Do we need to change our behavior?
Discover more from HEATED
Do we need to change our behavior?
A new paper calls for global recognition of a “Human Behavioral Crisis” to prevent ecological overshoot. Plus, The New York Times runs a fossil fuel ad on an article about climate anxiety.
Someone I admire recently reached out and asked if we could discuss his climate anxiety. This person, who does not work in climate change but reads about it frequently, told me that no matter how hard he tries, his anxiety about the planet’s future keeps getting worse.
One reason for this, he speculated, was the feeling of screaming into a void. He said it feels like most people—including those who work in climate professionally—aren’t truly grappling with the severity of the problem.
He said it feels like there are certain hard truths, particularly regarding humanity’s overconsumption of natural resources and the need to change behavior, that even climate-focused journalists, activists, and policymakers don’t seem to want to acknowledge.
He wanted to know: Was he crazy for feeling this way?
I replied: Not in the slightest.
I tell you this anecdote because yesterday, I came across a new academic paper that I think does a good job of illustrating why some folks have increasing sense of dread about the climate crisis.
Published last week in the journal Science Progress, the topic is “ecological overshoot”—that is, the consumption of natural resources that exceeds Earth’s regenerative capacity.
Led by New Zealand-based conservationist Joseph Merz, the paper’s authors argue that capitalism, and the consumer culture it drives in high-emitting nations like the U.S., “is causing [humans] to consume our natural resources at rates faster than they can be replenished, while also creating waste in excess of what the Earth can assimilate.”
If the world’s highest emitting countries only focus on technological climate solutions (like switching to renewable energy) and not systemic behavioral ones (like buying less stuff and using less energy), the authors argue, climate change may be slowed. But ecological overshoot—which includes symptoms like biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse, and ocean acidification—will worsen. And as overshoot worsens, the authors argue, “the likelihood of societal breakdown increases.”
The researchers thus call for global recognition of a so-called “Human Behavioral Crisis,” and propose that countries and individuals start recognizing the need for systemic change in social norms in addition to a change in energy systems. “This paper is a call to action,” co-author Mat Maroni said in a statement. “It is a new way to frame an issue that deserves a better conversation.”
There’s far more I could write—and want to write—about this paper, the topic of ecological overshoot, and the role of social norms in driving the climate crisis. I had a fascinating conversation with the lead author yesterday, and I’d like to hear from some other scholars and critics on the topic as well. (If that’s you, email me).
I just share it briefly with you now because I think it illustrates where so many people with increasing climate anxiety are coming from. For many, it’s not enough to hear that “we’re moving in the right direction toward the energy transition”—because they intrinsically understand that simply transitioning is not enough. And yet, despite that intrinsic understanding that consumer culture and norms must change as well, it seems very few people want to talk about that. I feel it myself when I attend conferences that purport to be climate “solutions,” and yet only hear discussions about technology. Why do so few want to address consumption, too?
I know part of the answer lies in the prevailing idea that “consumption” is a problem that can only be addressed at the individual level, and that we shouldn’t place the burden of solving climate change on individuals. I agree with the latter point, but not necessarily the former. I think there are a lot of systemic drivers of consumer culture, and many opportunities to drive culture away from it, particularly in Hollywood.
Of course, I also know the answer lies in part in fear of right-wing backlash, in a familiar refrain: ”They’re trying to take away the American way of life!”
But I think for many living under capitalism, the American way of life isn’t actually very fulfilling. Indeed, I’m beginning to believe there’s vast political opportunity in imagining and pitching a future where our status and happiness is no longer based on the stuff we consume. Perhaps that imagined future could lessen climate anxiety, too.
But anyway, it’s just the start of an idea for me. If you’re a subscriber, I’d love to hear what you think.
Speaking of climate anxiety…
The New York Times’ latest article on climate anxiety contains a greenwashing fossil fuel ad. Both The New York Times and the Washington Post have run fossil fuel ads in their climate reporting recently, but the Times’ recent example is so bad it’s almost funny.
Smack in the middle of an article about the rise of eco-anxiety, The New York Times ran a greenwashing ad for The Propane Education Research Council—a fossil fuel interest group that the New York Times itself has investigated for making “misleading” claims to “fight against climate action.”
