At the beginning of November 2024, I sat with some friends on the steps of the Library of Columbia University, feeling that the sun hit us with our summer shirts and dresses. It was a whopping 70 degrees Fahrenheit outside.
“It is not supposed to be so warm,” we all agree.
My little sister called from the United Kingdom to sympathize with a recent conversation with our parents. “They simply said that climate change is not real. Well, no It is not realBut it is natural and is not as serious as people say it is, “he complained.
I closed my eyes and breathed deeply. I am in New York studying at climatic school, dedicating my life to understanding and fighting the crisis, however, my own parents do not believe it is a big problem.
I bet that most people have someone like that in their lives. The theoretical uncle of the conspiracy, the skeptical cousin, the grandmother who shares YouTube videos who claim that global warming is false news. A 2020 survey He discovered that approximately 25% of the American population expressed an agreement with the feeling that climate change is a hoax.
Lately, I have obsessed a bit with climatic conspiracies. Douglas and Sutton Define conspiracy theories as “a belief that two or more actors have secretly coordinated to achieve a result, and that their conspiracy is of public interest, but not of public knowledge.” Climate change is a fertile terrain for these theories because science is very complex. It is full of intricate models, probability ranges and uncertainties that require that we understand long -term trends instead of immediate cause and effect. The public is expected to trust scientists while warning of changing jet currents, ocean currents and radiative forcing, while fossil fuel lobbyists, podcast hosts and social networks sometimes push a simpler and more attractive narrative: Everything is a joke.
Therefore, conspiracy theories offer an easy and emotionally satisfactory response to a complicated problem. Instead of facing the reality of climate change, or calculating with their own complicity, people can choose a different story: that climatic disasters are manipulated, that scientists are corrupt and that the crisis is exaggerated to obtain political profits.
After Hurricane Helene touched land in the United States in the fall of 2024, killing more than 100 people only in North Carolina, I moved on Twitter and I was surprised to see a thread after thread accusing the Democrats of manipulating the storm. According to these PostsIt was a manufactured catastrophe designed to access critical minerals, punish red states before elections, or even claimed as God’s punishment for democratic policies such as abortion. It would be ridiculous if it weren’t so dangerous.
As climate change intensifies, so do the disasters that come with it. Conspiracies thrive in disaster areas. When something big happens, people look for answers and, more importantly, for someone to blame. They are attracted to the idea that powerful groups secretly manipulate the world around us. Investigation He has shown that conspiracy theories actively undermine environmental policies by moving people from climate friendly actions. Following the main hurricanes, erroneous information can weaken public trust in disaster response agencies, leading people to reject evacuation orders or reject government help. Online conspiracies even have real -world inspired threatswith FEMA officials who receive death threats for their supposed role in “arm” natural disasters. MeanwhileMeteorologists have been harassed and even Doxxx for supposedly “push the climatic agenda.”
In fact, conspiracy theories intensify as fast as storms themselves and extend even faster. Conspiracy theories are more powerful when deeply rooted fears and insecurities exploit. A fundamental human motivation is self-esteem -The need to feel good with oneself and maintain self -esteem. People also want to believe that they are heading towards a good future and that their perspectives are safe. Climate change presents a Existential threat To these beliefs, not only about individual morality, but about the legitimacy of entire societies. Admitting the scale of the crisis means calculating with uncomfortable truths: that our way of life is unsustainable, that the systems we trust are deeply defective, that those in power are failing us and that the future will be radically different. For many, it is easier to deny the reality to face it.
So what do we do?
When my sister called me in November, she asked what to tell mom and dad. She is only 16 years old and still doesn’t know all the science behind climate change. I wanted to start telling you about carbon cycles and feedback loops, about ocean currents and inflection points, and all the catastrophes that will come. But instead, I told him to breathe deeply, I returned to the ground floor and enjoying dinner with our parents. Because here is the truth: arguing with a theorist of the staunch conspiracy will not change their minds.
“Some of the most powerful climatic actions will not provide a perfect ideological alignment, but of a productive tension, of unlikely associations that find common terrain”
Instead of wasting energy, debating those who refuse to listen, we must focus on the average much larger medium: people who are skeptical, uncertain or disconnected. Many feel psychologically distant from climate change, seeing it as the problem of another person or as an abstract problem that does not affect their daily life. Others, particularly in rich countries, experience the aversion to the solution, fearing that climatic solutions are worse than climate change themselves and that will cost their lifestyle and freedoms. And then there are those who feel helpless. Crises accumulate, disasters get worse, and begins to feel that nothing we do will never be enough. This doomism is as paralyzing as direct denial.
However, there is also hope here. This average term can be pushed towards the action. This is where we, as climatic communicators, must focus our attention.
If we want to change the average, we have to be persistent. Be kind. Be patient. And most importantly, be willing to work with people with whom we do not totally agree. Some of the most powerful climatic actions will not provide a perfect ideological alignment, but of the productive tension, of unlikely associations that find common land despite their differences. We don’t have to agree on everything to move forward.
Climate scientist Katharine HayhoeHe argues that we must begin these conversations with our shared values. Instead of marking people with facts, we must start with what we agree. Energy, for example, is a common terrain; We all want a reliable and affordable power. And transforming our energy systems is the fastest way to reduce emissions. The same goes for water; Everyone wants safe, clean and contour water. These are entry points, openings for discussion, not only about climate change itself, but of the future we want to build.
So not, I will not spend my time arguing with the people who think that hurricanes are weapons controlled by the government, even my own family. Instead, I will continue talking about the weather with all the others they listen, finding common and changing perspectives. I suggest you do the same. Because we need as many people as possible, in all countries and in each industry, to join this fight.
Rosie Semlyen is a student graduated in Columbia Climate School and research assistant at the National Disaster Preparation Center, specialized in disaster risk management and climate policy.
The opinions and opinions expressed here are those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the Climate School of Columbia, the Institute of the Earth or the University of Columbia.
#case #find #common #land #planet #state
