The problem with saving earth from climate change is not that we do not know the technical solutions. We have long done so. Framing this as a technical rather than a social problem is actually part of the issue.
The problem is with
Academic culture systematically encouraging people to understate risk in light of uncertainty of complex systems, and framing researchers as lacking objectivity if they become activists in light of the findings, while politicians can exert pressure on final scientific reports;
Capitalism needing limitless growth and intrinsically valuing profit over nature and this being fundamentally at odds with limiting resource consumption, while we have all been told that capitalism is both beneficial and without alternative, and keep being told the comforting lie that green capitalism will solve this all for us with technology, while leaving our quality and way of life intact;
A reduction in personal resource use being at odds with short-term desires (eating meat, flying, using tons of energy, keeping toasty warm, overconsumption), while the positive impacts are long-term and not personalised (you won’t personally be spared flooding because you put solar on your roof);
Powerful actors having a strong interest in continuing fossil fuel extraction and modern agriculture, and funding politicians to advocate for them as well as fake news on the internet and biased research, with democratic institutions struggling to keep up with a change in what we consider necessary for the public good, and measures that would address these falsely being framed as being anti-democratic;
AI that is not aligned with human interests, but controlled by companies who fund themselves by keeping you online at all costs, taking your data and spamming you with ads asking you to consume more unnecessary shit, with keeping humans distracted and engaged with online content in ways that makes them politically polarised and opposed to collaboration as well as destroying their focus;
Several powerful countries being run by people who prioritise gaining power over others over general well-being, e.g. when they hope that climate change will hit us all, but will hit their rivals harder than them, so while we will all be more miserable, they will be in more power, so this is still fine.
The issue is not in figuring out green energy and sustainable agriculture and rewilding, we know how to do these things. The issue is in getting together to get this done for the common good and transforming our whole society in the process while those who would lose power in this scenario are opposing us skilfully at every turn.
I realise this is uncomfortable, because it means tackling this problem is not something we can leave to other people, and that fixing it won’t leave our way of life essentially intact, but require a very uncomfortable overhaul. (Which does not mean we need to change the system before we address climate change; we need emissions radically down right now, anything that can be done needs to be done, or we risk hitting climate breakdown within a decade.) Unfortunately, being uncomfortable does not make it untrue. And fortunately, a lot of the changes needed to address climate change would actually be beneficial in the long run on other axes, as well.
The problem with saving earth from climate change is not that we do not know the technical solutions. We have long done so. Framing this as a technical rather than a social problem is actually part of the issue.
The problem is with
Academic culture systematically encouraging people to understate risk in light of uncertainty of complex systems, and framing researchers as lacking objectivity if they become activists in light of the findings, while politicians can exert pressure on final scientific reports;
Capitalism needing limitless growth and intrinsically valuing profit over nature and this being fundamentally at odds with limiting resource consumption, while we have all been told that capitalism is both beneficial and without alternative, and keep being told the comforting lie that green capitalism will solve this all for us with technology, while leaving our quality and way of life intact;
A reduction in personal resource use being at odds with short-term desires (eating meat, flying, using tons of energy, keeping toasty warm, overconsumption), while the positive impacts are long-term and not personalised (you won’t personally be spared flooding because you put solar on your roof);
Powerful actors having a strong interest in continuing fossil fuel extraction and modern agriculture, and funding politicians to advocate for them as well as fake news on the internet and biased research, with democratic institutions struggling to keep up with a change in what we consider necessary for the public good, and measures that would address these falsely being framed as being anti-democratic;
AI that is not aligned with human interests, but controlled by companies who fund themselves by keeping you online at all costs, taking your data and spamming you with ads asking you to consume more unnecessary shit, with keeping humans distracted and engaged with online content in ways that makes them politically polarised and opposed to collaboration as well as destroying their focus;
Several powerful countries being run by people who prioritise gaining power over others over general well-being, e.g. when they hope that climate change will hit us all, but will hit their rivals harder than them, so while we will all be more miserable, they will be in more power, so this is still fine.
The issue is not in figuring out green energy and sustainable agriculture and rewilding, we know how to do these things. The issue is in getting together to get this done for the common good and transforming our whole society in the process while those who would lose power in this scenario are opposing us skilfully at every turn.
I realise this is uncomfortable, because it means tackling this problem is not something we can leave to other people, and that fixing it won’t leave our way of life essentially intact, but require a very uncomfortable overhaul. (Which does not mean we need to change the system before we address climate change; we need emissions radically down right now, anything that can be done needs to be done, or we risk hitting climate breakdown within a decade.) Unfortunately, being uncomfortable does not make it untrue. And fortunately, a lot of the changes needed to address climate change would actually be beneficial in the long run on other axes, as well.