Climate Realism and the Subtle Normalization of Fossil Fuel Dependency
As climate change becomes increasingly urgent, some voices are advocating a more “realistic” approach to tackling environmental issues. However, this realism might inadvertently support a more systemic form of harm. Philosopher Susan Neiman, in her recent work Call It Evil, critiques the cautious and so-called realistic responses to the climate crisis that have gained traction in recent years.
Neiman observes that many people, including climate advocates, prefer non-disruptive discussions over confronting the moral implications of environmental destruction. She suggests that the public’s reluctance to label the actions of oil companies as evil stems from a narrow understanding of evil, which is often associated with figures like Hitler or Pol Pot rather than business leaders.
By downplaying the harmful effects of fossil fuel consumption while promoting realism, society might be aiding the normalization of such practices. Neiman asserts, “To be realistic is to expect less of the world,” which in climate terms translates to accepting fossil fuel usage as inevitable and focusing on resilience instead.
Prominent figures like Daniel Yergin, a historian of the oil industry, frame energy discussions as issues of markets and security, sidelining moral questions. This approach is widely accepted, even influencing institutions like the World Bank to shift focus from climate targets to so-called “smart development”.
Despite overwhelming evidence of the environmental damage caused by fossil fuels, some industry leaders continue to prioritize shareholder profits over ecological sustainability. For instance, BP’s recent strategic shift from renewable energy investments back to fossil fuels exemplifies this trend.
Environmental damage is not merely financial. The human cost is severe, with extreme weather events causing thousands of deaths globally. Yet, the industry’s profits soar, with fossil fuel companies earning over $93 billion during the recent US-Iran conflict, as reported by The Guardian.
Researchers Christopher Callahan and Justin Mankin emphasize in Nature that emissions from just 111 companies have led to $28 trillion in global losses due to extreme heat from 1991 to 2020. They argue that the case for climate liability is clear.
While it is important not to villainize individuals for living in a fossil-fuel-dependent world, Neiman urges us to keep striving for a better future. She advises balancing awareness of current realities with a vision for a more sustainable world, acknowledging the potential dangers of accepting climate realism without scrutiny.
Original Story at energymixweekender.substack.com