An inconvenient myth

The film An Inconvenient Truth was released 15 years ago. It triggered a monumental shift in the media and public awareness regarding climate change (then recognized more widely as global warming), both in the US and internationally. The film also immortalized an illusion that the politics and economics of climate change have come to embody. It presented the reality of a changing climate that was openly perceived as inconvenient, perhaps for two main reasons. The first has to do with the realization that we, humankind, are the culprit of the climate crisis, which is a hard pill to swallow. The second cause of inconvenience is the “what now?” question: all the solutions we need to devise and the actions we need to take to be safely out of the crisis. Scientists had been talking for decades at this point, and the international policy community had already even put together a legally binding treaty to get governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In other words, the climate predicament is far from a small issue in policy agenda and scientific undertaking. Yet, as it got propelled into the daily lives of regular people by mainstream media and the heartfelt message of An Inconvenient Truth, the inevitable happened: we felt called out, and the sudden awareness of the problem disrupted our sense of normalcy.

That’s why the truth is inconvenient, and as a result, our next steps also seem unnatural, uncomfortable, and almost burdensome. Yet I can’t help but wonder how much of the truth is actually inconvenient, if it isn’t for a misguided psychology that is shoved onto us to cloud our judgment, either intentionally or inadvertently? As we get used to the constant battles between advocates of strong climate action and the so-called skeptics (a broad category ranging from those who hold climate change in moderate priority to those neutral towards it to the deniers), we don’t realize that for the most part, both sides actually agree that climate solutions are inconvenient, only to different extent. What is the implication of this? How does the framing of climate action as inconvenient influencing our attitude towards the problem going forward? Does it actually matter in the short and long term? Can we do something about it??

To start off I want to address the inconvenience prone to be experienced by most of the “Global North”. Associating climate action with a discourse of inconvenience and even suffering (to quote right-wing media) perpetuates the notion that stopping and reversing the trajectory of the West in the most recent half century (mainly starting with Reaganism and Thatcherism) would essentially be a form of voluntary self-persecution. Don’t mind the half century before THAT, when global warfare had torn nations and communities apart and put everyone through every kind of misery. And don’t mind the actual suffering that colonized nations had had to endure during the age of imperialist conquests either. Surely cutting back on our excessive modern conveniences would surpass all these unimaginable histories in terms of pain and agony, right?! How dare those environmentalists ask me to give up shopping for things I don’t need now but may need one day in the future? How dare they challenge my rights to demand extra heating in the winter so I can walk around my house in shorts and a tee when it’s freezing outside?! And don’t get me started on my rights to the private hours I get to spend in my car driving along massive highways every single day, or my weekend flights across the country, or my daily servings of burgers!!

Granted, we don’t look at history and proclaim, “Well, we had it bad, we might as well have it bad all over again.” Of course it’s a worthy goal to always move forward and improve quality of life. In fact, we are quite decent at referencing and learning from history to enhance the reality of today’s world. However, we are unfortunately terrible at pondering potential consequences in the future to make wise decisions in the moment. Looking ahead to where we’re going on our current path and at our current pace, the future is not only more grim but also extraordinarily more costly compared to the scenario in which we would make adjustments today. The fact that the future is uncertain and seemingly detached from our reality, coupled with our hyper-optimistic attitude towards humans’ ability to “turn things around” last minute, insulates us from the harsh projections of what is to come. But perhaps we are already severely off in our estimations; perhaps many of us are already halfway down the funnel without much chance of clambering up, and all we can do is to hopelessly watch politicians negotiating their empty promises and tech-bros fiddling with their cool new toys because they are still in a comfortable spot. Imagine being the citizens of a small island state, already exposed to severe climate impacts, watching some of the most powerful refuse to yield to a shared target with the rest of the world, and some of the wealthiest only concern themselves with moving to another planet now that this one has gradually grown unlivable.

The other thing is that although I cite the examples of carbon “footprints” from individual lifestyle choices like heating, driving, and eating beef, I do not think these are the primary concerns. My point has more to do with the psychological attachment to the idea of these choices, much of which is reinforced by something more complex and hidden. I want to stress the distinction between lived discomfort and a form of inconvenience that is invented and exploited for a political agenda. As an example: for all we know, calculating carbon “footprints” as it has come to be embraced by the public as a way to hold oneself accountable and contribute to the movement, was a concept popularized by some players in the oil industry. What I’m saying is that, while being part of transition to a new society in which halting climate change is a top priority does require individuals to make adjustments, and for some, sacrifices, but in many cases, we are fed an idea that what is asked of us is far too demanding, burdensome, and inconvenient. I get that highlighting the “us against them” pattern and forming enemy lines don’t necessarily bring fruitful results, but it’s crucial to separate the real experiences of discomfort in changing our lifestyles from the imagined and imposed belief that we are being subject to involuntary forfeiture while the main offenders are actively dodging responsibilities.

To wrap up I want to discuss the paradox of describing climate action as inconvenient. On the one hand, right-wing politics and media may employ this discourse as a a hindrance to the climate movement by emphasizing the impracticality as well as the material and psychological discomfort of the alternative path. On the other hand, as scientists and experts make a point about the dire need to consider potential consequences of inaction, society is put in a position to make a seemingly pivotal choice between two vastly different trajectories. Since one is often referred to as “business as usual”, the other surely strikes us as as unusual. It’s hard to break away from the association between what’s unusual, abnormal and what’s inconvenient, disruptive. So essentially, climate action being described as inconvenient can be both a motivation for and a weapon against change. Advocates for immediate climate solutions face the challenge of framing them in a way that does not lend too much power to the weaponization of the inconvenience discourse. The key idea is that inconvenience is indeed disruptive, but if we acknowledge what it is disrupting us from (i.e., an ugly and unlivable future, or present for some of us), we realize that we do not need to avoid inconvenience at all. Yielding to our existing behaviors and societal structure is convenient in the moment, but we are also giving up the comfort of an alternative future. Already the future is speaking to us – to those with the authority of making decisions, in the form of young activists representing a generation of youths willing to bear the disruptive transition, if we can ignite the first spark. So it’s time we embraced inconvenience and got to act.