Editor’s note: This commentary is by Isaac Bissell, of South Burlington, who is a member of Extinction Rebellion.
The collective failure of our media to report on the reality of our climate crisis is astonishing. Our climate is careening towards catastrophe, and scientists are telling us so.
In October 2018, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fifth Assessment Report told us that we need “rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society.” We now know that the models they were using to make this assessment underestimated the threat of climate change significantly. This underestimation is due mainly to uncertainties surrounding certain dynamics in the arctic about which our understanding is rapidly improving. Just this past week, a study about arctic permafrost loss dynamics was published and the authors concluded that due to an improved understanding of permafrost melt dynamics, they are now expecting abrupt decreases in soil moisture which will result in massive increases in wildfires. The permafrost loss is also expected to occur much more rapidly than previous models suggest.
This (along with many other studies pointing in the same direction) means that when scientists said we need “rapid, far-reaching, and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society,” they were grossly underestimating the problem at hand.
The failure to tell this story is why the demands of activists are viewed as unrealistic. It is because any demand is entirely without context in a society where the media has failed to report what scientists are telling us. When activists demonstrate, and a reporter sticks a camera in their face, one individual is somehow expected to bring society up to speed about the situation we are in, while also defining a path forward (as if any one person knows how to get from where we are to where we need to be).
It is indeed true that our climate system is complex, and that it takes time to learn in even broad brushes the climate dynamics that generations of scientists have worked to understand.This said, if the media does not work to make sure these concepts are broadly understood (and to understand the science themselves), we will continue to have the absolutely absurd conversation that is currently occurring in the Statehouse (not to mention on “Vermont Edition” last week).
At present, politicians in the Statehouse are basically talking about how to switch to electric vehicles and green energy, as if the present structure of our society can be maintained if we can simply figure out how to switch energy systems. The path that is being charted is simply delusional, and any realistic assessment of our so-called “carbon budget” makes this clear. The changes we need will turn our present society on its head and the scientists know it:
“Incremental linear changes to the present socioeconomic system are not enough to stabilize the Earth System. Widespread, rapid, and fundamental transformations will likely be required to reduce the risk of crossing the threshold and locking in the Hothouse Earth pathway; these include changes in behavior, technology and innovation, governance, and values.”
So, to the media and our politicians in Montpelier: Now is the time to be brave. I don’t expect any politician or media outlet will be rewarded for speaking the unvarnished truth about our crisis, but make no mistake, our society is deeply harmed by your failure to do so. I recognize that the science is disturbing and that fundamental changes to the structure of society are unsettling to everyone. The conflict that could result from such changes represents a danger in and of itself.
Our path forward is perilous for many reasons, but we must look at the facts and then try to chart a path forward together. The alternative to meaningful action is certain chaos and mass death. The planet we are heading for has a carrying capacity that is a fraction of our present population, and the truth is that we do not know if meaningful action is even capable of preventing such a result. This is terribly sad, but in the face of this reality, what is truly disgraceful are calls for more “realistic” proposals from activists, as if demanding a future is somehow aiming too high.
References
Reference for the arctic permafrost study:
