Katharine Hayhoe, a professor of atmospheric science and political science at Texas Tech University has done a lot of work on the psychology of strongly held opinions about climate change. She is particularly concerned about her own community, evangelical Christians, many of whom seem irrevocably tied to Donald Trump and his anti-climate change stance.

A study from the University of Bath in September of 2021, on the subject to of youth anxiety about climate change, found that 59% of youth are very or extremely worried about climate change.  This covered 16 to 25 year-olds. 75% of them said that the future is frightening. 56% are so filled with despair and fear that they think humanity is doomed.

Climate scientists have been trying to warn people for decades that climate change was an important issue that must be addressed with real purpose. Since 1965 they starting warning American presidents. Lyndon Johnson was the first American president who was warned in 1965, now more than 59 years ago. We should all think about how much progress we could have made on this subject had their warnings been seriously heeded for over 50 years. We would no longer have a problem! We would be there. We could probably have kept climate change down to a very manageable level. Sadly, that advice was not heeded. All of this is partly the responsibility to businesses, such as the energy sector, invested heavily in spreading false news about the climate crisis. The paid experts to deceive us.

The group of society that has changed the most in their thinking about climate change, according to Hayhoe, is young people and according to Hayhoe they have wielded a lot of political force. They have used that power at the local level and the national scale and even at the international scale. In fact, they have been immensely effective at the international level.

According to Joan Baez, the antidote to anxiety is action. If you actually get to work to solve the problem your anxiety will be most effectively dissolved. The antidote to despair is action.

As well, consider what another youthful activist, Greta Thunberg said, “Don’t look for hope; act! And when you act, hope is everywhere.”

Christiana Figueres who led the climate change talks for the UN at the Paris climate talks, probably has more reason to be frustrated than anyone else in the world. After all, how would you deal with every country, even ones like Canada (LOL), constantly breaking their promises? Frustration would be baked in. Yet she wrote a unreasonably hopeful book called The Future we Choose.

She wrote about what the world would look like in 2030 if we actually took the actions we should take. The air would be clean. Electricity would be affordable. Our cities would be walkable. She concluded her book like this: “The lesson we learned was that we were only as doomed as we believed ourselves to be.” Action is what gets us there. How do we act? We recognize that we all have a voice.

Things are not hopeless when it comes to climate change.

Katharine Hayhoe professor at Texas Tech University and author of a book on climate change and a scientist who has participated in evaluating science for the International Panel on Climate Change. She is a climate scientist who spends a lot of time trying to persuade evangelical Christians in the Bible Belt that the issue is serious and should be addressed. Those are her people and she is one of them.

Hayhoe did a study on possible reactions to the issue of Climate change. Here is the range of possible reactions: alarmed, concerned, cautious, disengaged, doubtful and dismissive. She said alarmed and concerned had risen from 2008 to 2000 while cautious has remained the same, disengaged has declined from about 12% in 2008 to about 8% in 2020 and doubtful and dismissive have remained the same at about 11% and 7%. The good news here is that even though we often believe the loudest voices rejecting the science are the biggest problem, but the dismissives are only 7%. They carry a lot of notice and traction on social media but actually their numbers are low.

In other words, “93% of us are not dismissive.”  Remember she studies Americans! And only 7% of the Americans are dismissive (or were at the time of the study a couple of year ago). There is clearly some room for hope here. That means in the United States, the categories of alarmed, concerned and cautious  mean ¾ of the population fit into those categories. Isn’t that huge? Isn’t that many more than we would have thought?

What then is the problem? According to Hayhoe it is the fact that we have not personalized the risk. We know that the civilization is at risk. We know polar bears in the Artic are in danger. We know the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica are both in jeopardy, but we by and large don’t yet know how we are in jeopardy too. “We haven’t yet connected the dots about how it matters to me as a Mom, as a neighbor, as a citizen, as a person who works in the industry. That is what we need to do.

We have to drive it home. We have to own the problem. This is one of the things I always like about Hayhoe. She brings in psychology. Psychology of how we think, react and deal with problems.  Those are important.

As well, we don’t know what we can do about climate change. We like the idea of saving polar bears but how do we do it? As Hayhoe said,

“And if we don’t know what we can do about an existential threat to the civilization as we know it, metaphorically our human defence system is just to pull the covers up over our heads. We need to be empowered. We need to understand that we as individuals have agency. And that agency begins by using our voices.”

Professor Hayhoe understands that people have the same issues with regard to the coronavirus: “the parallels between climate change and coronavirus are unmistakable.”  That’s why she was sad, but not surprised when reactions to Covid-19 and the vaccines became politicized. This is also the case in the UK and Canada. None of us are immune to this either. We have to have earnest real conversations with each other.

