This post was written July 17th 2019, but never published
A blogging friend has lobbed a brickbat at the eco doomsters. In a sardonic post, he links approvingly to a short talk on YouTube in which Michelle Stirling asks
What if journalists and activists were literally driving people to despair, even suicide, on climate change? And what if they’re wrong about the end of the world in 12 years?
Is this a rhetorical question, or is she offering an answer? That is to say, what is her motive? She quotes a group of climate-change sceptic Italian scientists:
… given the crucial importance that fossil fuels have for the energy supply of humanity, we suggest that the government do not adhere to policies of uncritical reduction of the emission of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, in the illusory pretence of governing the climate.
She answers her “what if?” questions with a call to action.
So, if you’re sick and tired of being scared by climate-fearmongering journalists every day, contact your local media …
I’m tempted to say “She that is without fear-mongering among you, let her first cast the stone.” Brickbat-hurlers are invariably blame-throwers.
LinkedIn says she’s “Communications Manager (Contract) Friends of Science Society”. Perhaps its members are scientists funded by fossil-fuel companies. I don’t want to accuse them of bias: it’s the job of scientists to doubt every theory and put it to the test.
I think it would be helpful if mutual opponents would stop hurling the “fake news” brickbat back and forth, and simply look at the motive involved. For simplicity let’s say there are two kinds of motive: a) for gain; b) to do what is right and truthful. It’s possible that what you do for gain is also truthful and right. But you can’t truly be sure. And it’s possible that what you do under the banner of rightness and truth may turn out ultimately to be false or harmful.
The first stone was cast so long ago that nobody remembers. I’m not just talking about climate change, but all the theatres of verbal war. Why not let it all fly over our heads, and stay unmoved? It’s unlikely that you and I will make much difference, sitting on the sidelines, cheering our side, booing the other one.
I don’t know anything. I like to be eco-friendly in every way I can, whether it puts a dent in climate change or not. I’ve long been persuaded by James Lovelock that it’s too late to avoid the catastrophe. Yet I love nature, the cycle of the seasons, the sense of timeless continuity that’s worth much sacrifice to work for. Even if it turns out to be fruitless. I agree with Mary-Jayne Rust, when she says:
‘I love nature’ is a well-used used phrase…. Yet the history of Western culture reveals our fears of, and fight against, nature, including our own human nature. This ambivalence arguably lies at the heart of our current ecological crisis…. I will explore some of the joys and psychological challenges of returning to a more intimate relationship with the rest of nature, as we search for ways to live more lightly on the earth in the face of climate change.
On the matter of ecological anxiety, and its potentially harmful effects on some people, she says “Mostly, they are in need of talking it through with a therapist who is knowledgeable about the issues.” And this is her motive, for she’s an ecopsychologist who practises therapy, specializing in this new form of existential angst.
We all have motives. I ask myself what are mine, in writing this piece? What are my blogging friend’s motives, when he talks sardonically about “the realities of the climate emergency mindfuck“?
Perhaps an answer in my next. Perhaps not.