I'm interested in your current thoughts on acting in our own personal lives to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. For example, the last time I went anywhere by airplane was January 2017. I had been trying to quit flying for quite awhile, and your opinion piece about not flying was one of the things that helped me quit. (Meeting a partner who already didn't fly was another important factor, and we help each other avoid flying. Also, figuring out that a single round-trip flight between SF and NYC would wipe out all the savings I accumulate from a year's worth of bicycle commuting.) I do many other things in my personal life such as biking and walking for most of my transportation, eating very little meat, being careful with purchases, and I also do things that extend out into the community such as talking with friends and family, donating to and volunteering for pro-environmental organizations, supporting political candidates who stick up for nature, going to demonstrations, contacting my reps, etc. I have a strong belief that I should do what I can, wherever I can, and I should try to do the things that make the biggest difference.
But over the past few years I've been hearing more and more people say things like: "Individual actions don't matter." Or, "Individuals can't solve the climate crisis." I'm hearing this from people who genuinely care about the environment and want to bring an end to greenhouse gas emissions. Often, these same people have lifestyles that result in very high levels of greenhouse gas emissions, such as: two houses, multiple international flights per year for personal pleasure, multiple cars, a lot of driving, etc. It feels like they are letting themselves off the hook.
What's your current opinion about actions people should take? What do you think about the claims that individual action doesn't matter? (People saying this often bring up the fact that BP invented the term "carbon footprint" as a way of shifting responsibility away from fossil fuel companies and onto regular people. While true, I believe that caring for our world is the responsibility of all of us. Yes, the fossil fuel companies are terrible, but also, yes, individuals can be terrible, too, and each of us has the most control over our own actions, and thus a responsibility to act where we can and not just leave it to someone else.)
I'd love to hear your latest thoughts on this. Thanks!
I'm wondering if you're aware of any studies or data that show the most effective approaches for climate communication to spur action? I'm also wondering if you can comment on the report I saw recently about the antarctic gaining ice for the first time in decades.
Nice to see the current writing setting! I'm curious about your opinion on ecologically aware and ecologically reverent perspectives that nonetheless consider climate change and atmospheric carbon accumulation to be just one category of variables amongst many important ecological variables—and perhaps not the variables we should be focusing on in the way we have been. I'm thinking, for example, of Charles Eisenstein's 2018 "Climate—A New Story," the central thesis of which is that focusing exclusively on carbon emissions and climate obscures the more complex and holistic factors in a thriving ecology that are crucial to planetary health—and that are also the more fundamental antecedents to climate stability.
As I said, this book was published in 2018, before Eisenstein's credibility had been so impacted by his enthusiastic support for RFK Jr., his alignment with MAHA, and his tacit endorsement of Trump. Back then, it seemed like an insightful, sophisticated, and more holistic take on climate change. Without having much expertise in this field, I'm curious how that kind of thesis lands in the climate science community: is it considered obvious and already widely accepted, provocative and useful, or inaccurate?
Simon, good question, but to answer this it would help if you would list the specific factors obscured by a too-narrow focus on emissions and climate, according to Eisenstein.
Thanks so much for your response, Peter, and that makes complete sense. I wrote a review of the book in 2018 for a publication called the Ecozoic Review, so I think the easiest way for me to summarize some of the relevant material is to copy/paste from that review. I’ve included an extended section below that I think contains the pertinent information. Re-reading some of this, I was reminded of how intricate, elegant, and compelling I always found these perspectives. But I’ve also always wondered—not being very familiar with the complexities of climate science myself—how this analysis lands with those who study climate and who know far more about these topics than I do!
Here's an excerpt of the review (sorry it’s not briefer):
One reads of the multiple lines of causality at play within and among ecosystems as seen, for instance, in the role of biogenic condensation nuclei in cloud formation; the evapotranspiration of water from soil and vegetation; and the variation that exists among types of clouds and their differing effects on temperature and water circulation. The effects of trees and forest fauna on ground porosity and underground aquifers are explored, as is the impact of forests on wind patterns. The analysis is extended to wetlands, grasslands, agricultural land, urban land, and deserts.
While it is suggested that the hydrological cycle plays a much larger role in climate stability than is generally appreciated, Eisenstein nonetheless goes on to pursue questions of ecological health and climate through the familiar lens of carbon, leading to somewhat unfamiliar understandings that become apparent only when ecosystems are considered in the wholeness of their complex relationships. Here, he cites research that points to gross underestimation of both the carbon sequestration capacity of intact ecosystems and of the release of carbon caused by the destruction of ecosystems. Venturing into the perilous territory of the “climate spectrum,” Eisenstein unreservedly throws himself into each of these distinct worlds of conviction and research, from climate change denial to climate catastrophism, yielding a dizzying tangle of methodological arguments and counterarguments that, ultimately, may reveal more about the underlying assumptions shared across the spectrum than they do about the future of the climate. A common theme throughout is the complex, nonlinear, and multifactorial relationships that underpin climate and ecological health and that defy reduction to a single solution such as reducing carbon emissions.
What emerges is a picture of Earth as “a complex living system whose homeostatic maintenance depends on the robust interaction of every living and nonliving subsystem.” The frame moves from the geomechanical view underlying dominant climate change logic to a Gaian view resonant with that articulated by James Lovelock and Lynn Margulis, bridging geology and biology with the understanding that “life creates the conditions for life.” Eisenstein argues that while it is possible that the prolonged ecological degradation endured by this complex living system over the past 5,000 years will produce a warming climate, it is more likely that such degradation will result in “climate derangement”—that is, a calamitous degree of instability caused not primarily by fossil fuel emissions, but by ecosystem destruction. Eisenstein argues that, “Whether we are looking through the lens of carbon or water, from the living systems perspective we see that climate health depends on the health of local ecosystems everywhere. The health of local ecosystems, in turn, depends on the health of the water cycle, and the health of the water cycle depends on the soil and the forests.” Within this expanded perspective, whether or not temperatures are rising, the living planet’s many interdependent ecosystems—the “organs of Gaia”—are dying. It is this ecocidal onslaught that undermines Earth’s ability to maintain the conditions for life, including a stable climate. Eisenstein wholeheartedly believes that human beings are causing severe damage to Earth’s climate, though he argues that the living systems narrative represents a fundamental challenge to the “Standard Narrative” of climate and its centrality.
New research I’m working on reveals majority of business professionals privately reject profit-maximisation/unsustainable business norms but wrongly believe their peers are less likely to agree.
Given your own willingness to speak up about the urgency of our moment, what advice would you give these silent professionals to help them advocate for their organisations responding appropriately?
I ask because big business is a critical leverage point, yet corporate climate action remains deeply insufficient!!
I'm a linguist/discourse analyst writing about language and climate. I'd like to know what you think are some of the very misleading terms being used in the climate space, and what are the ones that are helping us see what is happening more clearly in the climate space. Thanks Peter - and best wishes for the writing retreat.
So glad to know you are out there on a writers retreat. And sickleave is a good reason – what’s going on with the climate is making us all sick. I am a screenwriter and just finished a second draft of Cloud Zero. Logline —
Amid escalating natural disasters, a determined Hopi climate scientist, exiled from NASA, returns home to bridge ancient Indigenous wisdom and modern technology to help lead her community to survival. Our climate consultant is Paul Beckwith out of Ottawa Canada - and we are working with a Hopi writer from the Second Mesa in Arizona. If you would consider reading the project as an additional climate consultant for a fee, let me know. And glad you are meditating.
I'm interested in your current thoughts on acting in our own personal lives to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. For example, the last time I went anywhere by airplane was January 2017. I had been trying to quit flying for quite awhile, and your opinion piece about not flying was one of the things that helped me quit. (Meeting a partner who already didn't fly was another important factor, and we help each other avoid flying. Also, figuring out that a single round-trip flight between SF and NYC would wipe out all the savings I accumulate from a year's worth of bicycle commuting.) I do many other things in my personal life such as biking and walking for most of my transportation, eating very little meat, being careful with purchases, and I also do things that extend out into the community such as talking with friends and family, donating to and volunteering for pro-environmental organizations, supporting political candidates who stick up for nature, going to demonstrations, contacting my reps, etc. I have a strong belief that I should do what I can, wherever I can, and I should try to do the things that make the biggest difference.
But over the past few years I've been hearing more and more people say things like: "Individual actions don't matter." Or, "Individuals can't solve the climate crisis." I'm hearing this from people who genuinely care about the environment and want to bring an end to greenhouse gas emissions. Often, these same people have lifestyles that result in very high levels of greenhouse gas emissions, such as: two houses, multiple international flights per year for personal pleasure, multiple cars, a lot of driving, etc. It feels like they are letting themselves off the hook.
What's your current opinion about actions people should take? What do you think about the claims that individual action doesn't matter? (People saying this often bring up the fact that BP invented the term "carbon footprint" as a way of shifting responsibility away from fossil fuel companies and onto regular people. While true, I believe that caring for our world is the responsibility of all of us. Yes, the fossil fuel companies are terrible, but also, yes, individuals can be terrible, too, and each of us has the most control over our own actions, and thus a responsibility to act where we can and not just leave it to someone else.)
I'd love to hear your latest thoughts on this. Thanks!
I'm wondering if you're aware of any studies or data that show the most effective approaches for climate communication to spur action? I'm also wondering if you can comment on the report I saw recently about the antarctic gaining ice for the first time in decades.
Nice to see the current writing setting! I'm curious about your opinion on ecologically aware and ecologically reverent perspectives that nonetheless consider climate change and atmospheric carbon accumulation to be just one category of variables amongst many important ecological variables—and perhaps not the variables we should be focusing on in the way we have been. I'm thinking, for example, of Charles Eisenstein's 2018 "Climate—A New Story," the central thesis of which is that focusing exclusively on carbon emissions and climate obscures the more complex and holistic factors in a thriving ecology that are crucial to planetary health—and that are also the more fundamental antecedents to climate stability.