How do we begin these conversations? As she says,

“We begin with the heart, not the head. We start with something we agree on rather than something that we disagree on. If we can find something we agree on and begin that conversation with a sense of mutual respect,  e.g. that I care about my child and you do too, I care about where I work or live and so do you. Or perhaps we are both passionate about a certain activity such as sports or knitting. All of these concerns are connectors. To begin the conservation on the footing of mutual shared values and respect, together, and then connect the dots to how climate change is affecting what we already care about because we are a good parent, or business person, or a concerned citizen. And always what is already happening and what can be done at the levels of our spheres of influence.”

This is Hayhoe’s recipe for successful discussions to dissolve polarization and animosity. I think it makes sense.

The Secretary-General of the United Nations, Antonio Guterres admitted that the countries of the world who signed the Paris Climate accords are “light years” away from achieving their goals.

Yet there is someone who is not so pessimistic–Katharine Hayhoe. Christiane Amanpour who interviewed her on her PBS television show called Hayhoe “refreshingly ungloomy.” She is an atmospheric scientist and professor of political science at Texas Tech University as well as the Director of the Climate Science Center. Not only that she is an evangelical Christian.

Hayhoe is the author recently of a book called Saving Us: A Climate scientist’s Case for Hope and Healing in a Divided World. As Hayhoe said,

“The Paris Climate agreement is like a potluck dinner. Each country bringing something different–a different dish to the table. Up to now it is very clear, we don’t have enough food at the table. We cannot hold warming to anything below 2.7°C and even then it’s only a 2/3rds chance without further admission.”

Now that the UK is in the lead as far as the richer countries is concerned, on the issue of climate change progress.  Their former Prime Minister Boris Johnson, the perennial bad boy of British politics was boasting about the UK’s success and urging other countries to “grow up” as his has done. Imagine that Boris Johnson telling people to grow up.

As Hayhoe said some countries like the US and Canada too for that matter are still trying to hang on to the status quo so they can adapt our systems when we are “truly in a crisis.” As Hayhoe said, “ The ICCC said its Code Red.” Of course the planet is not a in crisis. The existing life on the planet is in an emergency. The planet will survive this crisis. Whether humans and other creatures on it survive as well is another question entirely. As Hayhoe said,

“It truly is about saving us and that’s why we need all hands on board. We need these promises to be fulfilled.”

The Financial Times said,

“Making progress on climate change without alienating citizens who are worried about their household budgets just got more difficult. For responsible leaders however, there is no alternative.”

Hayhoe acknowledged that politicians might be frightened away by the scale of the problem about reducing dependence on fossil fuels. She asked us to:

“Imagine if the oil crisis in the 70s had precipitated climate action on the scale that we see today. We would be living in a completely different world. I know that as humans we always want to go back to what we had before, but the planet that you and I were born on no longer exists. Instead, it is literally up to us. It is in our hands to build a better planet for all of us. And now it’s time as he (Boris Johnson) said to grow up and do it.”

If course we have to figure how we do it?  This requires massive change. And there are enormous forces of inertia trying to block the process from being fulfilled. Many organizations and powerful individuals are trying, with all the money at their disposal to stop the changes from happening. And they’re  succeeding. According to Hayhoe,

“Climate has become the most politicized issue in the United States ahead of money, religion, and politics.”

And that is remarkable for, as Hayhoe said,

“A thermometer is not liberal, or conservative, or Democrat or Republican, and a hurricane doesn’t knock on your door and ask you who you voted for in the last national election before it destroys your home.”

The polarization is helping to hold us back from climate action. We have to understand that we have to lose vastly outweighs anything else on this issue. As Hayhoe said,

“We have to realize that what we have in common and what we have at risk is far more than the political ideology that divides us.”

It is surprising but in the 1990s in the US both Democrats and Republicans agreed that climate change was a major threat. But that was before major oil companies started spending a lot of money on persuading people that it was not a threat and they should continue instead with business as usual. Hayhoe put it this way,

“Back in the early or even late 1990s you could ask a Democrat and a Republican about climate change and they would give you the same answer. So, what happened? It was deliberately politically polarized. By who? By those who have the most to lose by the world weaning itself off of fossil fuels.”

Hayhoe agrees with Naomi Orestes an historian of science at Harvard University. She said, the Merchants of Doubt spread doubt and it paid off. For decades that dark money has helped to persuade Americans, and others around the world, that climate change is not real, at least not yet.

What can we do about it? We all have to make personal choices and that is important. We can be the change we want. That is a powerful example to others. Yet, our biggest tool is actually our voices. We can speak up. There are people we can influence. We can advocate for change and that can make a difference.

We can call for action! That is what young people have been doing and it has made a difference. We can do that too. As well, as Hayhoe said,

“we can do that at every table we sit at. It might not be the public square. It might be where we work. It might be in the city or town where we live. It might the organization we are involved in. We have a voice and we have influence, each of us in our unique spheres and wherever we go we need to be connecting the dots between how climate change affects the things we already care about, as a place of work, or school or worship or town and what we as a group or organization can do to help contribute to the solution, because it’s not just about country. It’s about cities, states, provinces, towns, businesses, organizations, tribal nations, universities, churches. All of us have a role to play again in saving us.”

