The Dangers of Climate “Doomerism”

By: Ben Baisinger-Rosen

On November 11th, another worrying report emerged, warning of the increasing rapidity by which glaciers and ice caps are melting and the effect it could have on global ocean currents. The experience of reading concerning environmental news over and over again is unfortunately nearly universal. Indeed, this repeated exposure can lead to the sentiment that the environment is an unfixable issue destined to destroy human society, which is commonly referred to as climate “doomerism”. While “doomerism” is an understandable response, it is a dangerous way of thinking that can have disastrous consequences for the broader environmental movement if allowed to become the dominant mode of thought. 

Climate “doomerism” is broadly defined as the view that the climate problem cannot or will not be solved in time to prevent all-out societal collapse. This view has become increasingly more mainstream as international climate organizations continue to release troubling projections that doubt our ability to prevent global temperatures from passing the two degree warming threshold, the generally accepted “point of no return” that, once passed, will trigger increasingly damaging effects of climate change.  Indeed, this mindset is increasingly prominent among people between 16 and 25, with more than half believing that humanity is doomed because of climate change. The prominence of this view among young people, who disproportionately tend to favor climate action relative to other age groups, indicates that this view holds the potential to spread as more and more people are increasingly confronted with the effects of climate change. For this reason, climate “doomerism” has increasingly become a strategy used by opponents to environmentally-friendly policies as a tool to chill action.

There are absolutely valid reasons to be concerned about the state of the environment. Each of the past ten years have been measured as one of the ten warmest years in recorded history as we barrel towards the limit of the aforementioned warming threshold. The damage we have already done to the environment has damaged ecosystems, increased the incidence and severity of natural disasters, and caused millions to die or flee their homes as a result of heat, famine, or any of the other myriad effects of climate change. Moreover, there are reasons to expect the problem to get worse. The recent election of Donald Trump means that the United States (historically the largest historical source of emissions) is likely to experience the removal of the progressive climate policies of the Biden administration. In addition, even as developing countries are finally given the ability to develop on their own terms, the mass industrialization among these states represents a major new source of emissions. Overall, it is clear that there is serious work to be done to manage the effects of climate change.

At the same time, focusing only on the negatives can carry real dangers. The major risk of climate “doomerism” is that it can produce inaction. If people become convinced that a problem is so large that they have no influence over it, a sort of paralysis emerges that makes concrete solutions significantly more challenging to achieve. Indeed, scientists have demonstrated that the psychological strategy of “scaring people into action” simply does not work. People require some sense of hope that a solution can be reached in order to feel compelled to make sacrifices to produce that solution. For this reason, it is worth stressing that the climate picture is not entirely negative. A variety of environmental trends are positive: renewable energy is both cheaper and more effective, electric car sales have increased dramatically, governments are increasingly recognizing the environment as a problem to be addressed, and global deforestation has been declining for decades. Indeed, as mentioned in our last piece, the problem of recognition has largely been solved, as nearly 90% of the global population demands intensified climate action. Finally, although the reports of our proximity to the two degree warming threshold are daunting, they are somewhat misleading. For one, projections were significantly more negative in past years, and increased progress can still be made. Moreover, the way in which the threshold is discussed can present the misleading impression that we are completely fine if we do not pass it and doomed if we do. Rather, temperature gains are both reversible and become more serious, regardless of whether we are beyond the warming threshold or not. We should treat any sustained temperature increases as a bad thing, and while past a certain point major changes will impose certain consequences regardless of what we do, there are always strategies that can be used to mitigate them. 

The point of this piece is not to convince you that the environment is doomed, or that reports of environmental collapse are fantasies that can be ignored. Rather, the true answer is somewhere in the middle: there are real, fast-arriving consequences of human-made climate change that we can absolutely still prevent or mitigate. While climate “doomerism” may illustrate the necessity for action, the risk of making people unwilling to continue advocating for change ultimately outweighs the benefits. Individual activism or pressuring leaders can still make a difference, both by signaling that the environment as an issue still matters to voters or by compounding small efforts into major movements capable of much larger solutions. Ultimately, the push for solutions to the coming environmental crisis cannot occur without belief that victory is possible. The climate picture is not perfect, but acting as if the issue is unfixable is inappropriate at best and dangerous at worst. We must remain committed to environmental action, as every tenth of a degree or ton of emissions matters. As such, climate “doomerism” is an unacceptable mode of thinking unsuited for those who believe in environmental action.