As I said, this book was published in 2018, before Eisenstein's credibility had been so impacted by his enthusiastic support for RFK Jr., his alignment with MAHA, and his tacit endorsement of Trump. Back then, it seemed like an insightful, sophisticated, and more holistic take on climate change. Without having much expertise in this field, I'm curious how that kind of thesis lands in the climate science community: is it considered obvious and already widely accepted, provocative and useful, or inaccurate?
Simon, good question, but to answer this it would help if you would list the specific factors obscured by a too-narrow focus on emissions and climate, according to Eisenstein.
Thanks so much for your response, Peter, and that makes complete sense. I wrote a review of the book in 2018 for a publication called the Ecozoic Review, so I think the easiest way for me to summarize some of the relevant material is to copy/paste from that review. I’ve included an extended section below that I think contains the pertinent information. Re-reading some of this, I was reminded of how intricate, elegant, and compelling I always found these perspectives. But I’ve also always wondered—not being very familiar with the complexities of climate science myself—how this analysis lands with those who study climate and who know far more about these topics than I do!
Here's an excerpt of the review (sorry it’s not briefer):
One reads of the multiple lines of causality at play within and among ecosystems as seen, for instance, in the role of biogenic condensation nuclei in cloud formation; the evapotranspiration of water from soil and vegetation; and the variation that exists among types of clouds and their differing effects on temperature and water circulation. The effects of trees and forest fauna on ground porosity and underground aquifers are explored, as is the impact of forests on wind patterns. The analysis is extended to wetlands, grasslands, agricultural land, urban land, and deserts.
While it is suggested that the hydrological cycle plays a much larger role in climate stability than is generally appreciated, Eisenstein nonetheless goes on to pursue questions of ecological health and climate through the familiar lens of carbon, leading to somewhat unfamiliar understandings that become apparent only when ecosystems are considered in the wholeness of their complex relationships. Here, he cites research that points to gross underestimation of both the carbon sequestration capacity of intact ecosystems and of the release of carbon caused by the destruction of ecosystems. Venturing into the perilous territory of the “climate spectrum,” Eisenstein unreservedly throws himself into each of these distinct worlds of conviction and research, from climate change denial to climate catastrophism, yielding a dizzying tangle of methodological arguments and counterarguments that, ultimately, may reveal more about the underlying assumptions shared across the spectrum than they do about the future of the climate. A common theme throughout is the complex, nonlinear, and multifactorial relationships that underpin climate and ecological health and that defy reduction to a single solution such as reducing carbon emissions.
What emerges is a picture of Earth as “a complex living system whose homeostatic maintenance depends on the robust interaction of every living and nonliving subsystem.” The frame moves from the geomechanical view underlying dominant climate change logic to a Gaian view resonant with that articulated by James Lovelock and Lynn Margulis, bridging geology and biology with the understanding that “life creates the conditions for life.” Eisenstein argues that while it is possible that the prolonged ecological degradation endured by this complex living system over the past 5,000 years will produce a warming climate, it is more likely that such degradation will result in “climate derangement”—that is, a calamitous degree of instability caused not primarily by fossil fuel emissions, but by ecosystem destruction. Eisenstein argues that, “Whether we are looking through the lens of carbon or water, from the living systems perspective we see that climate health depends on the health of local ecosystems everywhere. The health of local ecosystems, in turn, depends on the health of the water cycle, and the health of the water cycle depends on the soil and the forests.” Within this expanded perspective, whether or not temperatures are rising, the living planet’s many interdependent ecosystems—the “organs of Gaia”—are dying. It is this ecocidal onslaught that undermines Earth’s ability to maintain the conditions for life, including a stable climate. Eisenstein wholeheartedly believes that human beings are causing severe damage to Earth’s climate, though he argues that the living systems narrative represents a fundamental challenge to the “Standard Narrative” of climate and its centrality.
If needed, the full review is here:
https://www.simonspire.com/blog/climate-a-new-story
New research I’m working on reveals majority of business professionals privately reject profit-maximisation/unsustainable business norms but wrongly believe their peers are less likely to agree.
Given your own willingness to speak up about the urgency of our moment, what advice would you give these silent professionals to help them advocate for their organisations responding appropriately?
I ask because big business is a critical leverage point, yet corporate climate action remains deeply insufficient!!
I'm a linguist/discourse analyst writing about language and climate. I'd like to know what you think are some of the very misleading terms being used in the climate space, and what are the ones that are helping us see what is happening more clearly in the climate space. Thanks Peter - and best wishes for the writing retreat.
So glad to know you are out there on a writers retreat. And sickleave is a good reason – what’s going on with the climate is making us all sick. I am a screenwriter and just finished a second draft of Cloud Zero. Logline —
Amid escalating natural disasters, a determined Hopi climate scientist, exiled from NASA, returns home to bridge ancient Indigenous wisdom and modern technology to help lead her community to survival. Our climate consultant is Paul Beckwith out of Ottawa Canada - and we are working with a Hopi writer from the Second Mesa in Arizona. If you would consider reading the project as an additional climate consultant for a fee, let me know. And glad you are meditating.
I'd watch that, Julie!