Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Is Labour on track to meet its promises on the environment?

News Feed
Saturday, September 21, 2024

When Keir Starmer arrives in Liverpool this weekend promising an upbeat tone to Labour’s first conference in power for 15 years, he will boast of his party’s strong start to its first 82 days in government.In just the last two months, the new government has made more green reforms than Rishi Sunak did in his entire premiership and Labour has plenty to celebrate: it has taken the first steps to crack down on water companies and clean up our filthy rivers; stopping oil and gas licences, and withdrawing support for a new coalmine; setting up a new renewable company, Great British Energy; a green light for new on and offshore windfarms; and an international charm offensive to signal renewed UK leadership in climate and nature diplomacy; alongside a host of smaller changes.But when the prime minister stands up to speak, the squads of green policy experts and green businesses and investors who are set to gather in Liverpool will be listening carefully for his emphasis.For net zero to succeed, Starmer must make it a core priority for Downing Street and Whitehall. So far, the flurry of green-tinged policy activity has centred on two core departments, the revamped Department for Energy Security and Net Zero led by, Ed Milibandand the Department for Environment and Rural Affairs led by Steve Reed.This week, the foreign secretary, David Lammy, also joined in, vowing before an audience of diplomats from around the world to make the climate and nature “central to all the Foreign Office does”.What has been missing so far are clear plans from the rest of the government to make their own contributions to net zero. From transport – the biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions – to industry and housing, reaching net zero will depend heavily on departments that do not have “net zero” in their title.Department for TransportEmissions from transport have remained stubbornly high for more than a decade,and experts say more radical solutions are needed than just mandating that new car sales must be electric by 2030, a target that has already been watered down to allow hybrid petrol/electric vehicles to count.Labour has made a start on this, with the renationalisation of the railways a core manifesto promise. Bus routes will also be revived, under new legislation to allow local authorities to take back control of them.But Reeves has cancelled infrastructure projects in her quest to shave billions from government spending and there is no programme to revive the northern leg of HS2.Perhaps more significantly, airport expansion also falls under the DfT’s remit. London’s Heathrow, Gatwick and City airports, as well as several others across the country, including Luton, Bristol, Manchester and Birmingham, are pleading for expansion. That cannot happen without correspondingly large emissions cuts elsewhere, the Climate Change Committee has said. Yet Reeves has repeatedly mentioned airport expansion recently as a way to foster economic growth.Verdict: It will take more than Louise Haigh on a bike to make the massive emissions cuts needed from transport – tough decisions on air, rail and SUVs cannot be avoided for long.The target of 1.5m new homes is a huge task for Angela Rayner. Photograph: Ian Vogler/ReutersMinistry of Housing, Communities and Local GovernmentAngela Rayner, the ministry’s secretary of state and the deputy prime minister, has been tasked with building 1.5m new homes, and will face severe pressure from the housing lobby, who made substantial donations to the Tory party. They will be arguing strongly that they will need as little red tape as possible in order to build the number of new homes including regulations to make new dwellings low-carbon. The future homes standard is still being drawn up, and there are key decisions to be made, such as whether to require all new homes to have battery storage as well as solar panels and high-grade insulation. Doing so would save householders significant sums but would cost more upfront for the developers.And then there is the problem of retrofitting the UK’s existing housing stock; the £13bn