Dear Climate Change Idealists,
As most of you are already aware, climate change remains an urgent concern, with its catastrophic effects increasing worldwide. Despite this severity, it often seems to register very little concern among the general public. While significant political events like the 2016 Paris Agreement and the efforts of activists such as Greta Thunberg have increased attention to the issue and brought about some solutions, pragmatism seems to have seeped into the public consciousness, allowing many to act recklessly with little regard for the repercussions their individual actions have on the environment.
This is probably how I would have approached this essay eight years ago, as a wide-eyed freshman in high school in a sunny California suburb. Back then, freshly converted to a pescatarian diet, I engaged in heated climate debates with my dad before biking to school and joining my vegan, anti-plastic friend group for lunch.
However, as a self-proclaimed recovering idealist, I no longer share these particular sentiments anymore. With maturity comes the acknowledgment of personal desires that might conflict with idealistic aspirations. When you’re not a 15-year-old angst-driven teen, it becomes harder and harder to deny yourself things like a cheeseburger (especially after a night out), driving across town to catch the last summer sunset, or flying to some exotic destination for senior spring break.
With a 1.5 degrees Celsius temperature increase predicted in the next two decades or the fact that our extinction rate is 1000 times the natural rate, it's clear though the effects of climate change will still be felt regardless of my personal evolution. Nevertheless, I find myself increasingly skeptical of fear-driven approaches to rallying support for environmental action. Those particular facts were pulled from an article titled “5 Climate Change Facts to Scare You Into Action This Halloween” from EarthDay.org—a not so subtle message. An idealist's first instinct might be to applaud this sensational title, after all staying quiet hasn’t done the crisis any favors. But I question their efficacy in inspiring meaningful change. Is this really the most effective way to gear people towards helping “save the planet”?
Greener than thou
Idealist Avram Hiller argues heavily against the ICI theory or individual causal inefficacy theory, where “individual and even full individual lives are too casually insignificant to make any difference about climate change” (350). There is a good sense of merit to this argument; even as a recovering idealist, I think it's shortsighted to dismiss individual actions as inconsequential when every contribution, no matter how small, counts in the collective effort against climate change. Hiller cites the main supporters of this ICI theory are operating under denial, selfishness, limited value capacity, and most importantly the “tipping point” theory. This theory is the “fallacy of double vision,” in which people believe only one particularly large action will carry us over to a point of no return regarding climate change, or that we have simply already tipped where doing something like biking instead of driving to work will now virtually do nothing.
The most important part of this theory is that it plays off an individual’s fear. This goes along with denial in a sense because people are buying into the fate that we are doomed (or attempting to digest a worldly problem and put it to an individual level by themselves—a near-impossible task). The psychological response to this type of fear is a mental shutdown, which Hiller cites as a lack of action—aka ignoring the climate crisis. So why then is the idealist approach to inciting people to care about the crisis fear-mongering? If only 90 companies are responsible for over two-thirds of greenhouse gas emissions, and individual actions often succumb to the Siegmar Otto’s rebound effect (where any gains in climate efficacy lead to individuals reinvesting into new consumption), why put the sins of big oil or other capitalist conglomerates onto individuals who themselves are victims of such systems? This shame has debilitated our fighting members and titles like “5 Climate Change Facts to Scare You” will now always have me skipping quickly past rather than immediately diving into it.
Denial vs. Responsibility
To the idealists, I pose the question of what one hopes to accomplish in denial. What is the purpose of pledging ourselves fully against climate change skepticism by small acts, ones that simply can’t compare to the damages done by hundreds of years of burning fossil fuels, pollution, and deforestation?
I think ultimately, this encouragement of denial is truly a symptom of hyper-individualism. It is a reflection of our culture that prioritizes individual desires and instant gratification over collective responsibility and long-term sustainability. 15-year-old me would scoff at this accusation, arguing back that this can’t be individualism if we’re fighting for the collective good of humanity (pretentious I know). Idealists, however, will always die on the hill that what you are doing isn’t enough. As Hiller said, most people don’t care about the climate crisis because of selfishness or lack of value for other human life. This perspective is extremist in nature and isolates idealists to believe that they have some sort of moral superiority over the pragmatists, ultimately resulting in separating themselves from the collective good (which should be the ultimate goal of climate action). There then is a perpetual cycle of shame that keeps pragmatists down.
