One of the best things you can do as a climate skeptic is to stay quiet. Why waste time putting down climate answers when climate activists who are fighting with each other can do it for you? Most of the time, we fight with the people we are closest to. Family is like this. But it’s also true of our friends, which for me are people who can’t stop trying to fix climate change. If you go into the murky waters of Twitter, you’ll find that campaigners often spend more time going after each other than fighting climate lies.
These might seem like small squabbles, but they have a real effect. They slow down our progress and help the people who say climate change isn’t happening, the oil companies, and the people who fight against climate change. While we’re not looking, these groups keep going.
The goal is the same: to cut down on carbon pollution. The trouble is that we are set in our ways of getting there. We usually have strong ideas about what is wrong and how to fix it. Nuclear fanatics want to put all their money into building new power plants. The “renewable zealots” don’t want any nuclear at all. Some people support electric cars, while their opponents want roads without cars. Vegans argue for cutting out animal products; flexitarians feel judged when they eat their weekly roast chicken.
Even higher up, these cracks can begin. Some people don’t care so much about the technology we use as much as they care that we see technology as an answer. Some people think that technology can fix everything. People who disagree with them think this techno-optimism is foolish, and that we can only be saved by big changes in the economy and society.
Inner-circle fights are not just about the weather. There are a lot of them. The American economist Michael Munger talked about this same tension in economic policy. He said that the world is divided into “directionals” and “destinations.” Directionalists support any idea that moves us closer to the end goal. In terms of climate, this means they back anything that makes a big difference in reducing emissions.
Destinations are less open because they have an idea of what the best result would be. They block and reject anything that doesn’t fit their perfect idea. Even though electric vehicles (EVs) would cut pollution by a lot, people who want to live in a world without cars work against them.
Destinationalism is not a good thing. We all have our favorite ways to solve problems. But we can’t be picky because we can’t afford to. “We need both” is the answer to almost every warming problem. We need both green and nuclear energy, even if it just means keeping the nuclear plants we already have running.
We need to fix fossil fuels and our food system. Fossil fuels are the biggest source of emissions, but emissions from food alone would take us well past 1.5C (34.7F) and close to 2C (35.6F). Not everyone can get to work without a car, so we need electric cars, places that are good for biking, and good public transportation systems. We can’t get rid of carbon without changing technology, but we need to rethink our economic, political, and social processes to make sure they work well.
These fights are not just noises off; they help the other side. Environmentalists have already said a lot of bad things about nuclear power, so fossil fuel companies don’t have to. Take Germany, where nuclear power plants were shut down before they were supposed to be, delaying the end of coal power. This was bad for the environment and also made the air dirty. Many people on the pro-nuclear side didn’t help: when they criticized green energy technologies, they made people who were against nuclear even more defensive.
Or, there’s the claim that EVs can be just as bad for the earth as gas-powered cars. This is a common argument even in media that tries to be green. In reaction, people are told to keep driving their gasoline or diesel cars. In the same way, people who eat a lot of meat and are thinking about cutting back might hear that some plant-based burgers are “unhealthy” and “processed” and decide to eat beef instead.
The answer isn’t to stop talking about it. I’m not saying that we should blindly back every idea that’s put forward. That would waste money, time, and resources. Our work would be spread out and less effective. We would worry about the wrong things. We need to be very critical if we want to invest in climate solutions that work and can be used by a lot of people. And there is no one-size-fits-all answer. Electric vehicles, lab-grown meat, renewable energy, and nuclear power all have some effect. We need to be honest about these effects if we want to lessen them as much as possible.
So how can we improve these debates? First, we need to stop being so focused on the perfect road. We can’t all get exactly what we want, so we need to find a way to reduce emissions quickly and successfully by using a variety of solutions.
Second, we need to treat our enemies with more kindness. Intellectual differences can quickly descend into name-calling. We stop having real conversations and start talking past each other instead. We start to care more about who wins the fight than who is right. This makes the climate solution area hostile, which is counterproductive since we want the smartest people in the world to be there.
One of the best things you can do as a climate skeptic is to stay quiet. Why waste time putting down climate answers when climate activists who are fighting with each other can do it for you? Most of the time, we fight with the people we are closest to. Family is like this. But it’s also true of our friends, which for me are people who can’t stop trying to fix climate change. If you go into the murky waters of Twitter, you’ll find that campaigners often spend more time going after each other than fighting climate lies.
These might seem like small squabbles, but they have a real effect. They slow down our progress and help the people who say climate change isn’t happening, the oil companies, and the people who fight against climate change. While we’re not looking, these groups keep going.
