I did wonder whether it should be “Doomism” or “Doomerism”, but let’s not get bogged down by that, life is short. Especially now.
So, Doomers get a bad name in climate circles. They have given up, jacked the towel in, quit.
But before we get into the merits of Doomerism, let’s have a definition.
The person who says, “It’s all over, there’s no point trying” just prior to going on a skiing holiday, is not really a doomer, they are just using the “too much to do” concept as a fig leaf to cover over their denial. The distinction is that they don’t want to change their behaviour and Dooming is just a convenient way of excusing it. That is really denial.
What I am talking about is the “Oh Fuck!” type of Doomerism, where the relentless barrage of bad climate news leads one to think there is no way out. Now is too late for wind turbines. Now is saying goodbe to your loved ones and huddling around the sitting room reminiscing about what we have lost. See grief.
The journey to Doomerism might be sudden or might follow a sequence as below, because generally the path is as follows;
- We should decarbonise our economy
- Ok, that’s not gone well, now we should decarbonise our economy and adapt to the upcoming climate impacts
- Oh, I see, now we should decarbonise, adapt and we now need to draw carbon out of the atmosphere
- Oh Fuck, we’re doomed.
So what happens when you get to 4?
The interesting thing about this point is that there is no longer (apparently) any point in decarbonising, adapting or drawing down CO2. It’s too late.
So what do you do?
Well, I suspect that at the society breakdown point where a large number of people arrive at step 4, there will only be one thing to do. That is to mete out some justice in the direction of those who have led us down this path. The next step…
5. Some form of prosecution / retribution
If society has collapsed, then there will be only ugly options available, but if it hasn’t then it might take an orderly legal route.
Ok. So where is all this going?
What if instead of starting at step 1, we started at step 5.
What is clear is that there are currently no consequences for oil executives for their actions. None for car makers who have continued to profit from larger and larger vehicles, unless you consider a large salary and bonus a consequence.
Similarly, there are no consequences for political leaders. None. Why do you think all of these “ambitious targets” are in 2050, 2060, 2070?
If there were (ugly or not) then perhaps they would take steps 1-3 more seriously.
At the 2021 G20, Mario Draghi himself said “we need to be whipped into action”. That’s an invititation!
Jair Bolsonaro has had a request for consideration of his climate crimes submitted to the Hague. He is not the exception he is made out to be, this should be the norm. And while this may not go anywhere it is a start.
Should there be genuine, personal consequences for our politicians, NOW, then it might be surprising how much effort is suddenly put into steps 1-3.
We have been doing this all wrong. We should have started at the end.