When asked, I describe the mid-afternoon sky of that February day as haunted. A blizzard of wild embers rained down like giant luminescent confetti as the darkness of ash and smoke descended. Through that fortress of haze and terror, we could see great walls of flame stalk the silhouette of surrounding mountains, and the ominous dusty glow of fires in Chum Creek and elsewhere loom closer and closer.
The scene felt apocalyptic, yet it was real.
Try as I might, I can’t recall with any precision the thoughts running through my mind on Black Saturday. But I do remember feeling irrevocably unmoored from that distended sense of hope about the future that most young people — as a general rule — only subliminally relinquish later in life, if at all.
And by most people, I mean to say all those but for the generations that follow mine, who more than any alive today tend to see hope not as a comfort or source of strength but as a stranger. Climate anxiety or ecological grief, however defined, borders on a quintessential health problem for the young people of today, and not without good reason.
Since the late 1980s — that sliding-doors moment when the science on anthropogenic global warming should have completed its peregrination from the margins of policy debate to the mainstream — humanity has managed to emit more atmospheric carbon than the previous two centuries combined.
The situation is such that even with immediate systemic action, anyone under 60 today is still likely to witness a partial destabilisation of life as we know it, as more frequent heatwaves, droughts and flooding — veritably biblical in scope — redefine our sense of normal.
Few under 40 in this connection will be spared the cascading devastation wrought by 2 degrees warming, expected within decades, as the onward march of famine, disease and other consequences of mass crop failures and extinctions kill and displace many hundreds of millions.
And those under 25, on current trends, are all but guaranteed to watch the ties of civilisation fray during their lifetime when the world eclipses at least nine climate tipping points, beyond which social and economic collapse, death and anarchy await.
If we dare stop pretending, in other words, the unflinching reality is that there is little to no hope for the world’s young people as things stand — which brings to the fore one of the great paradoxes of the current climate moment.
In recent years, outright climate denial — one of the overwhelming causes of global warming this century — has been superseded by a boundless false hope anchored to the rhetoric of action. This isn’t to say such denial is a thing of the past or, in the choice words of former prime minister Tony Abbott, “dead, buried and cremated”. Politically, it plainly continues to manifest in right-wing parties and the conservative press the world over, as US presidential contender Ron DeSantis proved on Sunday when he risibly lamented the “politicisation of the weather”.
The point is the rhetoric of governments around the world would have you believe that much of the globe has moved on and you can rest a little easier: the arc of human progress will bend towards reason sooner rather than later. But as ever, appearances can be deceptive.
Notwithstanding the global crescendo of hope that ushered in the Paris climate accord seven years ago, no country — not one — is on track to meet its 2030 climate goals, according to the Climate Action Tracker’s most recent report. And even if the converse were true, the sobering reality is that the combined weight of these commitments is nevertheless destined to condemn the world to between 2.4 and 2.8 degrees warming by century’s end.
This much, by the way, depends on the accuracy of such calculations, which other research suggests might have downplayed the pace and severity of climate breakdown.
It’s from this vantage point that the frontier to what climate scientist Michael E Mann has called the “new climate war” comes into sharper relief. “The true battle,” he writes, “has moved on from outright denial to deflection, distraction, and most of all, delay.” No longer is the defining challenge one of convincing humanity at large of the science or even the need to act to limit climate collapse. Instead the problem of today turns more closely on the thinly disguised dissonance that resides between reality and the words and pledges of the powerful.
All told, this is simply another way of saying that much of what confronts global warming in a policy sense nowadays is often little more than a miasma of delay and deceive tactics that, by design, obfuscate and masquerade as credible climate action.
Some have called this state-sponsored greenwashing, which it is. But others might rightly see it as democratic deceit and generational betrayal.
