Brian Wong, Editor-in-Chief of the Oxford Political Review, sits down with Michael Mann, leading climate change scientist and theorist, recipient of Tyler Prize, and perhaps most famously known for his exposition of the existential threat confronting humanity through his “Hockey Stick Graph” in his 1999 article. A Fellow of the American Meteorological Society and the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, Michael Mann’s geophysics research has played a crucial role in breaking new grounds for climate change science.
Michael Mann is no ordinary scientist. He is outspoken – as evidenced in his extensive public commentaries and participation in debates and panels over climate science. He is down-to-earth – shunning the jargons and technical language that stereotypical academics (particularly scientists) seem to be afflicted with. These were all conspicuous first impressions as we began our conversation over one of the most pressing topics in global politics: the future of humanity under climate change.
Climate Change Skepticism
I begin with a question that perhaps most directly concerns Michael’s occupation, “Why is climate change skepticism so pervasive?” Could the fact that large numbers of citizens in some of the most advanced democracies – particularly the US – still refuse to believe that global warming exists or is artificially generated, have anything to do with the poorly state scientific education is in today? How could scientists make a difference given such public perceptions?
Michael phlegmatically lays out his well-caveated response – he prefaces it by noting that the atmosphere and politics in the US are rather “unique relative to other contexts”, and that his comments are thus predominantly targeted towards his home country; there may well be, however, areas of convergence and similarities between the US and countries such as the UK, Australia, Canada and beyond.
“I refuse to cede the term ‘sceptic’ to those individuals that we’re talking about […] those who refuse to accept climate change based on the flimsiest arguments, motivated instead by contrarianism.”
In discussing the intriguingly loud yet demographically dwindling population of climate change sceptics – “vocal minority” – Michael delves into the two predominant yet distinct categories of individuals that this question revolves around. The first group is the person on the street, “the victim led astray by media propagating climate change denial, […] media outlets such as Fox News or certain editorials on the Wall Street Journal – what I’d call megaphones promoting climate change denials”. He holds a relatively sympathetic though critical view of these individuals, describing them as passive recipients who internalise problematic or distorted messaging that preys upon them because of their lack of scientific understanding.
He is less sympathetic in adamantly condemning those who are coordinating elaborate campaigns propagating falsehoods about climate change; he attributes these agents to being motivated by “money”. “It’s all about the money made by fossil fuels companies, who derive tens and thousands of dollars of profit from continuing their operations.” Whilst the critic may argue here that his dichotomy between victim and perpetrator appears a tad hastily constructed and lacking specificity, Michael agrees with me when I suggest that the causal link story is bolstered if we consider conventional critiques of big, oligarchic firms manufacturing demand so as to preserve their entrenched interests.
The climate scientist recalls a quote from the mid-20th century: “It’s very difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on him not understanding it.”
Our conversation turns swiftly to non-Western nations – of which I am genuinely curious as to the extent and manifestations of climate change denialism. I raise the quasi-parallel examples of the limited environmental awareness surrounding the air pollution that has been ongoing in Singapore, Indonesia, and Malaysia.
Michael notes that he is less familiar with the particular matters in these countries, but does raise the point that – given actual polling and his appreciation of available evidence – climate change denialism appears to be an affliction primarily of large, industrial countries with vested fossil fuel interests, such as Canada and Australia to some extent.
Corporate Capture’s Pernicious Effects
Given his robust characterisation and emphasis upon companies as the seeming root cause, I pursue the question of whether he sees the optimal solution as tackling these large companies head-on – and, should that be the case, whether or not environmentally focused activism still has a role to play, if the issue is one of corporate capture and not anti-environmental attitudes.
