severity lies “reality” and it’s in our best interest to figure out where it lies and then take action that is proportionate, as that will result in the best outcome. We must also appreciate that, as we continue to emit more carbon into the atmosphere, "reality" moves up the spectrum.
Often people say “I get that climate change is serious” but how serious? And how much is going to impact you personally?
The issue with viewing severity as “serious” or “not” is that the range of what could be considered serious is enormous, leaving a huge amount of room for poor decision making.
A core part of the last post was our optimistic nature as humans; the majority of us don't want to believe that we’re heading for trouble and therefore the default human position in the build up to any crisis, whether it’s in relation to health, a failing business, or “our planet and our future”, is the Trump End (that’s the starting point). Most of us have this strong subconscious bias dragging us down the scale meaning there is likely a gap between our beliefs and reality. If we’re being honest with ourselves, how many people took this seriously when scientists brought this to the public's attention over 30 years ago? I know I didn’t until fairly recently. Although opinions seem to be shifting quickly in the UK, I still think most of us sit between “This is a serious issue, we should do more about it” and “This is the most serious issue facing us, it needs to be our number one priority”.
It’s generally only as we learn more, or hear about/experience the impacts of climate change, that we move up the scale. But we must also bear in mind that there is a lag between our emissions and their impact, as well as recognise that a transition to net zero will take some time. Reality is realistically at least a couple of steps ahead of what we see happening around us. The gap between the average person's thoughts on the severity and reality is what we call “the denial gap” and for our own sakes we’ve got to make a conscious effort to a) recognise that gap and b) to close it.
This is a problem because if scientists, who have the best understanding of where reality lies, say we need to do X, and 90% of the population don’t fully appreciate the severity of the issue and think X sounds radical, the Government is never going to feel pressured, or able, to action the changes we need… which is a recipe for trouble.
To use a terrible analogy, let’s say grandma has informed you of a leak in your bathroom. If you assume it’s just a drip and on that basis you call in a plumber for tomorrow before going to bed because it’s going to cost half the price of getting one right now, but it turns out it’s coming out more like a burst fire hydrant... then, when you wake up in the morning and your house is flooded, you’re going to regret that you didn't check and pay the higher fee.
The same gap is also the opportunity gap; the individuals and companies that understand how much this issue is going to climb up our list of priorities and are quickest to react to this long term trend, put themselves at a competitive advantage... knowledge is power and profit in today’s information era. Sustainability isn’t a passing fashion, it’s going to become more and more prominent as that gap closes over next few decades and there are plenty of examples of companies that are profiting from being ahead of the curve (Tesla’s record profits to highlight one).
We should also consider the other end of the spectrum, and although around 80% of us are optimists, not all of us are. It’s the 20% that tended to be the early adopters in the fight against climate change and I think it would be fair to say they are less optimistic about the future (by definition) and perhaps more anxious in general. This less optimistic view of the world is partly why groups like Extinction Rebellion and Greenpeace can be difficult to relate to for many of us, and why the “Green Movement” is sometimes described as having a branding issue.
Anyone tempted to think that this is all doom and gloom, should also be encouraged to challenge their beliefs and question whether they’ve drifted too far right on the Trump-Thunberg Scale. The scientific consensus is that we realistically have time to avoid complete climate breakdown if we start taking proportionate action. Catastrophizing is unhelpful as it can unnecessarily spread panic as well as damage our belief that we can successfully stabilise global temperatures, tempting us to give up.
So where is reality?
I’ve spent much of my spare time in the last 4 years trying to answer that question and unsurprisingly there’s uncertainty about where it lies (i.e. we’re not totally sure). However, I have almost no doubt that this is the most serious issue facing humanity and that addressing it should be our number one priority.
This is a problem because if scientists, who have the best understanding of where reality lies, say we need to do X, and 90% of the population don’t fully appreciate the severity of the issue and think X sounds radical, the Government is never going to feel pressured, or able, to action the changes we need… which is a recipe for trouble.
To use a terrible analogy, let’s say grandma has informed you of a leak in your bathroom. If you assume it’s just a drip and on that basis you call in a plumber for tomorrow before going to bed because it’s going to cost half the price of getting one right now, but it turns out it’s coming out more like a burst fire hydrant... then, when you wake up in the morning and your house is flooded, you’re going to regret that you didn't check and pay the higher fee.
The same gap is also the opportunity gap; the individuals and companies that understand how much this issue is going to climb up our list of priorities and are quickest to react to this long term trend, put themselves at a competitive advantage... knowledge is power and profit in today’s information era. Sustainability isn’t a passing fashion, it’s going to become more and more prominent as that gap closes over next few decades and there are plenty of examples of companies that are profiting from being ahead of the curve (Tesla’s record profits to highlight one).
We should also consider the other end of the spectrum, and although around 80% of us are optimists, not all of us are. It’s the 20% that tended to be the early adopters in the fight against climate change and I think it would be fair to say they are less optimistic about the future (by definition) and perhaps more anxious in general. This less optimistic view of the world is partly why groups like Extinction Rebellion and Greenpeace can be difficult to relate to for many of us, and why the “Green Movement” is sometimes described as having a branding issue.
Anyone tempted to think that this is all doom and gloom, should also be encouraged to challenge their beliefs and question whether they’ve drifted too far right on the Trump-Thunberg Scale. The scientific consensus is that we realistically have time to avoid complete climate breakdown if we start taking proportionate action. Catastrophizing is unhelpful as it can unnecessarily spread panic as well as damage our belief that we can successfully stabilise global temperatures, tempting us to give up.
So where is reality?
I’ve spent much of my spare time in the last 4 years trying to answer that question and unsurprisingly there’s uncertainty about where it lies (i.e. we’re not totally sure). However, I have almost no doubt that this is the most serious issue facing humanity and that addressing it should be our number one priority.
To end on a positive note, if we can stabilise global temperatures (which we must), we give ourselves a good chance of creating a better future, for ourselves and the generations to come. We should not be blindly terrified of climate change (we know what we need to do), but we should be deeply anxious about not doing enough to address it… we do not have to facc this up for ourselves.