The Cost of EcoDoomsaying: The Desensitization of the Working Class

Reduce, reuse, recycle are all part of our collective environmental propaganda. We saw the torpedo of metal straws to save the turtles, canvas totes to refuse the plastic bag, tears and tirades of Greta Thunberg, and so forth. Eco-terror porn, regrettably.

Here is one of the most egregious examples of corporal manipulation meted out to the working class. It seems we have somehow been led to believe that switching our laundry to cold water will solve climate change and, with collective action, halt the melting of the ice caps and ensure clean air for all.

The corporate sector produces most of the things we buy, use, and discard, and plays an outsized role in driving global warming. According to a recently published study, more than 70 percent of all industrial emissions since human-induced climate change has been recognized have come from 100 energy companies. And it’s not just the energy sector. According to self-reported numbers, the top 15 U.S. food and beverage companies generate nearly 630 million metric tons of greenhouse gases every year. That makes this group of only 15 companies a bigger emitter than Australia, the world’s 15th largest annual source of greenhouse gases.

Environmental apocalyptic discourse is an instrument of political and philosophical resignation that never incentivizes real action — fear simultaneously desensitizes us and makes the problem seem too large which leads to violent apathy and scapegoating. This fear engulfs the working class like a parasite to churn out a mob of anxiety. This is only exacerbated by news coverage, telling young people about the impacts of climate destruction. As in an echo chamber, opinion polls reflect the views promulgated by the media. We are inoculated against anxiety by the repetition of the same themes, which become a narcotic we can’t do without. Because of our powerlessness, we grasp onto propitiatory gestures, which give us the illusion of actual change. As illustrated by Bjorn Lomborg, these empty gestures include, but are not limited to:

“Switch to energy-efficient light bulbs, wash your clothes in cold water, eat less meat, recycle more and buy an electric car: We are being bombarded with instructions from climate campaigners, environmentalists and the media about the everyday steps we all must take to tackle climate change. Unfortunately, these appeals trivialize the challenge of global warming, and divert our attention from the huge technological and policy changes that are needed to combat it.”

So what now? The world is ending in 20 years, and I, as a single consumer, cannot make an impact, and corporations will never troubleshoot or become environmentally conscious in fear of reduced profits. By that same token, the shorter the time frame, the less time humans have to reverse damage and create structural change. It is likely that surface temperature will rise between 3 and 10.5 degrees Fahrenheit. That is a level of warming that could initiate the disintegration of the ice sheet. Reading such climate change data apocalyptically discourages action to solve environmental problems and perpetuates a feeling of despair and justifies the dismissing of climate scientists as alarmists.

The propagation of risk and environmental crises becomes a bottomless barrel of demands — leads to the most destructive forms of consumerist capitalism. The discomfort created by climate activists fuels the industry of accommodationism in order to create profits. The same corporations who bear their own fruits of destruction are able to use the fear-mongering of the working class to generate capital from their own abuses. Environmental crises offer capitalism an abundance of possibilities. You choose not to repurchase a car fueled by natural gas? Here’s an electric car powered by lithium batteries. So, where’s the catch? You see, through our very own environmentally destructive capitalism, we package an equally destructive “alternative” with the “clean” or “green” label, usually with a higher marketed price. Electric car manufacturers fail to mention that their Lithium-powered batteries are unethically sourced. This example of greenwashing hides the harms of Indigenous colonization and replaces another finite natural resource for another. We are also told that plastic straws kill turtles and other sea turtles. How about we offer you a pack of metal straws packaged in plastic and sold 300% more than that is cost to produce. But, Capitalism breeds innovation, amiright.

Environmental fear rhetoric abrogates the political discussion and is a method of coercion where people are forced to participate in order to save their existence. The authors of the environmentalist self-critique, The Death of Environmentalism write: “Most people wake up in the morning trying to reduce what they have to worry about. Environmentalists wake up trying to increase it. We want the public to care about and focus not only on global warming and rainforests but also species extinction, non-native plant invasives, agribusiness, overfishing, mercury, and toxic dumps.” This type of rhetoric creates the “ticking time bomb” scenario. Fish will become extinct if I continue to do my monthly fishing trip, right? So, in order to save all the fish populations, I must stop fishing. This narrative creates a sense of emergency and casts the human-nature relationship as one of victimization and conflict. It seems like no matter what we do, we are being harmful in one way or the other.

And yet, the current framing of climate change as the urgent issue encourages the unwinding of biodiversity as a less critical matter than the forthcoming repercussions of global warming. The latest Living Planet report from the WWF makes for grim reading: a 60% decline in wild animal populations since 1970, collapsing ecosystems, and a distinct possibility that the human species will not be far behind. The report repeatedly stresses that humanity’s consumption is to blame for this mass extinction, and journalists have been quick to amplify the message. The Guardian headline reads “Humanity has wiped out 60% of animal populations”

We seem to place blame on average contributors to society, but never address actual impact other than “the world is ending.” The elites will do whatever they can to add a couple zeros to their wealth. The genocide of ecosystems is something that goes through one ear and out the other. A classic example of biodiversity loss is poaching. The “free markets” supply is less than the demand and leads to over consumption in compensation for a profit. Copious elephants are slaughtered for their ivory, and the collection of the commodity is faster than the reproduction, eventually leading to the diminishing supply of such goods. This leads to the label of an endangered species or the extinction of such nature. This isn’t just some naturally-occurring mass genocide, it’s corporal power. Ecosystems and wildlife are valued more as an opportunity for financial gain rather than the beauty and respect it deserves.

The classism within environmental activism is also frequently swept under the rug. The financial differences are generally mobilized to further reinforce the global threat that faces the whole of humankind. If you are unable to purchase this “climate saving” product, you are immediately deemed as part of the problem. Let’s be realistic: not everyone can scrap their car for a more “sustainable” option or afford to purchase all organic produce. Anyone who is ill-equipped to deal with anything beyond their control, in the name of poverty, is shamed. We’re told “shame on you.” Just another classic example of the working class being punished for a problem created by the bourgeoisie, rather than the hecklers being held accountable for their harms.

Now, I’m not advocating for pouring buckets of oil in the ocean, or throwing trash off the side of the road as some radical “revolt against the State!” Rather, we must not go out of our way or beat ourselves up over our choices to solve the climate struggle. Trying to live along and survive in the status quo should not be something politized, but unfortunately it is. No matter what decision we make, we’ll always be wrong under the current system. Overheated climate rhetoric drowns out any chance for rational discussion. This leads to despair and hopelessness. The voices of doom have begun to drown out the thoughtful, rational discussion that needs to take place around solutions. We need to sit down and consider how we are going to get out of this deepening pit of despair. And yes, it doesn’t help when we’re told we’re failing everyday. Every discussion ends with “well there’s nothing we can do about it.” Instead of hiding in our caves, waiting for the world to end, we need to change the way we analyze our current problems. Yes, climate change and environmental destruction is a problem, but it’s a problem we can do something about. And, Fear mongering is getting in the way of actual, structural change. Enduring environmental solutions are likely to emerge only when citizens choose to change their ways because they understand that there exists a pressing need to do so. Now I, as a student, cannot give you a line by line solution on how to save the earth. Do your part in changing the conversation and creating mass movements. For, the hands of the State are the only ones who can back-peddle on their own destruction.