The Myth of ‘It Takes Time’
by Kate Wiseman
Facing our own fear and denial in the belief of a slow and incremental approach to communicating the climate and ecological emergency.
‘We can’t scare people. We have to take it slow. People need time.‘
I hear this time and again. I hear this from activists. I hear this from the mouths of people so scared about the impact of the climate and ecological emergency on their lives that they want to move half way around the world.
And yet, we all know from personal experience that the trajectory of our lives can change in a few words; that firmly held, long-cherished beliefs can be dropped in a split second; that cataclysmic changes can, and indeed do, occur in the face of those unexpected earthquakes which life’s ever-changing circumstances deliver to us. A cancer diagnosis; the discovery of infidelity, a declaration of war.
The climate and ecological emergency is such a seismic event. When a top UK climate scientist confesses in conversation* that our only chance of averting global catastrophe is to undertake massive global geoengineering efforts in the next two or three years, and that the only option currently feasible that will work at scale is to put mirrors on three or four percent of the earth’s surface – at a cost of trillions of dollars – this is an earthquake.
Know this: this is an earthquake, the tremors of which will soon be sending ripples of devastation through all our lives. And know that if we do not examine our beliefs, in a slow and steady incremental manner, and heed the warning shocks, then many, most, if not all of our kind will perish.
Why do we need to believe that people need time? Why do we need to take it slow? Why can’t we scare people?
So, I wonder how much of the belief in this incrementalist approach is itself our own unconscious denial of the seriousness of our situation; that deep down we prefer, and long, and hope to believe that we do indeed have time. How much does this belief in time-taking protect us from the horror of our situation?
I also wonder how much of this approach is due to our own discomfort at provoking in others the self-same difficult emotions that arose in us, when we learned how bad the situation was; a discomfort at the understandable, but socially unacceptable appearance of fear, rage, grief, despair. These difficult feelings are repressed by most, not readily welcomed between us. Will we, as the messenger, be shot along with our painful message? Are we afraid to risk the transgression of social norms; a suicide by social rejection? A rejection which is painfully and viscerally processed in the soft, vulnerable animal of our body as a threat to our existence.
And I wonder if we are moved by an even greater fear; the rising to the surface of the true scale of those emotions lurking in the dark of our unconscious. Is this our method of avoidance, the avoidance of the amplification of our own emotional responses, in the communal feeling-togetherness which is such a hallmark of our shared humanity? Do we fear that in community, the rising flood waters of emotion will break the banks protecting our most precious fantasies of independence, individuality and immortality? Do we fear that the turbulent waters will wash away everything we longed for, hoped to be, wanted to have, exposing us in the nakedness of our inter-neediness as the wretched, dependent and mortal creatures that we fear ourselves to be?
Of course, I am not arguing or advocating for any particular approach in communicating the climate and ecological emergency. Rather I encourage us to expose ourselves more truly, in the self-protectionist opinions and beliefs that we may hold, and to invite ourselves to ask tough questions about what we think is right or wrong, skillful or unskillful action, as we face the greatest catastrophe in the history of humanity.
Does the last grain of sand to slip through the narrow neck of the hourglass believe that it has ‘time to take time’?
Will we hold ourselves knowingly and lovingly in the consciousness of our own fear and denial, and act from there?
Or will this loyalty to our belief in the taking-of-time be prised from the last, cold, rigid, dead pair of human hands…leaving no-one to chisel the epitaph ‘it takes time’ ‘on the tombstone of our humanity.
* in conversation with Roger Hallam
Kate Wiseman is a full-time volunteer with Extinction Rebellion in the Czech Republic where she coordinates the team which, amongst other things, is responsible for communicating with people about the climate and ecological emergency. She is curious about exploring the hidden, deepest, and truest parts of herself and others exposed in the face of this terrible predicament.
Javatvasi Dasa
subscribe to 50+ websites who share similar mission statements in the fields of food security, public health, animal welfare and sustainable agriculture. I often wonder to what extent these common circles of concern could be transformed into circles of influence if we all committed to just one action – source all our household’s food from local, sustainable and ethical producers. We can leave it up to one another’s moral perspectives to define the parameters of “ethical sourcing”.