The Albanese government, in this respect, is no different, as its signature climate policy attests. Though the much-lauded safeguard mechanism carries the appearance of progress, requiring the country’s major polluters to cut emissions by almost 5% a year, the entire edifice allows this objective to be ostensibly met through the scam of carbon credits. In practice, this means fossil fuel projects can continue to expand under the guise of a climate policy otherwise described by experts as “environmental and taxpayer fraud”.
The problems only deepen when we’re reminded that the government’s central advisory body on climate policies — given an expanded mandate under Prime Minister Anthony Albanese — is still chaired by a man with links to not only the fossil fuel industry but so too the carbon credit market. Indeed, in a recent op-ed published in The Australian, the Climate Change Authority’s Grant King opened with the need to “dramatically reduce emissions”, only to go on to spruik the possibilities of carbon capture storage — yet another discredited technology that has long allowed fossil fuel projects to don the costume of “sustainability”.
This very same technology, it bears mentioning, was recently cited by the federal government to justify its $1.5 billion commitment to Darwin’s massive expansion of gas exploration, which it’s since rebadged as an investment not into “new gas” per se but “sustainable development”.
It’s in such ways that the era of outright climate denial has been replaced by a wilderness of smoke and mirrors littered with promises government has no intention of keeping. Indeed, the full scope of this confusing narrative, on a domestic scale at least, only truly assumes centre stage when it’s pointed out that people with links to the carbon market also occupy board positions in not only the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and Clean Energy Finance Corporation, but also some of the country’s leading environmental organisations.
Globally, the picture is scarcely less bleak, with fossil fuel lobbyists having recently taken to hijacking and skewing the tenor of debate at the United Nation’s annual COP climate summits. In a skirmish on this theme, this year’s COP meeting will be hosted by none other than the UAE’s most powerful oil executive, Sultan Al-Jaber.
No doubt, all of this will have the ring of news if you too have been distracted and ultimately blinded by the comforting narrative delivered by the government’s false promise of hope.
It might be that the government genuinely believes that humanity will act before it’s too late, or it holds to neoliberalism’s mantra of the benefits of economic growth no matter what. But even if that is so, and it seems unlikely, it’s now condemned us to repeat the trap of what archaeologist Ronald Wright has called the “myth of progress”, where the excesses of human success invariably vanquish a civilisation.
In truth, the clearest obstacle standing in the way of the necessary action to address global warming is, as one of the world’s leading climate scientists James Hansen pointed out long ago, state capture and the role of money in politics.
Absent donations reforms and other measures to reduce the privileging of special interests in politics, the young people of today will be forever deprived of hope. And the consequences carried by such an unholy status quo will surpass the terror of anything I witnessed on Black Saturday all those years ago.
Is young people’s future as dire as McGregor posits? Let us know by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
Two years ago, a young mother was interviewed on tv after the fierce windstorms in the Dandenongs which broke and uprooted thousands of trees. Traumatised by the event, she clasped her hands and referred to her young son who had, that day, asked her, “Will we ever be happy again, Mum?” I would have to say that his prospects are not encouraging. Nor are those of his mother. It’s a sad and terrifying world.