Labour has promised to spend will barely cover the insulation needs of social housing – how to incentivise the rest is the next question.Verdict: Rayner must take on the property lobby now, or homeowners will end up paying more later.Department for Energy Security and Net ZeroFor DESNZ, decarbonising the power sector by 2030 – one of Labour’s five missions – will be impossible to achieve without sweeping reforms and repairs to the UK electricity grid, which will take years and tens of billions in investment, of which National Grid has so far promised about £30bn.The department will also be responsible for setting out the UK’s international commitments under the Paris climate agreement. A new nationally determined contribution (NDC) – the UN term for an emissions-cutting plan – is due by next February but could be unveiled as early as November, at the UN Cop29 climate summit. Campaigners would like to see a target cut of more than 80%, compared with 1990 levels, by 2035 – but that may be too ambitious for other departments.Verdict: It’s got to be all about grid, grid, grid – without this fundamental underpinning, decarbonisation cannot succeed.skip past newsletter promotionThe planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essentialPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural AffairsFarming produces about 12% of the UK’s emissions, but the government is planning to cut the nature-friendly farming budget after some years of underspend by the Tories. Farmers say this will also reduce their ability to tackle emissions.Reed is keen to see much less food waste, and to foster a “circular economy” for all forms of waste, so more initiatives are expected on this. Defra also needs to set out proper plans for the UK’s carbon sinks, such as forests, peat and wetlands, which will need to be planted, maintained and restored as appropriate.Verdict: Good start, but the decisions get harder from here.Environmental campaigners who took legal action against the previous government outside the high court in London. Photograph: Hollie Adams/ReutersOverarching emissions planUnderpinning all of these policy areas must be a coherent over-arching plan, adds Tony Bosworth, a climate and energy campaigner at Friends of the Earth. He helped to take the last government to the high court over its carbon-reduction plan – the judges ruled that one inadequate and sent it back. Now it falls to Labour to draft a new one that will set out clearly how the UK can meet not just the carbon budgets set by the Climate Change Committee but also its international targets under the Paris agreement.Verdict: The former lawyer Starmer will have to answer to the judges if Labour falls short on this one.HM TreasuryAnd the hardest thing of all – finding the money to make the investments needed.Reeves began her bid for government vowing to be “the first green chancellor” but since taking up residence in Downing Street, she has become more of a Dr No – cancelling infrastructure projects, warning of a £22bn black hole in public finances, saying no to calls for investment.Some of the money needed for net zero and the environment will have to come from the private sector – Miliband will rely heavily on energy companies, for instance, and Reed has made it clear that there will be no renationalisation of the water industry – but that can rebound on the consumer, in utility bill rises.Chris Venables, the director of politics at the Green Alliance thinktank, warns: “The elephant in the room is that without a change of tack by the Treasury, neither the government’s climate ambitions nor those on nature will be delivered. Without public investment we can’t end the sewage crisis and clean up our rivers, without public investment we can’t insulate home and end fuel poverty, likewise we can’t expect the private sector to crowd in without the. Reeves’s overly cautious fiscal approach risks undermining the agenda for environmental and social renewal at the heart of the Starmer project.”Verdict: Must do better. A mindset that considers net zero purely as a cost and burden, rather than an opportunity for national renewal and an overhaul of infrastructure that will revitalise the economy, will never deliver for Labour – or the planet.

