The End of Artificial Hope
Longtime friend and colleague, Jonathon Porritt, has delivered a scathing but profound assessment of the current state of climate science and its communication. As one of the world’s most experienced and successful advocates in this space I think his views should always be taken seriously, but this one raises particularly important ideas.
His central argument is that the current focus on 'artificial hope' needs to end, and that scientists are effectively withholding the full truth from the public and policy makers. I think his article is a wakeup call, not just for scientists, but the entire climate community. We need to acknowledge the dire position we are in and profoundly change how we talk about it.
Porritt has long been a leader in arguing for a glass-half-full outlook, making his latest piece a stark shift. He now speaks of emerging climate denialism by those who hold on to the belief "that there’s only so much climate truth the little people can deal with". He argues holding back on the severity of the situation, in order to not depress and disempower the public, has long been a tactic of science communicators. He points out the obvious truth that this approach has failed to motivate people, so why do more of the same?
His message is of vital importance given most people – even engaged policy makers, business leaders and members of public - are deeply unaware of the position we are in. It’s not that no-one is arguing the case. Thunberg, Attenborough, Hansen, Guterres and many activist groups like Extinction Rebellion, Just Stop Oil and others are saying what needs to be said. To these arguments there are two types of reactions:
- Some respond with “we need to accelerate all we are doing”, or they just get anxious about it all. Given we now face a genuinely existential crisis not one forecast but one we are now fully in – both are woefully inadequate responses.
- Others respond, “this is fearmongering or extremism”. Even some professional climate experts and commentators label them as "doomists" who will disempower people.
I think both responses are wrong, but regardless, neither are going to help.
So how do we respond to Porritt’s challenge? Yes, there is enormous hope, and change is rapidly accelerating across many sectors. But there are serious ecological signs of the system breaking down – perhaps collapsing – likely leading to chaos, famine and rolling economic/geopolitical crises.
Are we actually in denial of this, as Porritt argues? Or are we simply stuck in a behavioural rut which we need to shake ourselves out of?
I don’t think the answer to that is clear - but I am certain it is time for a reality check. If something doesn’t radically shift, then “doom” will not be a communications issue, it will be a lived reality. Time to wake up.
Mainstream Climate Science: The New Denialism?
Published by Jonathon Porritt | 7 March 2024