To banish his sense of doom, Mr. Aiken monitors the amount of climate news. He came up with a metric: Focus 20% on problems and 80% on solutions. He understands that there is a whole life of work ahead and focuses on grassroots movements and influencing local change. “It makes me happy,” he says, “and makes me optimistic about a future where we can still survive and thrive.”
Kate Marvel, a research scientist at NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University, says she even freezes when met with fear-based climate announcements. But she focuses on all that is still humanly possible. She points to the positive effects of federal clean water legislation and the Montreal Protocol, signed in 1987 to phase out ozone-depleting chemicals, helping to repair the ozone hole, preventing millions of cases. skin cancer every year, and global warming is even worse.
“We’re still facing very terrible threats, it’s legitimate,” said Dr. Marvel. “But that doesn’t mean that no policy has worked, and no progress has been made. And that certainly does not mean that progress cannot be made.”
Or, as Mary Annaïse Heglar, a climate essayist and co-host of the Hot Take podcast and newsletter, put it, “Look at all life in the balance between 1.5 and 1.6 degrees. ” She’s referring to droughts, heatwaves, floods and additional destructive storms that scientists say will result from every fraction of global warming.
For Ms. Heglar, what she calls “hope” is as bad as climateism – an unfounded optimism that someone will come up with a miracle climate solution like a silver bullet.
“Underneath greatism and hope is the question ‘Are we winning?’ “It is too early at this point. We need to ask ourselves if we’re trying. We don’t know until we try if we will win. Whether we do it or not, it will still be worth it. “
Sound made by Tally Abecassis.