The worst thing we can do–absolutely the worst–is nothing. Nothing brings nothing. Nothing is bound to fail more clearly than nothing.

A couple of summers ago in B.C. people experienced an unusual weather phenomenon. It was called a heat dome. It trapped heat inside the invisible dome. Some described the weather as ‘stagnating.’ This dome trapped hot air inside it across western Canada and the northwest US.  In Manitoba we felt the effects though we were not inside the heat dome. For the first time ever, Christiane and I held back, by one day, our planned trip to our un-air-conditioned cottage.

During that week amazing things happened. As Jonathan Watt explained in the Guardian “The Canadian national heat record was broken last Monday, smashed Tuesday, and then obliterated last Wednesday when Lytton’s monitoring system registered 49.6ºC.”

Yet the new Canadian heat records were only the beginning of the story as BC moved from a heat dome to a heat bomb.

As Jonathan Watts reported,

“After the insufferable heat came choking fire. Firs the forest burned, then parts of the town. On Wednesday evening major, Jan Polderman, told people to evacuate. ‘It’s dire. The whole town is on fire,” he said on TV.  It took, like a whole 15 minutes form the first sign of smoke to, all of a sudden, there being fire everywhere.’

Police stations and hospitals reported a surge in heat-related deaths—486 in British Columbia, and dozens more south of the border.

The psychological, political, and economic effects are harder to quantify but, for many, there was a sense of bewilderment that these northern territories were hotter than the  Middle East. David Phillips, the Canadian government senior climatologist, summed it up in an interview with CTV, ‘I mean, it’s just not something that seems Canadian.’

More people in more countries are feeling the weather belongs elsewhere. Across the border, in Washington state, the maximum heat measured at Olympia and Quillayute was 6C higher than the previous all-time record, according to the Weather Prediction Center. In Oregon, the town of Salem hit 47C, smashing the previous record by 9C. Several areas of California and Idaho also saw new highs. The previous week, northern Europe and Russia has also sweltered in an unprecedented heat bubble. June records were broken in Moscow (34.8C), Helsinki (31.7C) Belarus (35.7C), and Estonia (34.6C).

Did you notice that.  486 people dead in BC from heat in a place that is considered having a moderate climate!

Siberia experienced an early heat wave that helped to reduce the amount of sea ice in the Laptev Sea to a record low for the time of year. The town of Lymyakon, Russia, widely considered to be the coldest place on Earth, was hotter (31.6C) than it has ever been in June. This followed a staggeringly hot spell in Siberia last year that lasted several months.

Yes, you read that last one right Siberia!

Things are getting weird and uncomfortable, but hardly anyone seems to care.

Which place do you think of when you think of hell on earth? death Valley? Siberia? Steinbach?  There are many candidates for that position.

A couple of years ago, British Columbia surprised the world.  And not in a good way. Most of us think of B.C. as the land of mild winters and mild summers. We have not thought of it as a place of extreme weather. That was then; this is now. Lytton B.C. is a place of extreme weather. The hottest place in Canada!

As Jonathan Watts of the Guardian said,

“If you have been drawing up a list of possible locations for hell on Earth before last week, Lytton would probably not have entered your mind. Few outside of British Columbia had heard of this Canadian mountain community of 250 people.

Those who had were more likely to think of it as bucolic. Nestled by a confluence of rivers in the forested foothills of the Lillooet and Botanie mountain ranges, the municipal website boasts: Lytton is the ideal location for nature lovers to connect to beauty and fresh air freedom.

However the village made headlines around the world last week for a freakishly prolonged intense temperature spike that turned the idyll into an inferno…Shocked climate change scientists are wondering how even worst-case scenarios failed to predict such furnace-like conditions so far north.”

 

Climate change is surprising a lot of us. And usually in a bad way. Like fires destroying large parts of Los Angeles.  Or Fort McMurray. Or people dying in a forest fire in Lac du Bonnet Manitoba. Welcome to the world of climate change.

Literally the temperatures in Lytton were off the charts. None of the computer models for climate change—no matter how extreme—predicted what happened there.

For a long time, climate scientists have been warning that one of the effects of climate change will not just be warmer weather, but will include more extreme weather events.

 Johan Rockström, of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Change Impact Research explained that the

“recent extreme weather anomalies were not represented in computer models that are used to project how the world might change with more emissions. The fear is that weather systems might be more frequently disrupted as a result of human emissions. He told the Guardian, “It is a risk—of a serious regional weather impact triggered by global warming—that we have underestimated so far.”

It seems that weather has arrived that is worse than the worst.