First entry in my Copenhagen diary. OK, I’m not technically in Copenhagen yet — I’m on my way, in Singapore being interviewed for the Rolex Young Laureates program, meeting some incredible youth from the Asian and Pacific region who are working on innovative approaches to social and environmental issues. There are social entrepreneurs from, among other places: China, India, Mongolia, and the Philippines. Had some great conversations with a Chinese entrepreneur who says the level of awareness on climate change is now relatively high in China — and that many Chinese had seen An Inconvenient Truth.
Found out a few hours ago that Malcolm Turnbull got rolled by Tony Abbott. By one vote. Wow. One of my friends once said, hey, if the Liberals have a freaky uncle, don’t let him hide at the back! Not sure about that … but I do know that the Liberal Party has just lost a large chunk (if not the whole chunk) of its youth voting base. OK, it probably wasn’t a huge percentage of its voters to start with — but as a party they’re heading for absolute collapse and eventually, electoral irrelevance if they continue to be dominated by people who deny climate change is happening. It will be interesting to see the outcome of the by-elections on the 5th.
So … now the government will either pass the legislation without amendments after a double dissolution, or wait until next year and negotiate with the Greens, and we will end up with a stronger scheme. Or something else could happen. The only predictable thing about climate-change politics is that you rarely can predict what’s going to happen.
For example, I can’t believe how quickly the debate on climate change disintegrated into climate denialism in the past few months. Apparently it’s not just in Australia — see George Monbiot’s recent article here. Interesting thesis: that the reason more older people tend to disbelieve climate change is because it reminds them of death, and so they refute its premise because they are avoiding thinking about their own mortality. What do you think? Any truth in that?
Read the rest of Anna’s first Copenhagen diary entry at Crikey‘s Rooted blog.
My sense is that it’s not about refuting premises which belongs to the realm of logic and rationalism (in the philosophical sense of the words). However if Monbiot’s thesis of disbelief of death and mortality is recast as being of the subconscious or non rational realm then it may be closer to the mark. This may fit for the denialists also.
Not enough of the psychology of denialism (a pathology of sorts) has been thought about or talked about in relation to climate change yet this pathology goes to what Monbiot is alluding to. It seems to be more prevalent in certain types of people – people who need or crave certainty and strong figures of authority whether these be political or religious authorities yet paradoxically insist on the myth of heroic individualism. Another paradox here is that such folks are seemingly risk averse while being prepared to risk the capacity of the planet to sustain life (including their own) as we know it.
They are walking over the precipice while remaining unconscious to their folly – like the sheep in “Far from the Maddening Crowd”
Or, perhaps they are simply utterly selfish bastards who figure they can insulate themselves from the effects of climate chaos. (aka the Minerals Council and that ilk).
I remember years ago meeting a woman who had spent a number of years in one of Pol Pot’s border camps as a supporter and revolutionary guard and despite all the evidence to the contrary she refused to believe that that regime had orchestrated genocide and that he was a good man. I also knew a nuclear physicist who on the day he lay dying of cancer his bones shattering and systems failing was proclaiming he was making a full recovery.
Its time we properly named this pathology. This is not scepticism, it is irrational denialism. It is highly rational to insure against the very strong 90% + certainty that we are the problem. It is highly irrational to deny there is a problem and to subvert attempts to fix the problem.
When the evidence for anthropogenic climate from so many disciplines is so overwhelming this denialism is a kind of death wish. The problem is if sufficient numbers of people fall towards denialism – of climate science and of their own mortality they may take the rest of us with them.
So please…lets call the denialists by their true name…in a bid to shake them out of their fundamentalist pathology and into a more rational reality.
The Monbiot thesis and similar ramblings about the supposed motives of sceptics is grossly patronising. To assume that everyone on your side is of course supremely rational and the people on the other side are by definition supremely irrational (without providing any evidence for this) is one of the oldest rhetorical tricks around, and it is best to just ignore this type of thinking.
It’s not a question of sides or motives – motives suggests some consciousness in action. Denialism, as a pyschological phenomenon is by its very nature sub/unconscious and therefore not rational.
There is also a difference between non rational and irrational. Climate denialists may well be both
A true sceptic, on the other hand, would stay open to the increasing and overwhelming science as well as open to the understanding that there is more to peoples stances and positioning than the rational mind. Unfortunately rational capacities of mind are often utilised to put forward irrational propositions.
Dualistic thinking – us/them, opposites etc has precious little to do with the huge amount of science that continues to stack up to anthropogenic climate change.
Its not too outlandish to suggest that denialists (of all the evidence before their very eyes whether it be related to climate science, their own mortality, the evidence of genocide etc) are in denial of their own psychology. The problem is that people in denial do ignore this type of thinking!