Perhaps the “local” parameter could accommodate a similar plurality of definitions.
In Glasgow the Locavore project is blazing the kind of trail I’m envisaging here. It’s a trail where blogs and their comment threads are dominated by encouraging reports of increased horticultural production in thriving community projects rather than by academic research into and statistical analysis of global environmental concerns. If we spent as much time in our community gardens as we did reading these blogs how many more people could we help move from food poverty to community food security.
Well the first person we can help is ourselves by acknowledging our own addiction to unsustainable consumption and seeking a support community.
“Ecoholics Fellowship” or maybe “Zero Grassroots Greenwashing”
I’m a member of Krishna Eco Farm community in rural South Lanarkshire. My bedroom is 10 metres from our two acres of uncultivated pasture, 40m³ polytunnels, 90m³ greenhouses waiting for us to grow sufficient nutrient rich food to raise 1000 people out of food poverty.
Is there anyone out there in eco-academia who can help me get out there and grow more food!
Let’s use these great online academic communities to channel the wealth of our soils into tangible community food security.
Here’s my pledge. Please help me stick to it.
Every day I will post –
“Minutes spent working manually in our growing project”
“Minutes wasted that could have been used to help others”
Every week I will post –
“Progress on composting project”
“Progress on eco sanitation project”
“Progress on local foraging project”
Will you add your pledge below?
I need your help.
Peter Challen
I fear that both these erudite descriptions of our dilemma don’t introduce the the centuries old basic problem of the exploitative inevitable inter-action of USURY, THEFT OF THE COMMONS, and INTITUTIONALISED HIERARCHIES OF POWER OVER OTHERS. Until that radical fault is acknowledged. We have short time in which to understand and operate BOTH treating symptoms AND designing the structural cure.
Ian Graham
Yes, indeed, nicely put with your eloquent rhetorical questions. We have professional environmental activists in our city who eminently qualify for your categorization of gradualism. Brightsiding is another term that fits.
The blogspot https://un-denial.com/ goes into the depth of the psychological avoidance meme. It might even be genetically predisposed. https://un-denial.com/denial-2/theory-short/ https://un-denial.com/2016/06/27/what-would-a-wise-society-do/
But even further out, we who think we are cured of our denialist tendency also refuse to look at the impossibility of the ‘green new deal’ (see https://www.realgnd.org/overview). The scientists ignore the Garrett Relation, a discovery by cloud physicist Tim Garrett at U Utah that civilization needs the same amount of energy each year to stand still as we consumed the year prior. 7.1 ± 0.1 milliwatts of continuous power consumption are required to sustain the worth associated with every inflation-adjusted 2005 dollar. See the following links:
https://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/3/1/2012/esd-3-1-2012-discussion.html
https://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/6/673/2015/esd-6-673-2015-discussion.html
Also, an FAQ in response to various confusions out there: http://www.inscc.utah.edu/~tgarrett/Economics/FAQ.html Plus a blog by Tim Garrett himself: http://nephologue.blogspot.com
And furthermore, don’t we ignore the reality of what a 1.5Degree lifestyle will require of us householders in the global north? Like reducing carbon emissions per capita from 15 or 20 tonnes/year to 5, and 3 and 1 tonne by 2050. The 1.5-Degree Lifestyles: Towards A Fair Consumption Space for All, addresses this question head on. It builds on the first 1.5-Degree Lifestyles report that established quantifiable global targets for lifestyles carbon footprints, then expands the scope to make it more applicable for policy design, and practical program implementation.
Based on data from Canada, Finland, United Kingdom, Japan, China, Turkey, South Africa, Brazil, India, and Indonesia, the report analyses these countries for priority high-impact consumption domains, and for emissions gaps between current and target levels of consumption. It then suggests low-carbon lifestyles actions and estimates their potential for reducing impacts… and outlines potential scenarios for living within the 2030 target of 2.5-tons per person, showing that we need both systems change and behaviour change if we are to achieve this critical goal. https://hotorcool.org/1-5-degree-lifestyles-report/