6 Comments

“positive framing and solutions journalism.”

Let’s lean into that. Because the reason climate activism is trapped in an infinite loop of inaction is the framing, in the manner of George Lakoff, is being chosen by the bad guys.

We accept a framing of the problem as “carbon emissions are driving climate change”. That shows us a pollution problem that requires a pollution control solution: regulation to compel self-regulation. Leave the problem makers in charge, but make them pay!

The public isn’t buying what climate activism is selling. Because we sense, intuitively, that pollution is not the problem and government is not the solution. So we ignore the words of anger that government needs to act. It does not.

What if climate activism expanded the framing, and started talking about “energy extraction from hydrocarbons is diminishing the habitats on earth in which modern humanity can keep ourselves ongoing”.

That shows us a choice of energy technology problem. That requires a new choice of new energy technologies solution.

The public knows we do not know how to do that. Not within the rubrics of our existing social contract for defining our economy as a market for allocating scarcity through the mechanisms of the market clearing price.

So we need a new definition of the economy, and a new social contract for defining the economy. That new social contract has to add in “the missing social architectures of agency by human beings” (Infra Adnan).

That’s the conversation at the vanguard of public discourse that climate activism needs to be activating. That’s the search for solutions that solutions journalism needs to be journaling.

Public discourse is not dead. It’s uninspired by the conversation of the day.

We need to change the conversation, to inspire discourse.

Expand full comment

Yes, but discourse on it's own won't solve the climate crisis. We can all talk until we're blue in the face, but how does that talk evolve into action. We can't cancel drilling licences with discourse, in the end that is the role of government.

Expand full comment

“how does that talk evolve into action.” What action? That’s the question climate activism/solutions journalism need to be leading the world in investigating.

If our only action is cancelling drilling licenses, then the lights will go out, and it will get cold. There will be no food. And no medicine.

Who wants to live in the dark and the cold, hungry and sick?

Is that the future climate activism is selling?

Small wonder people are not buying it.

Expand full comment

Ok, to be clear. I was referring to the new licenses being pushed through by the U.K government. But that was just one example of a tough decision that has to be made, and can't be made by individuals, so surely has to be the responsibility of a governing body.

The lights will go out etc...we are beyond the peak of what Nate Hagens refers to as the Carbon Pulse. These energy dense hydrocarbons are going to go into freefall anyway, so isn't a managed descent more sensible, especially in the knowledge that we can't use them all anyway and keep within carbon budgets.

If it wasn't for Climate Activism we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Climate Activists aren't selling anything, but they are opening the space for dialogue.

Expand full comment

Yes. Good.

Although I will testify that I do not personally experience climate activism as opening a space for dialogue. I am looking and not finding space in climate activism for dialogue around Indra Adnan’s prompt to seek out “the missing social architectures of agency for human beings”.

So, I am trying to start one.

Expand full comment

Maybe I need to give that episode another listen!

Expand full comment