From e0fc8cc4701b84ba10a5f097fa7fd54668994cdf Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Joe Carstairs Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2026 15:26:32 +0100 Subject: chp2: criticisms of green catastrophe --- chapter2.md | 111 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 111 insertions(+) (limited to 'chapter2.md') diff --git a/chapter2.md b/chapter2.md index 8478ff1..55f040a 100644 --- a/chapter2.md +++ b/chapter2.md @@ -72,6 +72,117 @@ apocalyptic literary feature. \[NEEDS MORE WORK\] Recently, academics examining green rhetoric have raised concerns with this catastrophism. +It has been claimed green catastrophism is fatalistic: that the catastrophe is +implicitly inevitable, thus encouraging despair over hope and therefore mere +ritual over action. To be sure, most green rhetors do not explicitly say this; +rather, they tend to say the very opposite, that it is not too late to avert the +catastrophe: that's why we have to act now! The problem is not that green +rhetors _assert_ that the catastrophe is inevitable, but that inevitability is +one of those symbols packaged together with the symbols of 'catastrophe,' and +indeed 'apocalypse.' + +Part of this is due to the geological connotations of 'catastrophe.' +Paleontologists speculate about the causes of historic mass extinctions: +volcanic eruptions, asteroid strikes, cyclical climate fluctuations gone rogue? +One thing's for sure, there's nothing the dinosaurs could have done to stop it. + +'Apocalypse' is also a fatalistic concept. This fatalism is obvious whenever +someone counts the days til doomsday. This begins with the prophet Daniel, who +reports that 'seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and thy holy city, to +finish the transgression' (Dan 9:24) and that 'from the time that the daily +sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, +there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.' \[MORE DEMONSTRATION OF +FATALIST MILLENIALISM\] + +\[EXAMPLE OF SCHOLAR SAYING THAT APOCALYPSE/CATASTROPHE IS FATALIST\] + +A fatalistic outlook may, at best, lead to what Kvandal & Levy call +'ritualistic' behaviours: 'behaviours characterized by rigidity, compulsion, and +goal demotion.' [@kvandal-2025] That is, people feel compelled to act in rigidly +specific ways, even though they don't have a clear grasp on the practical +outcomes of their behaviour. Calling on the cognitive science of religion, the +authors assert that 'there is a general consensus that human beings tend to +ritualize more of their behavior when they lose agency under conditions of +stress, uncertainty, or hazards more generally.' They note the example of Greta +Thunberg sailing across the Atlantic in a zero-carbon vessel to speak at the +United Nations. The huge effort involved in that act seems disproportionate to +the small impact had on greenhouse gas emissions. The authors also raise +examples of civil disobedience motivated by climate pessimism. Fatalism might +lead to politically productive behaviours. But the fact that ritualistic +behaviours are severed from practical outcomes makes it a pretty bad bet: + +> By not allowing for hope that the world can be salvaged, this form of social +> activism provides outlets in which activists alleviate anxiety by obtaining a +> (simulated) sense of agency in the face of an uncontrollable threat. +> [@kvandal-2025, p. 701] + +Action directed at making you feel better might lead to change in your own life, +but it is not necessarily going to solve the problem that made you feel anxious +in the first place. Juli Gittinger has shown that fatalistic climate narratives +have driven some people in the US to join the 'prepper' movement, accumulating +stockpiles of essential goods, building emergency shelters, learning 'survival +skills,' and collecting weapons to defend your family's patch from desperate +outsiders. [@american-apocalyptic, see esp. chp. 3, 4] 'Prepper' culture (which +owes its existence to Cold War fears of all-out nuclear war +[@american-apocalyptic, pp. 48-56]) might be a minority pursuit, but it is a +response to the same apocalyptic storytelling which is a widespread phenomenon +in mainstream American media: + +> The theme of _impending catastrophe_ \[…\] frames the news story +> as more apocalyptic and therefore often becomes more sensationalized or highly +> panic-driven. Add social media to this mix – where experts are often ignored +> in favor of more polemic non-experts – and risk perception increases. Oddly +> enough, impending catastrophe is less likely to alter behavior, instead +> inspiring feelings of futility: we’re doomed, so why bother. Repeated exposure +> to doomsday predictions can prevent us from taking action because ultimately +> the effect of apocalyptic thinking generates a fear of existential threats +> that are beyond our control – and thus unpreventable. [@american-apocalyptic, p. 60] + +Green catastrophism may have political implications, too. It has been argued +that implicit in the catastrophist narrative is the assumption that everything +was going well until the catastrophe loomed its ugly head. This suggests that +'business as usual' is alright, and therefore obscures the need for a radical +critique of the business-as-usual political get-up which produces massive +destruction. + +Christiana Figueres and Tom Rivett-Carnac provided one demonstration of this +mindset in _The Future We Choose_, which begins with an imaginative description +of two possible futures, one optimistic, one pessimistic. The optimistic vision +described an anthropocene paradise, a vision of how the human project to +transcend materiality might be finally accomplished by continuing technological +progress. To take the comments on energy, for example: + +> In some ways, breaking up grids and decentralising power proved easy. We no +> longer burn fossil fuels. There is some nuclear energy in those countries that +> can afford the expensive technology, but most of our energy now comes from +> renewable sources like wind, solar, geothermal, and hydro. \[…\] Because there +> is no combustion cost, energy is basically free. It is also more abundant and +> more efficiently used than ever. Smart tech prevents unnecessary energy +> consumption, as artificial inteligence units switch off appliances and +> machines when not in use. The efficiency of the system means that, with a few +> exceptions, our quality of life has not suffered. In many respects, it has +> improved. [@future-we-choose, chp. 3] + +This vision of the good life promotes the idea of technological progress driving +increasing living standards, a rising tide lifting all boats. This narrative +perpetuates the idea that more efficient technology can deliver a free lunch, +while ignoring the fact that modern technological progress led to increased +exploitation of workers and of nature. It accepts that the Earth has been +domesticated, and advocates for the Earth to be domesticated even more. As +Eileen Crist, discussing Anthropocene discourse, puts it: + +> The very concept of the Anthropocene crystallizes human dominion, corralling +> the already-pliable-in-that-direction human mind into viewing our master +> identity as manifestly destined, quasi-natural, and sort of awesome. The +> Anthropocene accepts the humanization of Earth as reality, even though this is +> still contestable, partially reversible, and worth of resistance and of +> inspiring a different vision. [@poverty-nomenclature, p. 25] + +It gets worse for the catastrophist. Perhaps the most vicious criticism of green +catastrophism is that by leaning on 'Anthropocene' discourses, green rhetors +flatten out social relationships. This, say the critics, is the death of all +genuine politics. \[EXAMPLES\] + In fact, the Apocalypse of St John is very different from catastrophism. For St John, there is no impending catastrophe that his audience can avert. The -- cgit v1.2.3