Deer in Headlights

Wednesday’s MSNBC Democratic debate covered a wide range of subjects from racial justice to the military industrial complex and more. A huge point of focus, maybe taken more seriously than any other, was global climate change. This makes a lot of sense because obviously it’s considered an “existential threat” of the highest priority by all the candidates on stage. But something really concerns me about the way it’s being discussed. The framework of the discussion is fear.

Here’s why that’s not good.

Greenhouse gas emissions pose a threat unlike anything we’ve encountered before. I’m not saying that because it threatens all of humanity— plenty of things in our history have done that (people forget!). Climate change is different because the average person feels completely powerless over it. When most people hear about it, they obviously want to see it resolved but have no clue what they can personally do to help. Even all the little things like eating mindfully don’t have any tangible impact that feels rewarding enough to your average Joe. It’s a given that people are a little lost on how to take action. The good news is that confusion is something we can work with. But helplessness is the real kicker. And it’s discussing the issue in a way that stirs up so much fear that fosters helplessness.

So what kind of societal implications does this helplessness have? Look around and you’ll see. When human beings encounter a dilemma that they feel helpless to resolve, there are two typical responses. Some people cope by sharing their concern with others. Others cope by ignoring the problem altogether. Imagine having an exam tomorrow. Imagine your whole class feels unprepared because the material is too hard and you don’t know what to expect or what to study. We’ve all been there. So what happens? Some of your peers will get together and talk about how stressed they are. That makes them feel a little better. Some of your other peers will say “fuck it” and go distract themselves. Neither of those groups will do as well as they could have. The ones who will actually do the best on the exam felt optimistic enough to keep trying to study— the ones who didn’t feel afraid and helpless.

Are you catching my drift here? We all know it’s true. A lot of people let the climate crisis consume them with fear. Some of them just sit and talk about it hysterically. And then there’s the ones who completely deny it just to feel better. Either way, the result is mental paralysis in a situation that requires clear thinking.

A deer-in-headlights never thinks clearly.

So you might be thinking that we need fear to rally support. Maybe that’s true. But as I was watching the debate yesterday, I couldn’t help wondering if it will be worth the polarization that it causes in the meantime. You might be thinking there’s no reason to be optimistic at all. Think again. Direct air capture (DAC) of carbon dioxide is a technology that has made serious headway in recent years, promising to become a massive industry with a tremendous potential for profit that’s sure to make even the mouths of skeptical conservatives water. According to the new energy journal Joule, the cost of extracting a ton of CO2 fell from $600 in 2011 to under $100 in 2018. That trajectory indicates that we’re well on our way to reducing our carbon footprint. This is such undeniably good news that even left-wing sources like Vox have conceded that DAC looks to be a key piece of the puzzle for a carbon-neutral economy. And this technology is just one of many options being researched.

Obviously the work is far from done and we’re just getting started. Obviously climate change is hardly a thing to be enthusiastic about even if it presents so much opportunity for growth. But the opportunities are there and acknowledging them is important. So if you’re like me and you feel incredibly optimistic about challenges like this, raise your voice loud and proud for the people in the back. No one has ever made progress by being too scared to move.

Filip, again.