The counterproductively of climate doom and gloom

From Hannah Ritchie: Doomsday predictions are a dream for climate deniers’:

I grew up with climate change. I don’t really remember a time when it wasn’t talked about, so I became obsessed with it — a big part of my life was worrying about it. Then I went to university and that was all I was studying. The environmental metrics were getting worse and worse. I was also assuming that extreme poverty and hunger must be getting worse. This fed into the notion that humans were incapable of solving problems. A key turning point was discovering the work of [Swedish physician and academic] Hans Rosling. He did these Ted Talks, mainly focusing on human metrics, where he would show how the world was changing, through data. And it turned out that most of the human wellbeing metrics that I’d assumed to be getting worse were actually getting better. Take child mortality: 200 years ago, almost half of children would die before reaching puberty, and that’s now less than 5%. Now, the world is still terrible, and we have a lot of progress to make. But the realisation I came to was that we have the opportunity to improve both of these things at the same time: we can continue human progress while addressing our environmental problems.

It’s amazing how a generally positive outlook is so subversive these days and how much of the discussion in the linked article is quasi-religious: one must make a pro forma denunciation of capitalism, talk about climate change in terms of believers and heretics.

This is all so insanely counterproductive.

I think there’s a massive societal conversation to be had about overconsumption its impact on the environment. Aggressive but possible goals are great.

But the doom and gloom makes people think there’s no point in even trying. The absolutism of you can never fly again and you better enjoy your tofu, makes people ignore environmentalism altogether.