cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/10713443
For denial doesn’t only amount to rejecting the evidence, he argues – it also consists of denying our role in the climate crisis; absolving ourselves through “carbon offsets, hybrid cars, local purchases, recycling”. And in this, far more of us are implicated.
In some ways, this argument might not seem all that new. Multiple authors have pointed out that green capitalism, not rightwing deniers of the crisis, is our greatest obstacle to properly confronting the problem. DeLay agrees. The difference is the lens he brings to it – using psychoanalysis to explain the mechanisms behind denial.
Yeah that’s my point. The chain reaction stuff associated with 1.5 isn’t catastrophic to the human race or civilization. It might be catastrophic to the Western liberal political paradigm but that’s about it. Shits going to suck, a lot of people are going to die, but on the whole we can get through it. The chain reactions associated with the next threshold are fun things like ocean acidification that extends so far it kills all marine life and forces a ground up redo of our drinking water systems. The complete loss of reflectivity at the poles. Uninhabitable latitudes extending into developed countries. The loss of arable land too quick for the northern latitudes to replace.
So we get locked into a higher stable level even if we contain it and we get to deal with a food and water crisis. All while we get to see how much the EU actually likes Spain and Italy.
And in case anyone reading this is like, so what? We still don’t know how much crap is hiding in the permafrost. Just that it keeps heating up ahead of schedule. So the sooner we can contain this, the better our chances at still having a functioning civilization in 100 years. Which could be really important if the anti-aging scientists turn out to be right.