Michael adeptly notes the extremity of this push, and suggests that we need both critical empowerment of the public and combating corporate interests. With regards to the former, it behooves us to educate the less informed public on the methods employed by denialists to propagate their cause – “because we can’t be there to rebut every single, specific talking point”. Such inoculation requires us to assist individuals with navigating issues on their own – and has proven to be broadly efficacious for individuals other than those on the ideological fringe. As to the other prong, the scientist argues fervently that to the extent polluting interests could “infect our body politics with misinformation and disinformation, in part to do with their unlimited spending”, there is evidently good cause for us to take climate change inaction as symptomatic of a larger problem – where actors operating in bad faith and sly competence have, through a combination of campaign funding and skillful political manipulation, captured the political ecosystem inhabited by us.
Such views are, to say the least, not the most ubiquitous amongst Michael’s peers. Statements from climate studies powerhouses such as the European Academy of Sciences and Arts and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have historically been far subtler and more restrained in their critique of oligarchic firms whose profits are propelled by environmental degradation; on the other hand, political activism targeting large corporations has often focused on their pollution and direct damage to the environments of developing countries. Michael draws together the scientific and economic left communities in making explicit a link that few seem ready to admit: our enjoyment of daily conveniences and energy-based necessities is intrinsically interlinked with a complex system of environmental exploitation that contributes towards anthropogenic climate change.
The Way Forward: Adaptation vs. Mitigation
Moving swiftly from problem diagnosis to prescription, I probe Michael for his thoughts on how we ought to balance between adaptation and mitigation (or reversion!). I cite certain prevalent views that reverting climate change is futile, and that we ought to allocate most of our resources (if not all) to adaptation alone.
Michael finds this “defeatist” position deeply troubling.
“I call this a New Climate War, one marked by new forms of denialism.”
I am slightly taken aback by this declaration, but my questions are answered gradually as he explains his aphorism. Michael views denialism as operating through a range of complementary forms. He believes that views that emphasise adaptation alone – to the extent they discourage any attempts to tackle the problem head-on – are indirect reinforcements to voices of inaction, through constructing a discursive atmosphere of fatalism and lack of agency. The most insidious forms of denialism are the ones that reinforce the outcome of inaction, without appearing to be explicitly or blatantly implausible. By inducing the sense that the “battle is all but lost”, these arguments effectively enable polluters to get away with continuing their practices with little to no costs.
I push back here – presumably Michael is still comfortable with some degree of adaptation, so long as it is not the sole response we adopt towards climate change. If so, would Michael’s understanding of “response” not perhaps be a tad too narrowly prescriptive? Might a fitting response not be to ditch mitigating climate change – assuming that it is a lost cause – and re-allocating most resources into adjusting to it?
Michael supplies further evidence to correct my somewhat layman-esque understanding of climate change. He amicably acknowledges that “we’ll need to engage in some degree of adaptation – in fact, we need a combination of mitigation, adaptation, and… suffering from the consequences of climate change. Adaptation is necessary, no matter what.” Yet he prudently qualifies his earlier statement by noting that when adaptation-centric views become the primary argument for inaction in all other spheres, that’s when they become a genuine problem.
An example for this, he cites, is Marco Rubio’s op-ed in USA Today, to which Michael has penned a response. The veteran scientist is incredulous over Rubio’s “take” on climate change – it is remarkably funny that the politician believes that the solution to climate change in Florida is to “put all of our eggs in the adaptation basket”. Another example, he notes, is Guy McPherson – who has “developed a cult around him, a cult of what I’d call Doomsday Preppers”, who holds the view that “all life on Earth will disappear in ten years.”
The scientist scoffs at the “new-age” ethos he sees in segments of the extreme left. He chastises those who adopt the “…disempowering” messages that climate change is something we could not allegedly prevent (he efficiently whips up the name of Jonathan Franzen to make his point hhere). For a man whose career is built upon verifying and falsifying hypotheses, Michael is unwilling to succumb to the onslaught of hyperbolised statements about the inevitability of humanity’s collapse, on grounds of good evidence – or perhaps, as some would argue, boundless optimism.
“We can’t just adapt alone. Adaptation must be the complement to mitigation. I don’t necessarily think these individuals are all seeking to discourage us from taking action – but their messages are serving, inadvertently, the agenda of idiots.”