Though the party has plenty to celebrate at its first conference in power for 15 years, there is much work to do to on net zeroWhen Keir Starmer arrives in Liverpool this weekend promising an upbeat tone to Labour’s first conference in power for 15 years, he will boast of his party’s strong start to its first 82 days in government.In just the last two months, the new government has made more green reforms than Rishi Sunak did in his entire premiership and Labour has plenty to celebrate: it has taken the first steps to crack down on water companies and clean up our filthy rivers; stopping oil and gas licences, and withdrawing support for a new coalmine; setting up a new renewable company, Great British Energy; a green light for new on and offshore windfarms; and an international charm offensive to signal renewed UK leadership in climate and nature diplomacy; alongside a host of smaller changes. Continue reading...

When Keir Starmer arrives in Liverpool this weekend promising an upbeat tone to Labour’s first conference in power for 15 years, he will boast of his party’s strong start to its first 82 days in government.

In just the last two months, the new government has made more green reforms than Rishi Sunak did in his entire premiership and Labour has plenty to celebrate: it has taken the first steps to crack down on water companies and clean up our filthy rivers; stopping oil and gas licences, and withdrawing support for a new coalmine; setting up a new renewable company, Great British Energy; a green light for new on and offshore windfarms; and an international charm offensive to signal renewed UK leadership in climate and nature diplomacy; alongside a host of smaller changes.

But when the prime minister stands up to speak, the squads of green policy experts and green businesses and investors who are set to gather in Liverpool will be listening carefully for his emphasis.

For net zero to succeed, Starmer must make it a core priority for Downing Street and Whitehall. So far, the flurry of green-tinged policy activity has centred on two core departments, the revamped Department for Energy Security and Net Zero led by, Ed Milibandand the Department for Environment and Rural Affairs led by Steve Reed.