The goal is the same: to cut down on carbon pollution. The trouble is that we are set in our ways of getting there. We usually have strong ideas about what is wrong and how to fix it. Nuclear fanatics want to put all their money into building new power plants. The “renewable zealots” don’t want any nuclear at all. Some people support electric cars, while their opponents want roads without cars. Vegans argue for cutting out animal products; flexitarians feel judged when they eat their weekly roast chicken.
Even higher up, these cracks can begin. Some people don’t care so much about the technology we use as much as they care that we see technology as an answer. Some people think that technology can fix everything. People who disagree with them think this techno-optimism is foolish, and that we can only be saved by big changes in the economy and society.
Inner-circle fights are not just about the weather. There are a lot of them. The American economist Michael Munger talked about this same tension in economic policy. He said that the world is divided into “directionals” and “destinations.” Directionalists support any idea that moves us closer to the end goal. In terms of climate, this means they back anything that makes a big difference in reducing emissions.
Destinations are less open because they have an idea of what the best result would be. They block and reject anything that doesn’t fit their perfect idea. Even though electric vehicles (EVs) would cut pollution by a lot, people who want to live in a world without cars work against them.
Destinationalism is not a good thing. We all have our favorite ways to solve problems. But we can’t be picky because we can’t afford to. “We need both” is the answer to almost every warming problem. We need both green and nuclear energy, even if it just means keeping the nuclear plants we already have running.
We need to fix fossil fuels and our food system. Fossil fuels are the biggest source of emissions, but emissions from food alone would take us well past 1.5C (34.7F) and close to 2C (35.6F). Not everyone can get to work without a car, so we need electric cars, places that are good for biking, and good public transportation systems. We can’t get rid of carbon without changing technology, but we need to rethink our economic, political, and social processes to make sure they work well.
These fights are not just noises off; they help the other side. Environmentalists have already said a lot of bad things about nuclear power, so fossil fuel companies don’t have to. Take Germany, where nuclear power plants were shut down before they were supposed to be, delaying the end of coal power. This was bad for the environment and also made the air dirty. Many people on the pro-nuclear side didn’t help: when they criticized green energy technologies, they made people who were against nuclear even more defensive.
Or, there’s the claim that EVs can be just as bad for the earth as gas-powered cars. This is a common argument even in media that tries to be green. In reaction, people are told to keep driving their gasoline or diesel cars. In the same way, people who eat a lot of meat and are thinking about cutting back might hear that some plant-based burgers are “unhealthy” and “processed” and decide to eat beef instead.
The answer isn’t to stop talking about it. I’m not saying that we should blindly back every idea that’s put forward. That would waste money, time, and resources. Our work would be spread out and less effective. We would worry about the wrong things. We need to be very critical if we want to invest in climate solutions that work and can be used by a lot of people. And there is no one-size-fits-all answer. Electric vehicles, lab-grown meat, renewable energy, and nuclear power all have some effect. We need to be honest about these effects if we want to lessen them as much as possible.
So how can we improve these debates? First, we need to stop being so focused on the perfect road. We can’t all get exactly what we want, so we need to find a way to reduce emissions quickly and successfully by using a variety of solutions.
Second, we need to treat our enemies with more kindness. Intellectual differences can quickly descend into name-calling. We stop having real conversations and start talking past each other instead. We start to care more about who wins the fight than who is right. This makes the climate solution area hostile, which is counterproductive since we want the smartest people in the world to be there.
Third, we need to be honest about what’s true and not true about the ideas we don’t like. “EVs emit just as much CO2 as petrol cars” is simply wrong. They emit significantly less, even if they emit more than the subway or a bike (and yes, this is still true when we account for the emissions needed to make the battery). “Nuclear energy is dangerous” is not true. It is thousands of times safer than the coal we’re trying to replace, and it’s just as safe as green energy. It’s fine to argue for the answers you like, but you shouldn’t lie about the other options to make your point.
In short, we need to get better at figuring out where we are going. To keep going toward our goals instead of putting all our hopes on a perfect way to get there. We are all on the same team, whether you like nuclear or solar energy, electric cars or trains, lab-grown meat or beans. Let’s begin to act like it.
Read More: If You Create Your Visibility Universally Interesting?
Third, we need to be honest about what’s true and not true about the ideas we don’t like. “EVs emit just as much CO2 as petrol cars” is simply wrong. They emit significantly less, even if they emit more than the subway or a bike (and yes, this is still true when we account for the emissions needed to make the battery). “Nuclear energy is dangerous” is not true. It is thousands of times safer than the coal we’re trying to replace, and it’s just as safe as green energy. It’s fine to argue for the answers you like, but you shouldn’t lie about the other options to make your point.
In short, we need to get better at figuring out where we are going. To keep going toward our goals instead of putting all our hopes on a perfect way to get there. We are all on the same team, whether you like nuclear or solar energy, electric cars or trains, lab-grown meat or beans. Let’s begin to act like it.