The popularity of Thunberg et al. doesn’t come from the belief that the world will end in 12 years. I think it comes from the fear of the very probable consequences of climate change coupled with the fact that many adults – some of whom are in positions of considerable power - still don't accept it and/or want to action to avoid them.
The condemnation of Thunberg et al., I think, also doesn't come from the denial of the belief that the world will end in 12 years - but rather it comes from the sensible suspicion that people have towards those who appear to cry wolf whilst admonishing others for not adhering to their cries.
Thus is the nature of this debacle of a debate.
From what I can see, calamity is inevitable. If we were to snap our fingers today and stop 100% of all emissions, the residual effects of the emissions already in the atmosphere would continue to impact the climate for decades to come.
This isn’t based on some esoteric physics that only men in white lab coats possess. Rather, it is also based on myriad geological findings that are easily and readily observable to the average person: we have the shrinkage of sea ice, the retreat of glaciers, a rise in sea levels, salination, storm surges, and net ice sheet melt. We also see plant and insect life migrating northward indicating that once inhabitable biomes for these creatures are now becoming habitable due to changes in temperature and environment. All of these have downstream effects that will cause further disruption of previously established natural cycles.
Given the inevitability of calamity, the better use of energy is thus to prepare for, rather than avoid, what gets thrown our way. This also means that we should be wary about taking options of the table because they violate some ideological a priori assumption – for instance we ought to be able to consider geo-engineering solutions that could very well aid in the mitigation of crises.
We also have to come to the understanding that Left and Right can come together on this issue to provide possible solutions. The Left doesn’t have a monopoly on the environment, and, in fact, it used to be a conservative issue. Margaret Thatcher, the Iron Lady, the Goddess of Neoliberalism, was the first head of state to bring the climate change, acid rain, and pollution issues to the forefront of public attention – though right-wing environmentalism goes back further to Edmund Burke.
Nonetheless, the point is that there are conservative, market-based solutions that can be wielded in the service of mitigating further risk and preserving what we can. This point has to be recognised because the only solutions being proposed are solutions from the Left – the so-called ‘big government’ solutions. This, I think, is the main objection people on the Right have towards moving on the climate change problem: the proposed solutions are big government solutions, the Right is against big government, and so those solutions are off the table – similarly with the Left’s view towards Right-wing solutions. This problem doesn’t lie in the interpretation or debate on technical data: I don’t think many heads of state and other decision-makers who oppose climate change measures have read a technical paper on the matter. The disagreement is political, economic, and social. The issue lies in the underlying passions and dispositions people possess, and the values that they hold.
What we see is that since passions are rising on both sides, hyperbole is being used and getting mixed in the debate. Furthermore, we see hyperbole getting mixed in with the science – Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez stating that the world will end in 12 years, is but one of the most obvious examples. By mixing scientific conclusions with hyperbole, a bewildered public will confuse the two. This isn’t their fault: it’s the fault of those pontificating to them. We see this on both sides: we’ll have the Left misrepresenting the scientific findings to support its claims and agenda, whilst the Right will misrepresent the scientific findings to attack it.
To my mind, when it comes to the misrepresentation of the science, it doesn’t matter which side it comes from nor how disproportionate it may be to which side. What matters is whether the science is being done diligently and reported accurately.
To swing it back around to Thunberg and her fellow travelers: I see hyperbole, and I see some misrepresentation, but I do not see direct contradiction of the evidence. She is not saying ‘A’ when the science is saying ‘not-A’. She is embellishing her calls to awareness and action with moral denunciation, and this is divisive – attitudes towards her and her message predictably break down political lines, and due to this, she could very well cause some backfire on the environmentalist movement, but perhaps not.
Thunberg and others are engaging in political theatre. Now, theatre is a part of politics, but it doesn’t count as politics. Asking people to ‘look into their hearts’ and exclaiming ‘how dare you?!’ only effects those who are susceptible to the need for soul searching. That said, there is organisation, and that has been effective in mobilising the message. This organisation may very well be AstroTurf'd, and one can see the focus groups, special interests, and political machinations behind it. In addition, the social justice crowd has latched on to it. Folks say ‘climate change is a social justice issue’ because people-of-colour, LGBT folks, women, and children, particularly in third-world countries will be affected. This is a category error, and a sleight of hand which can make any issue a social justice issue subject to the banter of the social justice crowd. To that, I say climate collapse is too important and too real an issue to be surrendered to the vanity and narcissism of the social justice-types.
At a microlevel, what we see with Thunberg are the scales of youthful idealism falling from her eyes, and since she lacks the maturity to properly assess the situation, she finds herself blinking at a post-apocalyptic dawn that was built on betrayal.
Now, there certainly has been remarkable corruption, and there has hitherto been a lack political will to address climate change, but, at a macrolevel, this is a technical problem that will require hard work and diligent use of technical expertise, as well as savvy political action to obtain, if not a consensus, at least a convergence, on the path towards addressing climate change; not moral condemnation from children.
