Deniers, delayers, debate and democracy

When it comes to climate change, debating climate deniers is seldom worth the effort. They will stick to their talking points, won’t listen to arguments and are not interested in understanding climate science. And you can count on that sooner or later they will turn to invectives and name calling. Still, when a self proclaimed expert on tennis bookmaking makes aggressive statements on the “fake climate science” it’s a bit too much to swallow, even if responding to him is more taking a stand than for a moment believing that I can influence his views. 

Delayers on the other hand are more complicated to handle and they tend to come in many varieties. One of these persons claimed to be a “climate realists” but immediately resorted to calling Greta Thunberg a tool of the "communist elites". He must be a very scared person. 

But it is clear that Greta Thunberg has caused a lot of anxiety among the people with vested interest in fossil fuels and status quo. As this article on “What we need to do the next 18 months" by Matt McGrath points out: 

And it is not only Greta, she has many fellow activists and followers all over the globe, especially among other young girls and women. These activists have found their voice, are demanding real actions and are taking on a heavy burden to ensure that they will have a liveable future. We should do everything we can to support them!

This brings me to another example of the kind of climate delay that comes from people who claim to know better. In a recent Op-Ed in NY Times, Christopher Caldwell was ranting about Greta Thunberg as a threat to democracy, while he proposed more wait and see as a climate “strategy”. 

His piece has been thoroughly taken apart and debunked by many of the worlds climate scientists and activists: 

 

 

A huge number of scientist have already thoroughly sided with the young protesters, as shown by this article in Science and the 52 pages of signatories… 

Haven Coleman, one of these young climate activists called Caldwell a “Rita Skeeter” person (if you haven’t read Harry Potter you need to look this up). Dr. Genevieve Guenther made a thorough dissection of Caldwells “points” which is well worth reading (much better spending your time there than on Caldwell). 

There is certainly a right for everyones to have an opinion, but there is no right for anyone to have his or hers own facts. Nor is there a ‘right' for anyone to have plattform such as NY Times for attacks and spreading confusion. The fossil fuel industry has been allowed to do this for decades; what we need now is debate over which action to take, not if we should act at some later time. Predatory delay is the term Alex Steffen has coined for this behaviour.  

But the debate about Caldwells Op-Ed has made it clear that there are still other kind of delayers, who do accept the climate science - but still don’t want to press ahead with straight talk and strong actions. Instead they wave the banner of free speech and “both sides” must be able to have their say. But there is no both sides to the climate crisis and we don’t give talking space to flat earth proponents. 

What these persons also might have missed is that climate change is itself a profound threat to both society and democracy. This is already evident in the energy area: 

But worse is to come if we continue to delay climate action.  We all now how badly the European Union handled a million refugees from war torn Syria. Climate change will increase that number with one and maybe two factors of ten in the coming decades - can our societies handle that and still be working democracies? The scariest thing about climate change is what it will make us do to each other says Kate Marvel, climate climate scientist at Columbia University and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

Real sustainability only comes in one variety, now: Disruptive. That is scary and will cause a great deal of discomfort for those presently in power. But the alternative, to allow climate disruption to descend us into chaos, is much worse. For all of these reasons, the time for "opinionated ignorance” by people such as Caldwell is over.   

PS

Maybe the supporters of Caldwell right to publish should have looked more into his background. Some examples:  

Here's Christopher Caldwell's glowing defense of Germany's far-right, climate denying AfD, which lost big to the Greens in the European Parliament elections after using its campaign to attack Greta Thunberg. Maybe he's bitter? 

The Spectator has somehow managed to outdo the Telegraph for ignorance on Ireland. American journalist Christopher Caldwell says that a “British unification” under the “moral tutelage” of London would make more sense for Ireland than EU membership.

Is it likely that this person has something worthwhile to contribute with when it comes to discussing climate change and democracy?