(An Unlikely Apologetic On Behalf Of Human Consumers)
Stability has been a goal of human culture
since we cultivated our first plot of wheat. From Bronze Age moral codes forbidding adultery to tax incentives for marriage and home ownership, it’s been understood that stability greases the skids of commerce and social harmony. But the climate conversation begins and ends with the idea that our stable, reliable, profitable lifestyle is unsustainable; that we will change the stable system we enjoy by choice or physics will do it for us. When it’s left to Mother Nature to shrug off the follies of humans, she shows little bedside manner.
So consider the perspective of an imaginary, average middle-class American family. They’ve worked for years to earn promotions, or grow their business, or make vertical moves to new employers. They’ve saved and deferred and invested to put their kids through school and set themselves up for retirement. They’ve paid their taxes. In short, they’ve done what’s expected of them to protect and care for their children. They know what happens if they fail in these things. The American economic system is cruel to those at the bottom. It’s a fate to be avoided.
Then an environmentalist tells them that the life they’ve worked so hard to build, the lifestyle enjoyed by everyone around them, won’t be possible in the future, but he can’t say exactly when. He tells them we must all change the way we transport ourselves, and the foods we eat, the power we use, the way we use our land. He says we will probably have to do without certain things, or be willing to pay so much more for them that what used to be commonplace will become luxuries. The family doesn’t want to risk what they’ve worked so hard for; they don’t want to bear new costs. More importantly, they don’t want to have to give up things they’ve always taken for granted. On a gut level, they just don’t want to change.
Then the environmentalist tells them the government needs to pass new laws and regulations so everyone’s lifestyle will change. To the family, that threatens not only their own security, but it might undermine the whole economy. The family needs that economy untouched so there will be customers, so no one will be laid off. They need to keep interest rates low.
The environmentalist shakes his head with empathy and talks optimistically about new growth industries that will replace the old ones. He talks about incentivizing financial markets to re-rate each company’s value based on their carbon footprint and retraining workers from carbon-rich businesses that will be forced to die out. The family crosses their arms and closes the door.
Politicians throughout history have gotten elected by giving people what they want. They don’t get elected by telling them to eat their broccoli. Maybe once they’re in office, once they’ve given their constituents enough of what they want, they show leadership and tell them to eat their broccoli, but it’s not how you get elected. In New York the voters want certain rules and regulations. The politician promises it. In Wyoming the voters want the government to leave them the hell alone and let them use their land how they want. The politician promises it.
There will always be a politician ready to tell the middle-class family what they want to hear; that none of these changes are necessary. The science isn’t as certain as the environmentalists claim. They can rely on the market to sort it out. At worst they can make slow, incremental changes. And consider the source: it’s always the liberals making these pronouncements. What do they know about running a business?
The family is relieved. It reinforces what always felt like common sense from the beginning. The problem is: it isn’t true.
The psychology behind what draws a person to power is complicated. Members of the US congress have staff to inform them about as many truths as possible. When they vote to silence the voice of science and defeat legislation which will help their own children have a better quality of life, the reasons are complex. But they know better because it’s their job to. It’s a strange mix of hubris, faith, and denial that leads someone to make that choice, but they can’t claim ignorance.
What does it take for the average family to give up things they’ve always taken for granted? We’ve grown up indoctrinated to a successful system built on personal choice. To achieve 1.5o, our consumption of beef and fish will have to change. Our use of oil and gas will have to change. There’s no magic bullet to get around that. Fundamental improvements to our power infrastructure could help a lot in the meantime, but some personal choices will be removed from the menu. If that’s not done by choice then by the time they become unaffordable we’ll be too far into an exponential curve of pain.
What we’re facing is hard. It goes against everything we believe. That lizard brain keeps telling us it can’t be right. But it is. You can’t spent half a millennia building a powerful infrastructure of science and then pretend these things are uncertain. It comes down to a moral question in the end. What obligation to we really feel toward future generations? To our own children? Denial and procrastination are just two ways of saying we’ve chosen to cut them loose. Wishful thinking means they’re on their own. Is that really what we’re ready to tell them after the years of effort we’ve spent protecting them? Or are we willing to finally get to work?
— Dave Coulter
12/13/2023
The Lizard Brain Project is always looking for contributors. Submit essays to submissions@lizardbrainproject.com. Or feel free to leave a comment below.
Lizard Brain | Question Everything