This week, the foreign secretary, David Lammy, also joined in, vowing before an audience of diplomats from around the world to make the climate and nature “central to all the Foreign Office does”.

What has been missing so far are clear plans from the rest of the government to make their own contributions to net zero. From transport – the biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions – to industry and housing, reaching net zero will depend heavily on departments that do not have “net zero” in their title.

Department for Transport

Emissions from transport have remained stubbornly high for more than a decade,and experts say more radical solutions are needed than just mandating that new car sales must be electric by 2030, a target that has already been watered down to allow hybrid petrol/electric vehicles to count.

Labour has made a start on this, with the renationalisation of the railways a core manifesto promise. Bus routes will also be revived, under new legislation to allow local authorities to take back control of them.

But Reeves has cancelled infrastructure projects in her quest to shave billions from government spending and there is no programme to revive the northern leg of HS2.

Perhaps more significantly, airport expansion also falls under the DfT’s remit. London’s Heathrow, Gatwick and City airports, as well as several others across the country, including Luton, Bristol, Manchester and Birmingham, are pleading for expansion. That cannot happen without correspondingly large emissions cuts elsewhere, the Climate Change Committee has said. Yet Reeves has repeatedly mentioned airport expansion recently as a way to foster economic growth.

Verdict: It will take more than Louise Haigh on a bike to make the massive emissions cuts needed from transport – tough decisions on air, rail and SUVs cannot be avoided for long.

The target of 1.5m new homes is a huge task for Angela Rayner. Photograph: Ian Vogler/Reuters

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government

Angela Rayner, the ministry’s secretary of state and the deputy prime minister, has been tasked with building 1.5m new homes, and will face severe pressure from the housing lobby, who made substantial donations to the Tory party. They will be arguing strongly that they will need as little red tape as possible in order to build the number of new homes including regulations to make new dwellings low-carbon. The future homes standard is still being drawn up, and there are key decisions to be made, such as whether to require all new homes to have battery storage as well as solar panels and high-grade insulation. Doing so would save householders significant sums but would cost more upfront for the developers.

And then there is the problem of retrofitting the UK’s existing housing stock; the £13bn Labour has promised to spend will barely cover the insulation needs of social housing – how to incentivise the rest is the next question.

Verdict: Rayner must take on the property lobby now, or homeowners will end up paying more later.

Department for Energy Security and Net Zero

For DESNZ, decarbonising the power sector by 2030 – one of Labour’s five missions – will be impossible to achieve without sweeping reforms and repairs to the UK electricity grid, which will take years and tens of billions in investment, of which National Grid has so far promised about £30bn.

The department will also be responsible for setting out the UK’s international commitments under the Paris climate agreement. A new nationally determined contribution (NDC) – the UN term for an emissions-cutting plan – is due by next February but could be unveiled as early as November, at the UN Cop29 climate summit. Campaigners would like to see a target cut of more than 80%, compared with 1990 levels, by 2035 – but that may be too ambitious for other departments.

Verdict: It’s got to be all about grid, grid, grid – without this fundamental underpinning, decarbonisation cannot succeed.

skip past newsletter promotion

after newsletter promotion

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Farming produces about 12% of the UK’s emissions, but the government is planning to cut the nature-friendly farming budget after some years of underspend by the Tories. Farmers say this will also reduce their ability to tackle emissions.

Reed is keen to see much less food waste, and to foster a “circular economy” for all forms of waste, so more initiatives are expected on this. Defra also needs to set out proper plans for the UK’s carbon sinks, such as forests, peat and wetlands, which will need to be planted, maintained and restored as appropriate.

Verdict: Good start, but the decisions get harder from here.

Environmental campaigners who took legal action against the previous government outside the high court in London. Photograph: Hollie Adams/Reuters

Overarching emissions plan

Underpinning all of these policy areas must be a coherent over-arching plan, adds Tony Bosworth, a climate and energy campaigner at Friends of the Earth. He helped to take the last government to the high court over its carbon-reduction plan – the judges ruled that one inadequate and sent it back. Now it falls to Labour to draft a new one that will set out clearly how the UK can meet not just the carbon budgets set by the Climate Change Committee but also its international targets under the Paris agreement.

Verdict: The former lawyer Starmer will have to answer to the judges if Labour falls short on this one.