Michael’s optimism stands out starkly in contrast to my pessimism – I observe that given the surge in inward-looking nationalism, anti-science populism, and numerous other obstacles to our ability to combat climate change, the chances of success seem alarmingly low. Hence I ask Michael if he has ever considered the worst – and what our fallback options in that case should be.
He responds candidly and concisely “As a scientist, we pride ourselves in thinking outside the box… of extreme scenarios of low probabilities but high impacts.”
He then further notes that the imperative remains, however, convincing individuals currently trapped in despair that there are indeed other ways out – this is a view that is backed by science; there are reasonable numbers that suggest that it would be both pernicious and unnecessarily rash to give into the defeatist mentality that climate change cannot be reverted. Thus humanity ought to brace and prepare for the worst, whilst undertaking any and all possible measures to prevent the worst from coming true in the first place.
“But there is still time to act, and what we find too often these days is that people provide the first half of the science without the second half.”
On Greta Thunberg
I ask Michael for his thoughts on Greta Thunberg – the 16-year-old teenager activist who has taken global discourse by storm.
Michael takes a pensive pause out for thought.
“We have to recognise that as with any other movement, climate activism is a big tent composed of different people with different approaches, means, intentions – who make different tradeoffs.”
Michael draws upon an atypically comprehensive knowledge of social movements as he muses on the nature of political activism and contentious politics – the diversity of constituents, he notes, is true of any major campaign or movement that struggles for justice against adversarial circumstances. Leaders of movements are not usually chosen – but emerge, sometimes through the accidents of history. He cites here examples of Martin Luther King, Joan of Arc – individuals who emerge through being at the right place in the right time. As a pragmatist, he sees the backgrounds of individual leaders secondary to their practical utilities and functions:
“When they do emerge, and when you do have somebody that can galvanise and attract attention, you get behind them!”
Delving into the specifics of Greta, he argues that whilst talk is cheap and critique of her is always easy – he exclaims: “she’s a 16 year-old girl!” Few at that age, he suspects, could do what Greta is doing. When Greta is targeted, vilified by forces of denial, it falls upon scientists – “us” – to defend her against these attacks.
Michael finesses his observations by suggesting, positively, that the scientific community should help Greta recognise whilst her larger message is “the real message that all should draw from”, she could undertake improvements to parts of the pitch she is making. For instance, she could take up a greater role in critiquing and directing public criticisms towards fossil fuel interests and right-wing lobbying groups “who have worked so hard to block science”; where she falls short over the precise scientific details, it is incumbent upon the rest of the scientific community to take what she is doing and place it in the academic or theoretical context – connecting the dots to fill out the rest of the picture.
On Tyler Prize, and More
Michael received the Tyler Prize earlier this year – a prize awarded to scientists who undertake research in fields of environmental science, environmental health, and energy, of great importance and value towards improving public welfare.
“Could you comment on who – if anyone – would most deserve the Tyler Prize and that has yet to win it currently in the world?” I ask.
“That’s a really good question,” he cheekily grins.
Michael notes that the prize is intended to recognise scientists who have both done the important science and made the crucial move of translating it into action. “It’s always dangerous to name one, because there’s the danger that I’m leaving many others out.” He adds. He cites names such as Katherine Hayhoe (for her exceptional work in outreach, communication, and publicly oriented research), and Michael Oppenheimer at Princeton University. The former is a publication powerhouse and has been listed amongst the 100 most influential people in 2014 by the Times Magazine. The latter works at the intersection of public policy and environmental research.
I conclude by asking Michael for his recommendations and advice to aspiring scientists and researchers. He leaves with the parting words as follows:
“Don’t be afraid to leave the laboratory and explain the implications to policymakers. If we don’t work hard to inform policymakers about the reality and threats – such as climate change – then we leave a vacuum, a vacuum that will be filled by those with an agenda, an axe to grind… those without our best interests in mind.
To my fellow scientists, do the science – science is critical! It’s still the thing I love doing the most. But I also recognise the obligation… the obligation falling upon us, to explain to the public what we are doing. That’s how we could best account for and confront the greatest challenge to our civilisation.”