A screenshot sent by a reader of a PERC ad on the New York Times’ article on eco-anxiety. The Washington Post is still running fossil fuel greenwashing ads in its climate reporting, too. This week, the Washington Post’s Climate 202 newsletter was filled with greenwashing ads from ExxonMobil—an oil giant that’s lied about climate change for decades.
An Exxon ad in the Climate 202 newsletter. To be clear, our issue is not that we believe The New York Times or the Washington Post climate reporters are influenced by fossil fuels. Their reporting is incredibly valuable.
However, we think it’s a travesty that our nation’s most trusted news outlets routinely use their own quality climate reporting to sell fossil fuel companies on opportunities to mislead their readers. By accepting fossil fuel greenwashing campaigns, mainstream media outlets are funding climate journalism through climate disinformation.In less anxiety-inducing news about news, the Los Angeles Times is launching a Climate California section. For the first time, California’s most prominent paper has a whole section devoted to climate change, with climate reporter Sammy Roth becoming the Los Angeles Times’ first-ever climate columnist.
California is on the front lines of climate change, including wildfires, sea level rise, extreme heat, and drought, so it feels overdue—but very welcome—to have the Los Angeles Times expand their already-robust climate coverage. Climate California will include reporting on environmental justice, healthcare, pollution, water issues, the energy transition and more. Here’s hoping the section won’t accept fossil fuel ads.Lastly: Insurance companies that promised to cut coal coverage are still secretly funding it. A new report from nonprofit watchdog Public Citizen names the top insurance companies insuring coal mines in the U.S. last year—and reveals that several are violating their own companies’ coal coverage policies.
Through public records requests, Public Citizen found that just five insurance companies covered 41 percent of U.S. coal production in 2022: AIG, Liberty Mutual, Lloyd’s of London, Swiss Re, and Zurich. Four of these insurers had promised to restrict their insurance of coal mines. Several are violating their own internal policies on coal coverage, including AIG, Swiss Re, and Liberty Mutual.
Catch of the day: Mo is happiest playing outside in clean air, says reader Jeff. Hopefully there will be better regulation of fossil fuel companies, so we can keep the air clean and Mo smiling.
Want to see your furry (or non-furry!) friend in HEATED? It might take a little while, but we WILL get to yours eventually! Just send a picture and some words to catchoftheday@heated.world.
Do we need to change our behavior?
This is a really important conversation, and one people like me (in environmental communication) think about a lot. One idea I wanted to throw out there has been around a while is the notion of "alternative hedonism." I think it came out of some of the Transition Town stuff in the UK a while back, but the notion is that living in more environmentally (alternative) beneficial ways can actually be quite pleasurable (hedonist, even!). But our social/transportation/economic systems in places like the US are set up to make it really difficult to make the move to the alternative, and this is especially true if you don't have money to hoist yourself over those barriers as an individual. So there has to be enough system change that engaging in environmental behaviors is easier and we can access the hedonist part more readily. Example: it can be really fun and pleasurable to ride your bike to work. You get to zip around traffic snarls, you're outside for a minute, you're moving your body, ebikes are fun and zippy to ride, etc. But a lot of our cities make bike-riding dangerous, or you can't afford to live near where you work, or you need a rebate to support purchasing an ew bike, whatever it is. Those systems have to be de-frictioned enough so that the hedonistic aspects of environmental action really rise to the top and displace the hedonistic aspects of consumer culture. Anyway, it's a way of imagining the different kind of future you're talking about that also nicely bridges the need for individual and system action both.
I find techno-optimist climate solutions that do not address systemic consumption woefully inadequate. Consumption is built into our efficiency language, which isn't at all about producing less, but rather about getting more out of the energy required to produce. It's really sinister, in my opinion. Like Emily, I am frustrated by this desire to just add renewable energy to the mix of fuels, rather than overhaul the energy cultures that create unsustainable behaviors. I don't know how we can go about doing that, which makes me scared and sad. I study the history of energy, which is how I make sense of troubling energy behaviors; but that doesn't change policy or assuage my fears of climate change and ecological overshoot.