HM Treasury

And the hardest thing of all – finding the money to make the investments needed.

Reeves began her bid for government vowing to be “the first green chancellor” but since taking up residence in Downing Street, she has become more of a Dr No – cancelling infrastructure projects, warning of a £22bn black hole in public finances, saying no to calls for investment.

Some of the money needed for net zero and the environment will have to come from the private sector – Miliband will rely heavily on energy companies, for instance, and Reed has made it clear that there will be no renationalisation of the water industry – but that can rebound on the consumer, in utility bill rises.

Chris Venables, the director of politics at the Green Alliance thinktank, warns: “The elephant in the room is that without a change of tack by the Treasury, neither the government’s climate ambitions nor those on nature will be delivered. Without public investment we can’t end the sewage crisis and clean up our rivers, without public investment we can’t insulate home and end fuel poverty, likewise we can’t expect the private sector to crowd in without the. Reeves’s overly cautious fiscal approach risks undermining the agenda for environmental and social renewal at the heart of the Starmer project.”

Verdict: Must do better. A mindset that considers net zero purely as a cost and burden, rather than an opportunity for national renewal and an overhaul of infrastructure that will revitalise the economy, will never deliver for Labour – or the planet.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Hurricane-Force Winds Bear Down on California, Latest in Stretch of Extreme Weather

California has been hit hard by extreme weather over the past several weeks

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Record-setting flooding over three days dumped more than a foot of rain on parts of northern California, a fire left thousands under evacuation orders and warnings in Los Angeles County, forecasters issued the first-ever tornado warning in San Francisco and rough seas tore down part of a wharf in Santa Cruz.All of this extreme weather has hit California in the past several weeks, showcasing the state’s particular vulnerability to major weather disasters. Strong storms Tuesday produced waves that forecasters said could reach 35 feet (10.7 meters) around Santa Cruz. The National Weather Service issued a high surf warning until early evening, cautioning people to stay out of the ocean and away from piers. For Chandler Price, meteorologist with the National Weather Service in San Diego, these extreme weather events are both typical and unusual for a La Niña winter, a natural climate cycle that can cause extreme weather across the planet. In California, it means a wetter than average northern region and a drier south. “So far we’ve seen that pattern play out pretty well,” he said, but added, “obviously, you know, the tornado in the Bay Area was atypical. ... We haven’t seen that before, at least not for a very long time.”A storm and wind gusts of up to 60 mph (96 kph) prompted the San Francisco tornado warning that extended to neighboring San Mateo County, which went out to about 1 million people earlier this month. The tornado overturned cars and toppled trees and utility poles near a mall in Scotts Valley, about 70 miles (110 kilometers) south of San Francisco, injuring several people. Tornadoes do occur in California, but they rarely hit populated areas.In San Francisco, local meteorologists said straight-line winds, not a tornado, felled trees onto cars and streets and damaged roofs. The storm also dumped significant snow across the northern Sierra Nevada. F. Martin Ralph, director of the Center for Western Weather and Water Extremes, said climate change means that atmospheric rivers, long stretches of wet air that can produce heavy rains, will be responsible for a greater share of California’s yearly precipitation and the periods in between those big events will be drier. These storms are essential for the water supply but can also be dangerous.“When they are too strong and too many in a row, we end up getting floods,” he said, adding that they drive California’s weather extremes.During storms this week around Santa Cruz, one man was trapped under debris and died and another person was pulled into the ocean. The surf also splintered off the end of a Santa Cruz municipal wharf that was under construction, plunging three people into the ocean. One swam to shore and the other two were rescued. A series of atmospheric rivers are expected through the rest of the week. Overall, this pattern is not unusual — these storms regularly produce high winds, heavy snow in the mountains and torrential rain this time of year.“What’s a little unique about this setup is how closely spaced they are, so there’s not much of a break between them,” said David Lawrence, a meteorologist and emergency response specialist with the National Weather Service.But these storms haven’t stretched very far south, creating dry weather in Southern California that increases fire risk.One of the state’s most recent blazes, the Franklin Fire left some 20,000 people under evacuation orders and warnings and forced students at Pepperdine University to shelter in place. The blaze was fueled by the Santa Anas, the notorious seasonal winds that blow dry air from the interior toward the coast, pushing back moist ocean breezes.Most of the destruction occurred in Malibu, a community on the western corner of Los Angeles known for its beautiful bluffs and the Hollywood-famous Zuma Beach. The fire damaged or destroyed 48 structures and is one of nearly 8,000 wildfires that have scorched more than 1 million acres (more than 404,685 hectares) in the Golden State this year. The Santa Ana winds, which peak in December, have also contributed to warmer-than-average temperatures in parts of the southern state, said Price with the National Weather Service. “Eighty-degree (26.7 Celsius) Christmases are not entirely uncommon around here,” he added, but “there was a couple of high temperature record breaks in the mountains, which are usually less affected by the Santa Anas, and so those were a little unusual.” Phillis reported from St. Louis.Associated Press writers Martha Mendoza and Stefanie Dazio contributed to this story.The Associated Press receives support from the Walton Family Foundation for coverage of water and environmental policy. The AP is solely responsible for all content. For all of AP’s environmental coverage, visit https://apnews.com/hub/climate-and-environment.Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Sept. 2024

