Today, I attended a climate activism panel discussion headlined by Ed Milliband. The question posed to the panel was simply: can climate activism save the planet? Or more specifically, how do we translate civic energy (7 million people in 150 countries!) into decarbonization. The panel included an activist, Farhera Yamin, arrested for her role in Extinction Rebellion, a politician, Ed Milliband, and a business writer, James Murray. Yamin clarified the urgency of the issue (ie “it is destroying life on earth”) as well as connected to a broader moral crusade to tear down barriers of racism, militarism, and excessive consumerism. Milliband gave insights on the best way to sell the issue politically. That starts with making it a priority issue rather than making pacts with other U.K. party leaders that ultimately amounts to a lot of sound and fury. He noted that he was ashamed to participate in the 2015 leadership debates because the moderators did not raise the issue once. The way Milliband sees his role is to consciously push the Overton Window in the halls of Parliament so that the urgency of activists like Yamin is better reflected in government policy. Milliband views such a radical shift in the boundaries of accepted climate discourse as tenable if we convince rank-and-file voters that green policies will improve their lives.
Lastly, Murray made vital contributions to the panel discussion to temper the passions of the activists and explain the tactics necessary to bring business on board. There is in fact widespread willingness from the business community to take action because many titans of industry are aware that it is in their long-term interest, Murray assured the audience. Murray worries that the 2025 target ER set allows critics to credibly portray the activist community as a bunch of pie in the sky socialists. He further contended that such an early target would be deeply disruptive if taken seriously, and would probably require totalitarian states across the world to enforce.
Yet they all agree that national will is needed and should be wary of the dreaded moderates. Interestingly, Murray was one to speak most poignantly on the imperative of solidarity from a practical rather than an ethical perspective. Carbon-intensive business leaders frequently raise the concern that if their action is not preceded by systemic shift toward carbon mitigation, they will fail against competitors who do not take that course. We truly are in the classic prisoner’s dilemma game.
Overall, the participants answered in the affirmative. Climate activism can save ourselves, then the planet. I am more skeptical, or at least, unsure. First, as an American, I wonder what happens when climate activism interacts with reactionary politics rather than the garden variety conservatives who only yell stop. My concern is that the reactionary politics on climate will hold the most sway in places that are most reliant on carbon for sustaining a comfortable middle class lifestyle. They will resist attempt at carbon mitigation not as a policy disagreement but as an attack on their way of life. In this vein, I thought the question from the PhD student of polarization on climate activism becoming embroiled in the culture war was on point. Yamin dismissed it too cavalierly. On carbon emissions, I don’t think the U.S. will ever move toward Europe much less net zero emissions. Scratch that. Maybe not never because Americans have responded to crises well in our past, but we have also proven blissfully unaware until the crisis is at our doorstep.
The second bucket of criticism stems from the fact that I share Murray’s view of the limits of what is possible. Liberal democratic capitalism’ greatest advantage, resistance to change and default toward inaction, is the obstacle to achieving truly transformational climate policies that Yamin and Milliband envision. God bless them, but I think it is out of reach. I will be perfectly happy—in fact elated— if the world achieves net zero emissions by 2050. That means that even in old age I would be living in a world that is reasonably similar to the one that we have today. It will be a world still capable of sustaining life. That is not to discount the disastrous consequences, including the evisceration of many ocean communities and finishing the destruction of the Great Barrier Reef. There will also be millions of climate migrants. People who will be desperately fleeing their homes because the communities they lived in for generations can no longer sustain life.
As I see it, the ethical problem of our day is not to prevent every disaster that climate change may unleash. Many of these disasters have already begun. The question is how we are going to adapt as individuals and as societies to live in a much more difficult world. That process of adaption requires a revolution of values on a global scale to bring an end to racism, militarism, and excessive consumerism. If we engage in no climate mitigation and follow the course set by Pruitt and the Trump administration, Dr. King’s revolution of values will be impossible. The world will simply be too dangerous, providing irresistible appeal to right-wing populists who will set back the clock centuries, rebuilding the fortresses and moats that protected fortunate lords of the manor during feudal times.
Children of Men, the movie where the U.K. and all rich countries become police states to block out desperate migrants, will become a reality. Climate mitigation is necessary but not sufficient to avoid that scenario. It could still come about even if we successfully mobilize behind significant climate action in the next three decades. The world will still be under a heightened state of threat, and populists preaching the politics of fear will still have widespread appeal. That is why we much accompany climate action with a revolution of values. We must convince our fellow citizens that we have nothing to fear but fear itself, and offer a course for humanity that is worthy of our destiny a beacon of light that, as of yet, has not been discovered, but still exists if we remain committed to searching for it.