Optimism & Climate Change
“Our modelling shows that, while a pathway that limits global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2050 looks increasingly out of reach, there are still plausible pathways to stay within 1.77C of warming in our Net Zero Scenario. Even then, a revolution will be needed in the energy sector to increase momentum and accelerate emissions reductions.”
New Energy Outlook 2022 by Bloomberg NEF*
It would be easy to feel pessimistic about our ability to do something about climate change after reading that paragraph.
I’ve come across some variant of this on multiple occasions and found myself feeling pessimistic despite the unusually uplifting tone and positive conclusions that accompany such declarations.
It’s easy to doubt our abilities, to feel pessimism, and conclude we’re doomed - however, I am blessed (to some perhaps it would be burdened) by an insatiable optimism. I find pessimism to not only be useless but also unnecessary.
It saddens me how the younger generations are growing up believing, deeply, that we are subpar, that we are harmful and that the byproduct of humanity’s progress is ultimately causing its downfall, taking the rest of the Earth down with it…
When we turn on the TV (that ages me… when we scroll TikTok, watch YouTube videos, etc) every day does feel like we’re living in some dystopian TV Show.
Defiantly, I remain optimistic.
Why is optimism viewed as a childlike almost innocent position to assume?
To me this view of optimism rings of cynicism, pessimism and fear. Most especially popular fear caused by the pain we can experience through hoping for things seemingly “against all odds” and apparently out of our reach, ability or possibility.
I have found a much more palatable and realistic view of optimism (covered in the many articles, books and talks) by scientist David Deutsch.
He views optimism “as the proposition that all evils are due to a lack of knowledge, and that knowledge is attainable by the methods of reason and science.“
Just to clarify further, “...by ‘evils’ [he means] anything that causes suffering or impairs human thriving. [He has] argued that there are no limitations, other than the laws of nature, on our ability to eliminate evils by creating knowledge.”
Why does optimism matter now more than ever?
As I plunge into the world of clean energy and clean tech, I am astonished by the incredible innovation, ideas and creativity of the humans that are so passionately working toward a common goal.
In truth, there are many goals, but let’s pick our initial focus, climate change. The goal of affecting Earth’s climate so that it remains, or returns, to ranges that are more suitable for human life as well as the flora and fauna we coexist with.
Unfortunately, I have also come across a strong current of anti-humanism and anti-progressivism (meaning technological and civilizational progress in this case) which is rather surprising because the consensus around an “ideal climate” situation that we need to revert to is utterly centred on the human experience.
The Earth has had many climates, most, quite inhospitable to us or to the animals and plants we coexist with on our planet.
It’s strange to think about, I admit, even to me. I recently found out we’d all be in great trouble if we were to travel back to “Dinosaur Time” as oxygen levels were too high. We could possibly adapt in the long term but we’d likely need to be suited up, to begin with, much like we’d be on Mars (for different reasons, it goes without saying).
We think of that “Dinosaur Era” Earth as lush, green, clean and natural and yet many of the animal species we love wouldn’t thrive or survive, same for “our Era” plants, who need higher carbon monoxide levels.
My point is simply this: when we talk about an ideal or natural or better climate now, we aren’t discussing it in neutral, Earth-centric terms. We are discussing it purely from a human perspective.
There are many other reasons to be developing energy alternatives, industrial and agricultural alternatives, etc, etc - but when it comes to climate, the reasons are that life on Earth for humans and our current planet-mates is becoming uncomfortable, unpredictable and unsustainable - and, we want to reverse that.
For a movement that centers around the human experience so uniquely, I can’t understand why it dismisses humanity so easily even vehemently.
I believe humans are completely capable of creating the knowledge necessary to stop climate change and to “dial in” a more suitable climate system through science and technology. I also believe that the causes, in this case, aren’t as important as the solution. Why? Even if this climate change has been accelerated by human activity, that has never previously been the case, and ultimately we’ll be facing one of those at some future point.
Why not mitigate all climate change and consider the problem from a first principles approach?
Rather than focusing on the specific causes of this climate change, why not deepen our understanding of climate engineering, if you prefer that term to Geoengineering.
But here we touch on this other pessimistic notion that Geoengineering and in fact any “interference” with climate, the planet, etc, is dangerous.
I call on the assistance of David Deutsch again. He tackles this idea by pointing out that “novel behavior has indeed always been dangerous. In prehistoric times, anyone who experimented with putting objects in the campfire might well achieve nothing, and only ruin the food, or cause an explosion, or fill the shelter with smoke, or even just put the fire out. In subsistence cultures, such events could be life-threatening. Yet that same experimenter might also invent a way of hardening spear tips – or invent metallurgy, or cookery – to the enormous benefit of the family group and of humankind. But they had no way of knowing that. “
So we argue that an error in Geoengineering or climate engineering, can’t compare, at least can’t compare on the scale it operates at - I’ll argue against this pessimistic thought immediately by saying that prehistoric man had no idea what would happen if he heated up his spear tip because he didn’t understand anything about heat, metals, chemistry, physics, etc… prehistoric (and much of historic) knowledge was not only deduced but also strictly related to the effect of the thing that was studied rather than the reasons behind it.
It formed a knowledge belief that fire made spears stronger. I’m sure the predominant explanation was supernatural, and of course wrong.
However, even though we can’t claim to know everything, we do know much, much, much more than we did 100 years ago, and incalculably more than we did back in the early “fire days”.
There are things we can do, right now, to impact the weather.
There are things which we could do in the near future too.
And there are no reasons why we have to confuse energy production alternatives and climate change by making them the same issue.
So while I’m not advocating a complete change of course, what I do wish I could see more of is optimism, more human creativity, more scientific innovation, more discussion and debate, and more than one plan to tackle this very complex and elaborate problem.
All of this is really just a call for us all to create more knowledge and find a better solution than the one we currently have.
*The New Energy Outlook (NEO) is BloombergNEF’s long-term scenario analysis on the future of the energy economy covering electricity, industry, buildings and transport and the key drivers shaping these sectors until 2050.