Taking the Climate Black Pill?.
It took late nights of scrolling through the depths of Reddit to eventually figure out what the hell a “black pill” is. The term was popularized by the incel (a portmanteau of “involuntary” and “celibate”) online subculture. This community of sexually-frustrated young men uses “black pill” to describe the belief that they are doomed to a life devoid of romantic partnership. The use of the term has broadened, though, with “taking the black pill” now just coming to mean accepting any bleak prospect for the future.
This sort of doom and gloom is increasingly starting to characterize my feelings toward climate change. This attitude has only further solidified as I continue to work my way through Common Sense for the 21st Century by Roger Hallam. Hallam is the co-founder of Extinction Rebellion — a coalition of activists based in the United Kingdom who use civil disobedience to push for action on climate change. A representative of the book’s publisher, Chelsea Green Publishing (which is a worker co-op!), was nice enough to offer a free copy to the Young Democratic Socialists of America at the University of Michigan. We simply could not refuse.
Now, before I proceed, I just want to say that, naturally, I do not endorse everything Extinction Rebellion (XR) has ever done. Indeed, their methods can be quite uncouth. In the past, members have taken to public nudity and drenching public places, such as Downing Street and the British Treasury, in fake blood. These sorts of strange tactics strike me as counterproductive. They alienate the average person, only further pushing XR toward the fringes. It is therefore no surprise that XR has become something of a pariah.
But this article is not intended to be a discussion about strategy; it is intended to be a discussion about empirical reality. In the words of NBC News contributor Sarah Kendzior, “We are all entitled to our own opinions, but we are not really entitled to our own facts.” And the facts presented in Common Sense for the 21st Century are nothing short of chilling.
Early on in the text, Hallam points out that “Carbon dioxide levels went up by 3.5 parts per million (ppm) in [2018] to reach 415 ppm.” If all we do is continue this rate of increase, we will likely reach 5℃ warming within the space of just a few generations. And this is where Hallam drops the proverbial hammer.
“… one recent scientific opinion stated that at 5℃… above the pre-industrial mean temperature, we are looking at an ecological system capable of sustaining just one billion people. That means 6–7 billion people will have died within the next generation or two. Even if this figure is wrong by 90%, 600 million people will face starvation and death in the next 40 years. This is 12 times worse than the death toll (civilians and soldiers) of World War II and many times the death toll of every genocide known to history. It is 12 times worse than the horrors of Nazism and Fascism in the 20th century.”
Now, take a second. Allow the magnitude of that statement to truly sink in. This feels like alarmism until you thumb through the carefully-sourced footnotes and quickly realize that these statements are all based on high-quality research and data.
The question then becomes, How do we avoid such catastrophe? Of course, we cannot afford to just lie down and accept humanity’s defeat. To that end, economic anthropologist Jason Hickel offers some relevant wisdom.
In a back-and-forth with economist Branko Milanovic, citing climate scientists Kevin Anderson and Alice Bows, Hickel notes that “If we want to stay under [2 degrees Celsius warming], rich nations will have to reduce emissions by 8–10% per year.” It is worth adding that keeping global warming to less than 2℃ above pre-industrial levels does not mean we are safe. According to climate scientist Andrew King, “If we exceed 1.5 degrees [Celsius] global warming” there will be “more heatwaves and hot summers, greater sea level rise, and … worse droughts and rainfall extremes.”
But here is the real kicker. In the very next sentence, Hickel writes, “Reductions greater than 3–4% per year are incompatible with a growing economy.” Therefore, to meaningfully combat climate change requires that we make a conscious effort to contract economies — or, as Hickel puts it, we must pursue “degrowth” (since “Green growth is not a thing”).
Effectively conceding the validity of Hickel’s argument, Branko Milanovic nonetheless responds by identifying degrowth as “not … even vaguely likely to find any political support anywhere.” Milanovic contends that people have simply internalized this culture of competitive consumerism to such an extent that they would not dare abandon it. In his own words, “The ideology of commercialization and commodification has never been stronger.”
As much as it pains me to say it, Branko Milanovic is right. For the life of me, I just cannot imagine, say, a viable presidential candidate on the stump being met with rousing applause as they lay out their plan to shrink GDP. And how could I? They only ever promise the opposite. Indeed, juicing the economy has become a competition that politicians often cannot afford to lose.
We are in the middle of a presidential election right now. And not only are both major party candidates promising economic growth, but neither comes close to taking the issue of climate change even somewhat seriously. This has come to be expected of Republicans. For them, outright denial is the party line. It is for this reason that Noam Chomsky — often regarded as the world’s top public intellectual — calls the GOP “the most dangerous organization in human history.” But it is also true that the presumptive Democratic nominee does not treat the issue with requisite seriousness either.
Joe Biden’s climate plan scored a paltry 75/200 on the Sunrise Movement’s 2020 Presidential Candidate Scorecard. As a point of comparison, Bernie Sanders — their endorsed candidate and mine — came in at 183/200. On the other side, we have the incumbent. And, in fashion symbolic of a rotting civilization, the so-called “Leader of the Free World” insists that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese. So, substantive executive action on climate change in the near future is probably unlikely regardless of who wins in November.
To be absolutely clear, I am not suggesting we stop fighting. Particularly in an American context, a Green New Deal — I am particularly fond of Bernie Sanders’ specific plan — is certainly something we should continue to strive for. I cannot thank folks like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez enough for pushing this proposal into the national discourse. A radical restructuring of the entire economy along green energy lines as a subject of mainstream debate was unthinkable just a few short years ago. The amount of ground we have gained on this issue in a relatively short period of time is considerable, and ought not to be downplayed. So, yes, we should continue to push for a Green New Deal — but with no illusions.
Is a Green New Deal necessary? Yes. Is it some sort of magic bullet? The perfect fix-all to the preeminent struggle of our time? No, I am afraid not.
Building a nationwide green energy infrastructure is no small feat. For one, almost all renewable energy sources rely on mineral stores that can be quite difficult to obtain. Jasper Bernes, Managing Editor of Commune, describes how this can play out in practice. “To make a high-capacity solar panel, one might need copper (atomic number 29) from Chile, indium (49) from Australia, gallium (31) from China, and selenium (34) from Germany,” he writes.
Acquiring these materials is not a carbon-neutral process. Digging elements out of the earth never is. Also, mining just takes a while. A Green New Deal is therefore a very time- and labor-intensive project. It is worth it, but the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says that we need to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 to avert climate catastrophe. It is not even totally clear that we will be able to gather all of the materials necessary to do so in this time frame.
In short, the situation is dire — and we are already playing with borrowed time. So, as it pertains to confronting the preeminent struggle of our time, for the sake of our collective mental health, we must properly manage expectations. There seems to me to be a gap between what is necessary and what is feasible that, barring the unthinkable, is going to be all but impossible to bridge.
In other words, the climate black pill is very much on the table. Feel free to take it if you wish. I promise I will not judge you…