How to teach climate change so 15-year-olds can act

OECD’s Pisa program will measure the ability of students to take action in response to climate anxiety and ‘take their position and role in the global world’More summer essentialsGet our breaking news email, free app or daily news podcast“It’s going to get hot and everything’s going to be on fire and the oceans will rise,” says a year 11 student, Josh Dorian. “That’s just like the worst of the worst. How do you combat that?“Well, you fix it, you stop it from happening, you take preventive measures,” says Josh, who is studying VCE environmental science at Mount Lilydale Mercy College, a high school in Melbourne’s outer east. “Involving kids in that is scary but I think it’s necessary.”Sign up for Guardian Australia’s breaking news email Continue reading...

“It’s going to get hot and everything’s going to be on fire and the oceans will rise,” says a year 11 student, Josh Dorian. “That’s just like the worst of the worst. How do you combat that?“Well, you fix it, you stop it from happening, you take preventive measures,” says Josh, who is studying VCE environmental science at Mount Lilydale Mercy College, a high school in Melbourne’s outer east. “Involving kids in that is scary but I think it’s necessary.”In 2025, for the first time in nearly a decade, science will be the major focus of the OECD’s program for international student assessment (Pisa) – which runs every three years (give or take Covid interruptions), its focus rotating between reading, maths and science.This year it will measure the knowledge and ability of 15-year-old students from 92 countries and economies to act on climate change, under a new heading: Agency in the Anthropocene.Andreas Schleicher, the OECD’s director of education, describes the refreshed science framework as a “small revolution” addressing students’ capacity to distinguish scientific evidence from misinformation in the context of the “biggest challenge of our times – our environment”.“This is not about a few people who are going to be engineers or scientists in their later lives,” he says. “This is the foundation we want to create for every student.”Dr Goran Lazendic, who works with the Australian Council for Educational Research, is the international survey director responsible for delivering Pisa this year. He says the survey has never solely been about curriculum or content knowledge.“The purpose of Pisa is to understand how young people are prepared to take their position and role in the global world,” he says.That’s why the survey focuses on students approaching the end of their formal education and preparing to take part in further education or work.Giving young people choiceAgency in the Anthropocene tests students’ ability to understand and explain human interactions with Earth systems, Lazendic says, to make informed decisions based on the evaluation of different sources and to demonstrate respect for diverse perspectives as well as hope in seeking solutions.In responding to targeted questions, they will also have to show agency – an understanding of how individual and collective choices can make a difference.Dr Peta White, an associate professor at Deakin University who led the design of Agency in the Anthropocene, says climate change education recognises the Earth’s systems are being changed through human interaction.White, a former teacher, has decades of experience researching environmental science and climate change education.Many young people understand the problems, she says, but don’t know what to do about them.“We don’t teach an understanding by looking at what the most fearful climate impact is,” she says. “What’s important is to allow young people to appreciate the context that we’re in and be able to move forward.”When young people have agency, they can make informed decisions taking into account the complexity of Earth’s systems, diverse sources of knowledge and different perspectives, White says.It’s about understanding their role in the ecosystem. “Not as a pinnacle up the top, but as a player in a whole range of other players in an ecosystem. They’re part of a system, which means they have to act responsibly in the system.”skip past newsletter promotionSign up to Five Great ReadsEach week our editors select five of the most interesting, entertaining and thoughtful reads published by Guardian Australia and our international colleagues. Sign up to receive it in your inbox every Saturday morningPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionThis world is going to be ours in 20, 30 yearsAt Mount Lilydale Mercy College, students tackle environmental issues and sustainability across a variety of subjects by working on real examples. The approach has been recognised for fostering responsible, community-oriented citizens.For one project, Josh’s class investigated the effects of logging on the habitat of the endangered leadbeater’s possum, in nearby Toolangi state forest.“We went out in the forest, we saw first-hand,” he says. The students learned that leadbeater’s possums rely on old-growth trees with hollows, and observed how few there were in the forest.Other students constructed nesting boxes to help make up for the lack of hollow-bearing trees.‘Too big to even think about’In Australia, climate change in education has often been caught up in politics. In 2019 the then prime minister, Scott Morrison, said it was a source of “needless anxiety” for children, and it was barely mentioned in the curriculum. Coverage has increased since 2022.Amelia Pearson, at the Monash climate change communication research hub, says there have been more “climate change dot points” added to the curriculum, but mainly in subjects such as science and geography.“Climate change impacts every area of society and our lives,” she says. “So it’s really important that people who might not engage, particularly with [science, technology, engineering, maths], still have the opportunity to learn about these different challenges.”Education isn’t about persuading children to think a certain way, she says, but providing a non-political space to understand the issues and make up their own minds.Pearson manages Climate Classrooms, an initiative that brings teachers together with climate scientists and energy experts to design lesson plans and activities. The approach provides teachers with the opportunity to ask questions about complex – and sometimes contentious – concepts such as renewable energy, nuclear power, carbon offsets and net zero – “big ideas and terms that aren’t always distilled or made accessible”.Australia is a relative latecomer when it comes to embedding climate change in education, says Russell Tytler, a professor at Deakin University.Tytler, who specialises in science education and was involved in designing the Pisa science framework, says Pisa is highly influential in education policies around the world.When the results from Pisa 2025 are in, every country will be scored on young people’s understanding of climate change and their role in seeking solutions, he says. There are already signs that some countries are looking to reflect the approach in their education systems.White, with other educators and researchers, is calling for an Australian climate change education strategy to incorporate learning across all subjects and levels.“Climate change is often too big to even think about,” White says.It requires complex understanding and there are big emotions involved. What works in education, she says, is breaking things down and focusing on what people can do individually and collectively in a local context.“This world is going to be ours in 20, 30 years,” Josh says. “So our awareness of the issue, and our fears need to be acknowledged.”It can be confronting for young people whose futures aren’t looking so lucky, he says.“Education is one of the first steps you can take towards fixing the issue.”

Spending Christmas With “Dr. Doom”

This story was originally published by Grist and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. I was 11 years old the year my older stepsister brought her high school boyfriend home for the first time. It was Thanksgiving 2006, and his Southern manners fit right in as we bantered between mouthfuls of cornbread stuffing, fried okra, […]

