Jonathan Franzen generates heat with light, so what’s the big deal?
Polar bear, Svalbard, Norway. Photo: Carl Safina
On September 8, the New Yorker published an article by Jonathan Franzen titled, “What if we stopped pretending?” By September 11, various instant criticisms and rebuttals had been published including a Scientific American piece by Columbia University climate scientist Dr. Kate Marvel, titled, “Shut up, Franzen.”
Basically, Franzen believes there is almost no chance that enough will be done to avert massive climate changes and consequent disruptions in coming decades. The critics find this defeatist, and they object.
Thing is, I thought Franzen’s piece was the best thing I’ve ever read about climate change. In conversations this week it has struck me that people objecting to his article missed key points and nuance, or are simply so emotionally and professionally invested in the fight to stop climate change that they just can’t entertain the possibility of failure. To reevaluate the disparity between Franzen, his critics, and me, I went back through and raked out some of Franzen’s main points and ideas, to see if I still thought Franzen’s article solid and constructively thought-provoking. I do. In fact it seems even milder on second reading.
Franzen opens with, “The climate apocalypse is coming. To prepare for it, we need to admit that we can’t prevent it.” That premise is no different than the premise undergirding all the calls for flood gates, geoengineering, coastal retreating, raised homes, and varied schemes large and small under the heading “climate adaptation.” All those proposals rely solely on the proposition that climate change is coming and will not be prevented. A very safe bet, since it’s here and getting worse.
Franzen says: “There is no hope, except for us.” Hardly a call to abandon efforts.
Franzen says, “If you’re younger than sixty, you have a good chance of witnessing the radical destabilization of life on earth— massive crop failures, apocalyptic fires, imploding economies, epic flooding, hundreds of millions of refugees fleeing regions made uninhabitable by extreme heat or permanent drought.” I paused and asked myself how many of those things we are seeing already set in motion somewhere, right now. All.
Franzen correctly points out that, “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tells us that, to limit the rise to less than two degrees, we not only need to reverse the trend of the past three decades. We need to approach zero net emissions, globally, in the next three decades. This is, to say the least, a tall order…. New research, described last month in Scientific American, demonstrates that climate scientists, far from exaggerating the threat of climate change, have underestimated its pace and severity.”
Franzen points out correctly (I read the Nature paper he cites) that, “According to a recent paper in Nature, the carbon emissions from existing global infrastructure, if operated through its normal lifetime, will exceed our entire emissions “allowance” — the further gigatons of carbon that can be released without crossing the threshold of catastrophe. (This estimate does not include the thousands of new energy and transportation projects already planned or under construction.) To stay within that allowance, a top-down intervention needs to happen not only in every country but throughout every country. Making New York City a green utopia will not avail if Texans keep pumping oil.”
The next, most devastating of pivotal considerations is less a matter of scientific accuracy, but it’s a depressingly safe hunch leading to a wide range of dispiriting projections, which I happen to share: “I don’t see human nature fundamentally changing anytime soon.” Do you?
OK, actually, there is evidence of change. We have not blown up the world with thermonuclear weapons, at least not the whole world. We banned chlorofluorocarbons to put back together the ozone egg. We now routinely face completely faked news, have a horrendously eroded and polarized echo-chamber where was once discourse, and — the basis of my cogitations here — a scientist shrieking, “Shut up.” As a scientist, I pride myself on science’s ideal of trying (against human nature) to stay open-minded in considering new ideas and novel arguments. “Shut up” is not a scientific term.
The crux of Franzen’s ethical view of the appropriate response begins here, where he pre-identifies (but might have underestimated) the tons of bricks about to fall on him. “Some climate activists argue that if we publicly admit that the problem can’t be solved, it will discourage people from taking any ameliorative action at all. This seems to me not only a patronizing calculation but an ineffectual one, given how little progress we have to show for it to date. The activists who make it remind me of the religious leaders who fear that, without the promise of eternal salvation, people won’t bother to behave well. In my experience, nonbelievers are no less loving of their neighbors than believers. And so I wonder what might happen if, instead of denying reality, we told ourselves the truth.” Which leads him to conclude, “there’s still a strong practical and ethical case for reducing carbon emissions.”
That is not a radical departure from what any of us knows or wants, if indeed it’s a departure at all. I read it as an affirmation.
I cannot disagree with his assertion that, “even if it had no effect at all. …to needlessly add carbon to the atmosphere when we know very well what carbon is doing to it, is simply wrong.” In another exceptionally mild proposition, one that takes a lot of the pressure off individuals while refuting a premise of some climate denialists that nothing is worth doing (because it won’t make the difference), Franzen offers: “I can respect the planet, and care about the people with whom I share it, without believing that it will save me.” That, to broaden the discussion, is a prescription for a life well lived. And it also leads to Franzen’s call to actions, “ if you accept the reality that the planet will soon overheat to the point of threatening civilization, there’s a whole lot more you should be doing. Preparing for fires and floods and refugees is a directly pertinent example. But the impending catastrophe heightens the urgency of almost any world-improving action…. To survive rising temperatures, every system, whether of the natural world or of the human world, will need to be as strong and healthy as we can make it.” Temperatures are rising now, so this is immediately pertinent. “Any good thing you do now is arguably a hedge against the hotter future, but the really meaningful thing is that it’s good today. As long as you have something to love, you have something to hope for.”
This is thoughtful stuff, not deserving of a shrieking, “Shut up.” His information is correct, his reasoning is logical, his conclusions thoughtful, his tone caring, his call to action on all fronts could correctly be viewed as energizing. The speed and intensity of reactions critical of Franzen’s article support the old saying, “If you throw a rock at a pack of dogs, the ones that yelp are the ones you hit.” Or to paraphrase Shakespeare, methinks they do protest too much. Franzen offered food for thought. Me, I need all the nourishment I can get, even if it comes seasoned with a pinch of reality like a big salad that arrives with cilantro and red onions. We don’t have to like everything in every well-intended mix that comes our way. That doesn’t mean we send the whole thing back and yell at the chef.
This blog post originally appeared on Medium.com, on September 14, 2019.