This is not to say then that pragmatists walk away with a clean slate, obvious victims to the callous actions of the idealists. There is a system that is pitting these two forces against one another, and as Thomas Nagel’s argument of absurdity states, “human life is absurd because we can adopt two very different perspectives: one where we care very deeply about things in our daily lives and another where our daily lives seem insignificant in the grand scheme of the universe” (363). Both parties are adopting a hyper-individualistic perspective that keeps them separated from addressing the systemic issues and institutions that keep climate change issues circulating.
The future for idealists & pragmatists
Mary Helgar’s op-ed “I work in the environmental movement. I don’t care if you recycle” is one of my favorite examples of the idealist and pragmatist finally joining forces. She writes that her five years at the Natural Resource Defense Council often have people falling to their knees and confessing their climate sins begging for forgiveness, as she seems to them to be an omniscient climate figurehead. She writes that we need to let go of our faults, as the burden of the crisis is too large for one person to carry and in turn take “collective responsibility of holding the true culprits accountable. In other words, we need to become many Davids against one big, bad Goliath.” Helgar can combine her care for the climate crisis with a realistic lens of human behavior and what it takes to tackle a problem hundreds of years in the making.
This task is much easier said than done, but we are essentially attempting to join back two identical halves, they just haven’t realized how similar they are yet. You might now be wondering, how did you save yourself from swinging to the opposite side of the pendulum and becoming a hardcore pragmatist with no regard for any of the climate consequences your actions have (or you might not be wondering)? The answer is that I did swing that way for a bit. It became easy to indulge in all the pleasures I wanted simply because I had been denying myself them for so long, my 15-year-old strategies were just ultimately not sustainable.
But bridging the gap between idealism and pragmatism is not impossible, it simply requires a nuanced understanding of the interconnectedness of individual actions and systemic change. It's only through collective effort and a holistic approach that we can effectively tackle the climate crisis and ensure a sustainable future for generations to come.
Part 2:
I ultimately gravitated towards the op-ed genre primarily because I find these pieces to be the most compelling and provocative. While this essay didn’t explore deeply into this aspect, during my research in WP2, I delved into the impact of media form on the public’s opinion regarding climate change. Not surprisingly, the very data forward reports and journals were the least impactful. Their combination of complex language and lack of personal moments can make it challenging for a general audience to connect and grasp the message fully. However, adopting the practice we discussed in class of allowing genre to emerge naturally from the process, I found an argumentative stance came quickly. With the intention to convince “idealists” to change their perspective, I naturally fell into the op-ed genre. ·
Opinion editorials, typically found in online publications or magazines, are characterized firstly by a clear, explicit opinion. While they might not possess the formality or intensity of argumentative essays, they are persuasive in nature, seeking to sway your audience from a particular viewpoint. Moreover, they often combine an element of personal reflection and n anecdotes to pique a reader’s interest and enhance the narrative’s appeal. As for the formatting conventions, op-eds typically adopt a first person narrative and abide by standard news article structures, including headline, byline, author names and publication dates. Additionally, they may include subheadings to break up ideas and increase ease of comprehension. Given their public-facing nature, op-eds often include references that are hyperlinked throughout. I abided by most of these conventions in the editing process.
Op-eds are used to cater to a diverse array of audiences. The most common include the general public, policy makers, activists, educated readers or those with opposing views. As op-eds are designed to advocate for a clear opinion, it's logical that they target individuals who might be persuaded to adopt a different perspective for the greater good or societal benefit. Even addressing policymakers is strategic, as while it might not lead to immediate political change, it could influence public opinion and voting behavior, thus indirectly impacting public policy.
Ultimately, my primary audience for this op-ed was individuals with an opposing viewpoint on climate change and the most effective strategies for promoting and enacting change. Having once shared this viewpoint myself, I empathize with their perspective and recognized how dangerous this mindset might be in the context of climate change action.
Engaging with this audience required a nuanced approach, acknowledging their concerns while gently challenging their assumptions. By sharing my own journey of evolving perspectives and highlighting the limitations of purely idealistic or pragmatic approaches, I aimed to foster empathy and understanding within my audience. Providing a solid foundation built upon research and expert opinions, I presented compelling arguments to encourage critical reflection among readers.
Additionally, I sought to bridge the gap between idealism and pragmatism, recognizing the importance of collective action while honoring individual agency. Rather than succumbing to skepticism, I advocated for a balanced approach that acknowledges both the systemic challenges and the potential for meaningful change at the individual level.
In crafting this op-ed, I strived to strike a balance between persuasion and empathy, recognizing that genuine dialogue and understanding are essential for fostering meaningful change. By embracing the op-ed format, I leveraged its potential to spark conversations, challenge assumptions, and inspire action among readers from diverse backgrounds and perspectives.