On Denial and Despair

Like an apocalyptic Hollywood blockbuster, the media commentaries ahead of COP 15 at Copenhagen seem to be setting us up to witness global catastrophe. RECOFTC's Ben Vickers wonders, should we despair?

A certain apocalyptic Hollywood blockbuster doing the rounds at cinemas worldwide promises, once again, to scare us out of our wits with the threat of unavoidable, impending doom. It has arrived just in time to add extra spice to media commentaries on global catastrophe ahead of COP 15 at Copenhagen. Coincidence? You be the judge.

Barely half of American citizens now believe that damaging climate change is actually happening, down from over 70% just two years ago, and even fewer are convinced that human activity is driving this change. Some politicians claim, with impunity, that the entire global climate change debate is an elaborate conspiracy designed to encourage high taxation and boost alternative energy industries. On the other side of the Atlantic, sentiment is much the same. For the first half of this year the European Union, the world's largest economy, was formally led by a man who denies that human-induced climate change is a reality.

Among those who remain fervent believers, a mood of despair has settled like a fine coat of soot. The failure of Asia-Pacific leaders to agree on a pre-summit statement last month, and of the US Congress to pass cap-and-trade legislation, has shattered the confidence of climate change negotiators. It seems that the Bali Roadmap has failed to guide us to the desired destination in the allotted time.

What is driving the advance of these twin demons, denial and despair? The growth in skepticism seems particularly unfortunate, and unforeseen. Two years ago, the discussions at Bali had clearly moved on from ‘whether' towards ‘how' and ‘what now.' Thanks in part to recent reports that temperatures have not risen over the last decade as models predicted, and to carelessly-worded leaked emails from the UK's Hadley Climate Research Unit, the debate, in the public sphere at least, seems to be moving backwards.

In fact, we should not be too surprised. Despair and denial are inexorably linked in human nature. Presented with a scenario of unavoidable disaster, our instinctive reaction is to wall ourselves off from the facts. Denial is the first stage of bereavement and the survival instinct that keeps us all going in the face of our own inevitable demise. Many environmental campaigners have therefore been gravely mistaken in delivering shrill and unrelenting warnings to an impotent public. The frivolous messages in movies such as ‘2012,' and the serious commentaries in other forms of media, have served to compound general feelings of helplessness, disbelief, and anger. Those searching for an alternative scenario can always cling to the fact that science never deals in the absolute certainty that politics, and public opinion, demand. It is easier to believe that climate change is a hoax than to accept an unfailingly miserable outcome.

So, should we add a dose of sugar to the message? Would it not be unforgivably irresponsible to water down the severity of the issue to soothe a frightened world? I believe there are three clear ways to turn the public debate back to fast forward mode without diluting the severity of the crisis we currently face.

First, avoid portraying possibilities as facts. Focus on risk management. There is no room for certainty in the chaotic field of climate science. There are legitimate doubts, infinite potential future trajectories, and a continuously expanding pool of information which will refine and change these trajectories. Creating an impression of inevitable doom will expose campaigners and commentators, rightly, to accusations of bias and manipulation. But everyone understands risk. We must have open debate, acknowledge doubts, emphasize the unprecedentedly high stakes involved, and steer discussions towards managing risks rather than competing visions of the future.

Second, provide solutions. We respond positively to crises on an individual level, when given practical, achievable tools to address problems. The list of grassroots actions presented at the end of An Inconvenient Truth left me feeling inspired, rather than angry. We can change the future trajectories through our own actions. We are not bound to oblivion by the failure of our leaders to reach agreement on a full Copenhagen protocol.

Third, acknowledge and celebrate progress. The Bali Roadmap was achievable, but it was also very ambitious. We may fall short of the highest goal but the process has been the catalyst for rapidly advancing the search for solutions to damaging climate change. One of the most important advances is the firm focus on forestry. It has brought rural communities in developing countries to the center of the debate.

Through their essential role in the management of forest resources, they become architects of their own future, active participants in the fight to mitigate and adapt to climate change, rather than passive victims. I fully expect an agreement on REDD to be an important outcome of Copenhagen. I also anticipate that many observers will find fault with this agreement. It may well be vague. It may well leave the door open, theoretically, to forestry practices with negative social and environmental impacts. However, this simply means that much work remains to be done. We are making progress, and I'll be reporting on the latest developments as they unfold at Copenhagen.

And who knows what else? In all negotiations, significant concessions do not emerge until the eleventh hour. Expectations may be at rock bottom, but hope for real progress on emission reduction commitments is not dead. My advice: walk away from the cinematic apocalypse. Give negotiators a morale boost and we may yet be able to celebrate unexpected progress.

Keep track of Ben Vickers' COP 15 thoughts on RECOFTC's Copenhagen Coverage.

Back