This story was originally published by Grist and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. I was 11 years old the year my older stepsister brought her high school boyfriend home for the first time. It was Thanksgiving 2006, and his Southern manners fit right in as we bantered between mouthfuls of cornbread stuffing, fried okra, and marshmallow-topped sweet potato casserole. Then, in the overstuffed lull before the desserts were served, my dad plunked his laptop in the center of the table. He opened it up and began clicking through a PowerPoint presentation chock full of data on ice sheet melt and global atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.  My stepsister’s eyes grew wide with embarrassment. In an effort to welcome her sweetheart to the family, my dad had rolled out his version of a red carpet: one of his many family lectures on the horrors of climate change.  This wasn’t the first—or last—time my dad’s climate obsession took center stage at our family gatherings. On that particular occasion, he was doling out factoids about Arctic amplification—the prevalence of which was then a debate among climate scientists. It was just a warm-up to a typical holiday season spent quibbling over the ethics of farmed Christmas trees and openly scoffing at scientific inaccuracies during a movie theater showing of Happy Feet, the year’s seasonal offering about a dancing penguin named Mumble. A month later, on Christmas Eve, he forwarded me an email about how Santa Claus’ body would disintegrate if he were to travel through the atmosphere at the speeds necessary to meet his seasonal duties, adding a personal note: “Not to mention the emissions!” Over the years, these tendencies earned him the family nickname “Dr. Doom”—a nod to his university professor title and compulsive need to share terrifying facts about our warming world. My dad hammed it up, interrupting his own lamentations by hooting out, “We’re all gonna die!” in a cartoonish falsetto. More than anything, it was a term of endearment. After all, we knew other households that spent their holidays arguing over whether climate change was even real. Many of us know a Dr. Doom in our lives, or at the very least, a pessimist with a particular fixation. We each have our own ways of responding to it, such as my brother’s pragmatism, my stepmom’s knee-jerk optimism, my stepsister’s exasperation. Or, perhaps you are the doomer yourself.  I’m usually tempted to respond with, “I see hope in the next generation.” But doomerism—a label often used to describe climate defeatists—doesn’t typically leave room to talk about a better future. It’s a contagious kind of despair, often too credible to dismiss. Nowadays, my brother and I both work in climate-related fields, undeniably thanks to Dr. Doom’s influence. But growing up, it only took a few days of dad’s soapboxing before I’d tune out of anything climate-related until the New Year. This Christmas, as we once again prepare to pass around the cranberry sauce and discuss the end of the world, I can’t help but wonder how my dad became Dr. Doom. And in a world of rising doomerism, what influence do such tidings have on others? My dad’s journey to becoming “Dr. Doom” started with his formal training as a tropical ecologist. Until the early 2000s, his work meant trudging through rainforests, studying photosynthesis while battling mosquitoes. Then, the wear of human activity on his surroundings became too much to bear. He switched gears and has since spent his career leap-frogging between climate education jobs—from director of an environmental science program at the University of Idaho to president of a small school in Maine, which, in 2012, he led to become the first college to divest fully from fossil fuels. Those entrenched in science, like my dad, seem to be especially susceptible to climate despair. That’s according to experts like Rebecca Weston, the co-executive director of the Climate Psychology Alliance of North America, a community of mental health professionals trained to address the emotional and psychological challenges emerging in our warming world. Many in scientific fields, Weston says, are first to document and review the data behind irreversible loss. The facts of the crisis are so dire that despair seems to be a hazard for many—scientists or not. After all, a study by researchers at the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication found that some 7 percent of US adults report potentially serious levels of psychological distress about climate change. Gale Sinatra, a professor of psychology at the University of Southern California’s Rossier School of Education who studies how people learn about climate change, put it more simply: “Your dad’s problem is that he knows too much.” The issue only gets worse when the climate-informed try to share what they know. In a short-lived position in 2007 as science advisor to the Florida state government (back when then-Governor Charlie Crist would actually acknowledge “climate change”) my dad was silenced during a presentation to the legislature. A report later said that the “awkward” situation arose when a Republican senator took issue with a discussion topic that “had not yet been accepted as fact.” According to my dad, the controversy stemmed from his decision to share the famous “hockey stick” graph, a data visual that shows that global average temperatures began spiking after human societies industrialized.   “We’re starting to understand it as moral injury,” said Kristan Childs, co-chair of a committee to support climate scientists with the Climate Psychology Alliance, referring to a psychological phenomenon that happens when people witness actions that violate their beliefs or damage their conscience. “They’ve been informing people for so long, and there’s just such a betrayal because people are not believing them, or are not doing enough to act on it.” Like many, my dad’s response to this was to get louder—and darker. There’s conflicting research on how different kinds of messaging can affect people’s behavior. Some studies show that those experiencing distress are also more active, while others say that emphasizing worst-case scenarios, like so-called climate “tipping points,” is an ineffective strategy that can overwhelm and de-motivate audiences instead. It can also backfire on a personal level: Listeners of the podcast “This American Life” may be familiar with a story about a climate activist dad whose zeal led to his children cutting him out of their lives.  