The Failure of Mainstream Environmental Activism

Environmental activists are losing a fight they cannot afford to lose. Neither can their critics, for that matter. Mother Nature doesn’t care if what side of the aisle you’re on – if the world tips bottom side up we’ll all be screwed.

First, some stats. According to NASA, sixteen of the seventeen warmest years on record have occurred since 2001. Surface ocean water acidity has increased by 30% since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Global sea levels have risen by 20 centimeters in the last century. Planetary forestation is at 62% of pre-industrial levels. Atmospheric carbon dioxide sits at around 400 parts per million – a 32% rise in just the last century. The earth’s average global temperature has increased by about 0.8° Celsius since 1880. More worryingly still, two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade. It’s getting pretty bad.

We may have already reached a significant turning point. In recent years, scientists have begun to argue that we are no longer in the Holocene – the current epoch – and are instead in the “Antropocene.” Anthro for “man”, and cene for “new.” Experts argue that irreversible, human-precipitated reductions in biodiversity and ice cap extent, as well as increases in atmospheric CO₂, world average temperatures, and pollution levels warrant such a change. Our current epoch might be ambiguous, but the message is not. People are changing the world. And not for the better.

If current trends continue, ocean levels will increase by between 30 to 120 centimeters by 2100. Rising sea levels increase flooding risk and depress property values – a study by Zillow showed that a 2 foot rise in sea level would result in roughly a $74 billion loss in the US housing market. And that’s not all.  

Weather will become increasingly unpredictable – and increasingly extreme – if global warming isn’t dealt with. This will result in less consistent food yields – and food prices – dragging down the economies of developing nations. It’s hard to grow when your people are wanting for food.

According to NASA’s models, temperatures will likely rise between two to six degrees Celsius over the next century. Such temperature changes are bound to severely disrupt global ecology and exacerbate pre-existing desertification problems in northern Africa. And such changes might kick off a vicious cycle in which increased temperatures melt permafrost releasing methane gas raising temperatures and so on.

           On the costs front, the situation is equally dire. A recent study put the 2100 cost of global warming at just south of 2 trillion dollars – for the US alone. Is that something we really want to risk? So why does no one seem to care, and what can environmentalists do differently in order to improve our planet’s future prognosis?

Firstly, criticism of pre-existing systems tends to be vague and unconstructive. On a cerebral level, everyone knows that we shouldn’t mess with the environment. But it’s simply unrealistic to expect people to drop everything for a singular goal, especially when individual countries – let alone individual people – are in little position to make much change. Coal miners aren’t going to quit their jobs just because you tell them to do so, and America isn’t going to stop using oil just because her unborn children might suffer. Serious ideas need to be realistic, pragmatic, and desirable. We need to take baby steps on the long march towards carbon neutrality.

So how do you go about taking those baby steps? Well, firstly, there needs to be a greater effort on the part of environmentalists to empathize with those negatively affected by the phasing out of fossil fuels. Talking down to climate skeptics (no matter how ignorant they might be) will only breed resentment. Instead, environmentalists need to create programs that make it in the best interests of such people to act in an environmentally friendly fashion. We’d likely see far greater support for climate change legislation if we were to put forward a serious plan to retrain and re-employ those who might lose out from an environmentally conscious restructuring of the American energy budget.

Additionally, environmentalists ought to try and expand their branding efforts. Too often do activists speak to the converted – leading to lazy and uncreative arguments. Speaking about sacrificing for the environment isn’t going to change the behavior of anyone who doesn’t think that the environment is important enough to sacrifice for. Instead, the movement should work to gain the support of a wider range of people. In order to do so, environmentalists should try to forward ideas with multifaceted benefits to the individual. Combating climate change should just be a nice perk.

And instead of simply talking about moral imperatives and imminent doom, environmentalists should tailor their arguments to their audience. Harp on about the destabilizing effects of extreme drought to defense hawks; talk about how energy independence will allow us to withdraw from the Middle East to isolationists. And for the rest of us – the indifferent masses – make environmentally friendly decisions the optimal choice regardless of one’s concern for the environment. The point being, if activists want to affect real change they need to affect real people. And to do that, they can’t use “one size fits all” arguments.

Lastly, environmentalists need to work to change institutions and the incentives that guide them. People tend to work in spurts – you’ll see a week of intense activism and then a drop off in activity due to apathy. For issues as complex as climate change, you need to work on the institutional level. Policies need to be developed that make it difficult to not be environmentally friendly – we need a system where you don’t have to opt in to make the right decision.