Gaining Agency on Climate Change

Image: Lenticular cloud, February 13, 2022, Boulder County, Colorado

Self Efficacy: Gaining Agency on Climate Change

I get the occasional letter from a stranger worried about climate change. Sometimes, they say they were referred to me. Most of these letters are whether or not we are doomed and is it true that we only have until 2030 to reduce our emissions.

I have been asked whether I thought someone should seek an abortion or to “reconsider” their lives. I have been interviewed by high school students on whether the Earth will be habitable during their lives.

For some of what I am asked, I assure you that I, first, recommend they seek counseling.

As I have been teaching problem solving for more than 15 years and one of my goals is to teach people how to gain agency and a sense of control, I do have materials that I think are relevant.  In a recent reply to letter, I started with

I consider it a disservice by advocates, journalists, and some of my colleagues to frame climate change as urgently “existential.”  I consider it even worse that they claim that we must reduce emissions by 50% by 2030 or all is lost. These things are simply not true.

I know some think that such statements are motivating, and perhaps they are to some. On the other hand, I think for many it increases their anxiety and inability to act.

Climate change is serious, we must and will address it.

It is what we know best about the future, and with that knowledge what we can have the most control over.

Here I link two of my Climate Blue columns that people tell me have been helpful.

• Knowledge Isn’t Only Power
• Will the Earth Be Habitable in 2100

I also link the talk I gave at my retirement convocation. A person, who I only know through their reaching out to me online, told me it should be required listening.

• Addressing our Climate Future: It Is What We know Best

I realize that these articles will not appeal to everyone. Some consider them pessimistic, some optimistic. I, of course, consider them realistic and pragmatic.

Here are some resources I have collected on psychology. I am not in a position to recommend them specifically. (you might have to give tumblr your email to see them)

I leave this section here, without further entanglement.

https://openclimate.tumblr.com/tagged/behavior

Below is more material, and I update this blog occasionally.

Others on this subject

How to talk about climate change and the problem with doomerism by Dominic Packer & Jay Van Bavel

Global warming: An intergenerational conversation and plea for action by Andrew Weaver

Beyond the Doom and Gloom, Here’s How to Stimulate Climate Action by Madalina Vlasceanu & Jay J. Van Bavel

Climate Anxiety and the Kid Question by Jade Sasser

There are a few ideas that I think are essential:

1. Addressing and “solving” climate change will come from within. It is hard, persistent work and requires champions in every field.
   1. We will adjust ourselves and our societies to a changing climate and this will become an explicit part of what we have to do. We did this in the past; we know how to do this.
   2. Successful strategies will emerge and scale up.
2. We are not going to simply “fix” climate change by some government policy or technological development.
3. Human behavior is more of a challenge than science or technology. It is very hard to change human behavior, and we should not expect to change it from outside. Therefore, this will take time, multiple generations.
4. Despite the dominant public discourse, more and more people are moving beyond fear, inaction, and magical thinking and doing the hard work.
5. Earth is warming and it will continue to warm.
   1. It is critical for us to intervene and limit this warming by reducing emissions.
   2. Adaptation to climate change is imperative, and those who develop strategic scenarios on how to adapt will be better off than those who dismiss climate change or only react to disruptions.
   3. We will need to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
   4. We need to address issues of climate intervention, geo-engineering, now. Geo-engineering is increasingly attractive to people, it is “cheap,” and it is barking mad.

Being Realistic about Climate Change

I started to teach climate change problem solving in 2006. My foundation was drawn from my experiences as a NASA manager, as well as roles I took on in organizational change.

I changed what I teach and how I teach over the years.

My first change came in the first few weeks of class. I had started by teaching an “accessible” version of climate science. In class discussions, I learned that the students who were not climate or natural (physics, chemistry, biology) scientists were far more attuned to the importance and the consequences of a warming planet. They were less stovepiped in their points of views.  They were much less concerned about scientific uncertainty than natural scientists.  They did not see scientific uncertainty as a primary barrier to addressing climate change. I started to focus on placing climate change in context.

Then, in 2008, I decided it was disingenuous to continue to teach about the two (2) degree Celsius limit and avoiding “dangerous” climate change. I felt that it was more realistic to imagine a world 4 degrees warmer, and that thinking about that 4-degree world might provide concrete motivation to keep it from becoming a reality by more aggressive mitigation of our emissions. We have evidence, today, that we are between 2 and 4 degrees in 2100. That is a start; it is not enough.

Then, in 2014, I noticed that people thought that if we cut emissions quickly, then we would avoid sea level rise, avoid increased flooding and drought, and avoid more heat waves.  The message that they heard was if we cut emissions that we would return to the climate of our past.  This was simply not true.

I keep changing what I teach because all the evidence is of a warming planet, that the warming is accelerating, and it will continue for decades. That evidence includes that we are, in fact, increasing, not reducing, our emissions. Further, if we consider what actually needs to be done to reduce our emissions, we have no clear path on how to do it.

(We do have reason to believe in 2024 or 2025 that we will reach peak carbon dioxide emissions and start to decline. This will be an amazing achievement.)

Statements that it is “just a matter of political will” are naïve.

Talking about what we “could” do is not solving the problem.

This is a collection of writings and videos, which serve as an introduction to being realistic and, hopefully, honest about climate change.