As a journalist on the climate beat, I’ve interviewed dozens of self-described “doomers,” and yet I’ve found the term is a bit of a misnomer. While many fixate on the worst possible climate scenarios, they’re generally not quitters. As Childs put it, “I don’t know anyone who’s just given up on it all.” Instead, nearly all have dedicated their lives to addressing climate change. And they can’t help but evangelize, warning everybody within earshot of the ways the coming century could change their lives.  Throughout these interviews, I’m tacitly looking for any insight that might help my own Dr. Doom. (Recently, I accompanied my dad to a physical therapy appointment where, upon seeing a disposable blood pressure cuff, he attempted to regale his doctor with facts about the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the US health care system.) Childs might just have some. She offers a 10-step program for professionals who work in science-oriented fields, affiliated with a larger collection of support groups offered by the Good Grief Network, a nonprofit organization dedicated to processing emotions on climate change.  “The group work is powerful because it really, really helps dissolve the sense of isolation,” Childs said. As she spoke, I shifted uncomfortably, wondering how many times my teenage tendency to tune out or respond flippantly made my dad feel I was invalidating his concerns. The best place to start is often the hardest: acknowledging how bad the problem is. “It’s actually helpful to give people a place to share their biggest fears,” she said, adding that the typical workplace culture in scientific fields discourages expressing emotions. “Somehow some acceptance of how bad it is, and the fact that we can then still stay engaged, shifts the question to who we can be in these times.”   Weston agrees that entirely erasing climate anxiety isn’t realistic, especially as the effects of Earth’s changing atmosphere become more apparent and frightening. Instead, her group suggests reframing ideas of what having a meaningful impact looks like. “It depends on breaking through a kind of individualist understanding of achievement. It’s about facing something that will be resolved past our own lifetimes,” she said. My dad has spent his career chasing that elusive sense of fulfillment—never quite satisfied with the work he’s doing. But lately, he’s found a reason to stay put. In 2019, he returned to my hometown to teach climate change to undergraduates at the University of Florida. Now and again, I’ve wondered how these 18- to 22-year-olds, many of whom grew up in the increasingly red state, respond to his doomsaying. This year, while home around Thanksgiving, I sat in on his last lecture of the semester—a doozy on how economic systems can destroy natural resources. His students seemed completely at ease—chatting with him at the beginning of class, easily participating when he asked questions. I was already surprised. “He’s just sharing the facts,” one of his students told me, when I asked a group of them about his teaching style after the class.  Another quickly interjected: “He’s too dogmatic. It’s super depressing, it’s super doom.” Others nodded.  A third chimed in: “It helps me feel motivated.”  Later that week, while I was reporting a different story at a local climate event, both his former students and local activists flagged me down to say how much they appreciated my dad’s courses and op-eds in local newspapers.  “We need all sorts of climate communication. People are responsive to different messages,” said Ayana Elizabeth Johnson, the markedly anti-doomer author of What If We Get It Right?, a recent book that puts possibility at the center of climate action. In 2019, a Yale study on how people respond to different messaging tactics underscored this point—finding that “hope is not always good, and doubt is not always bad.” For Johnson, getting through the climate crisis starts with who you surround yourself with. “This is not solitary work. Individual changemakers are not really a thing,” she said. “We never know the ripples that we’re going to have.” The Christmas stockings on the mantle at my dad’s house haven’t changed in years, but the dinner conversations have. Now, instead of trying to brush aside Dr. Doom’s digressions, we lean in. Our evenings are spent butting heads over the recent climate optimism book, Not the End of the World, by data scientist Hannah Ritchie; swapping notes on heat pumps; and debating how to make the most of used-EV tax credits. My baby nephew, Auggie, of the latest generation to be saddled with our hopes and fears, brightens the room with his cooing at all manner of round fruits and toy trucks.  Between sips from warm mugs, my dad leans back in his chair and frowns at some news on his phone’s screen. “The wheels are really coming off the wagon, kids. Humanity faces an existential threat,” he says, to no one in particular. From the next room, my stepmom calls, “The sky’s been falling since I met you, Stephen.” It’s hard not to smile. Who knows how many people my dad has influenced, or if he will ever feel satisfied with his mission. But as his doomy, gloomy self, he’s built a community and family that share his values. At that moment, I find myself thinking of something Childs told me: “You cannot protect your kids from climate change. But you can protect them from being alone with climate change.”  In our changing world, these conversations feel like something to be thankful for. 

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.