For me, the seminal moment was listening to Bill Gates pontificate on climate change on his recent trip to Australia. It was at that point I came to the realisation that not only will we not achieve 1.5 degrees of global warming, we are well and truly screwing ourselves and the planet – but that’s fine – we’ll just now say the target is capping temperature change to 2,.5 degrees! Consider that Gates travelled to Australia on his private jet. A little research then revealed that jet consumes around 1,800 litres of fuel in the air and over his nearly 400 recorded trips in 2022, it is calculated his jet produced more than 3,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions. And Gates has obdurately announced that “he isn’t part of the problem”. The **** he isn’t. There you have it – most people, certainly any rational ones, want action on climate change, but what are “we” doing to achieve it? Little it seems – SUV’s and dual cabs are now 7 out of the top 10 selling cars in Australia and I imagine none of the owners of those vehicles think “they are part of the problem either” when they’re driving a 2.5 tonne behemoth to the shops, mum is in her trendy, expensive gear headed to the gym or when they are queued up with 50 other such vehicles picking up their kid or kids from school (I’ve seen this personally). In truth, all these things are part of the problem, but “we” convince ourselves we made our “choices” for the right. reasons. The Dunning-Kruger effect is largely the domain of those of lesser intellect, but studies also show that the smarter we are, the easier it is to construct arguments supporting our “choices” – despite that those “choices” are overwhelmingly shaped by marketers
Big Fossil has steered the conversation so that we blame ourselves and feel guilty, rather than put the blame where it belongs on them and their vast fortunes being able to pervert governments and markets. Civilisations rise and fall. Ours is the first to effect the entire planet and everyone and everything on it, but it won’t be the last civilisation by any means. Whatever the nature of the next one it will not, again, be logical. It will, again, create its own destruction. As always. Or perhaps ours will painfully morph into something smaller and more sensible, going bravely on into all its hot tomorrows and living on jellyfish.
Trawling for them along our cities’ sunken streets.
Dunning Kruger is at its most damaging and dangerous when it afflicts really smart and ruthless people.
If it’s any consolation, there is no evidence to support the idea of free will, and plenty against it, so the only thing you can really blame is the shape of the initial quantum perturbations in the big bang, along with a bunch of random quantum effects since.
It was always gonna be this way… but I suppose we were always gonna hate it
Agree, Australians should not be viewed as victims when most have been happy for the past two decades to passively observe little action based on climate science, regulation of carbon and transition away from fossil fuels.
However, it’s easier to simply follow political, media and social narratives that have supported climate science denial, delay and deflection i.e. blaming undefined ‘immigration’ &/or ‘population growth’ or faux economic arguments, to maintain the nativist authoritarian status quo; conservative tactic of viewing ourselves as victims, hence, better to be ‘quiet Australians’?
“Individual action” cannot solve climate change.
This is propaganda to prevent and/or delay the only forms of effective change – systemic, at the source – occurring.
It is bleak, I would not dispute anything in that. What really destroyed hope for me was the Ukraine war. We had the option of working together, or fighting over the remaining resources.
Interesting to compare this article with the one on McGowan and his uncritical popularity. His most enduring legacy will be the huge expansion of the gas industry and it’s massive increase in carbon and methane emissions for decades.
Sadly true- so many people can quickly forget and then rationalise the situation as being ‘normal’ or OK. Many simply don’t know and/or don’t care!!!
I recall an analysis of the Vietnam war.
According this, the war began and went on so long, so disastrously, because people assumed there was an authority with a grand plan overseeing things.
A lot like how some regard climate change and action.
“Surely the powers that be know how dangerous this is and are acting to mitigate it?”
Hot news, there is no grand action plan, just individual vested interests looking out for themselves.
There are no adults in charge. The adults have been relegated to the sidelines, and are considered naive by the koolaid set.
I’d love to disagree with you Maeve, but I cannot be as dishonest as an LNP or Labor politician.
It is understandable that politicians are concerned about the economy; except ultimately the costs created by climate change will bowl the economy for a six. We had been warned, those warnings had been ignored.
The damage done to people and communities already is heavy even though global temperature has not reached 1.5C above pre-Industrial times.
The last time there were 400ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere the climate was not healthy, we are over 400ppm now. When other greenhouse gases are translated to CO2 we have 512ppm e, where “e” stands for “equivalent” (from Bureau of Meteorology).
We need the Nationals and Liberals to support Labor on very strong policies to ward off the worst climate can offer. If Labor and the other parties are not willing to make a real effort to reduce emissions they can be considered to be useless on climate change. Labor is playing around at the edges at present.
With what is happening now through climate change at just over 1C above pre-Industrial times the goal of 1.5C is rather a dangerous one.
The study by Anton Vaks et al some years ago in relation to caves in various environments found that 1.5C globally was the threshold when permafrost began to thaw quite rapidly.