Even Climate Change Experts & Activists Might Be In Denial About Ongoing Climate Calamity

Oldspeak:”Urgent action on climate change is thus to be implemented within a business-as-usual framework of high growth and high consumption, despite growing evidence that such growth doesn’t make us happier and that it is very likely to deliver increasing carbon emissions for years and decades to come. In psychosocial theory these defence mechanisms are also referred to as “splitting”. Consciously we might be talking about the impending sustainability crisis, but unconsciously we find ways to actually maintain the status quo. This is also true for those climate experts who fly around the world, going from one global climate change summit to the next. The very carbon emissions associated with their work can be seen as part of a denial strategy.”-Stephan Bohm & Aanka Batta

“You recently saw a big, showy example of this irrational denial and cognitive dissonance at the “People’s Climate Farce” photo-op and parade and U.N. Climate Summit in New York in September. With less than a few weeks left before the widely scientifically agreed upon deadline of global carbon emissions peaking in 2015 and declining thereafter to have a probably negligible hope of averting the worst effects of climate change, is very, very, very badly missed, I’ve not been sure why the people who know best that the window is about to close are continuing to participate in this latest farcical round of “negotiations” and talks. This piece goes a long way in explaining the psychological roots of these unconscious defense mechanisms and denials of reality. “Ignorance Is Strength.” -OSJ

By Stephan Bohm & Aanka Batta @ The Conversation:

Another month, another important UN climate change conference. The latest is in Lima, the capital of Peru. Thousands of experts from the world of politics, business, academia and civil society – and Leonardo DiCaprio – have flown around the world to urge us all to curb our carbon emissions.

Recent meetings have failed to make significant progress. Yet, this year there are high hopes that the US-China climate deal and the New York UN Climate Summit will allow Lima to provide a stepping stone for a binding emissions agreement at next year’s meeting in Paris.

However, even if a deal can be reached – despite the urgent need for it – there is no guarantee that global greenhouse gas emissions will actually come down significantly and dangerous climate change can be averted. Psychoanalytic theory provides disturbing insights into why this may be so – and it is all to do with the split psychological make-up of those who work at the forefront of climate science, policy and activism.

Climate denial can be unconscious

For at least a century, psychoanalysis has taught us that we might be consciously thinking and saying one thing, but unconsciously doing another. In this context that means people are very consciously aware of the threats posed by climate change, even if they aren’t doing too much about it.

Not a week goes by without the media showing catastrophic images of environmental damage and social suffering seemingly caused by a changing climate. Research suggests that such threats lead us to adopt various unconscious coping and defence mechanisms.

But what to do about it? EPA

Many people try to keep the catastrophe at bay or deny it is happening. Vested interests such as the Koch brothers in the US and other conservative forces have cleverly exploited this unconscious response by supporting a small group of scientists, politicians and think tanks to spread the message of climate scepticism and denial.

This stuff works. Climate denial is undoubtedly on the rise, particularly in those media-saturated markets of North America, Europe and Australia. The Kochs and others are clearly filling a psychological void. Research has also shown that “people want to protect themselves a little bit”, particularly in times of crisis and uncertainty. If climate change simply isn’t happening, there’s nothing to worry about.

Another popular coping and defence mechanism is to pretend that we can address this global and urgent problem by tinkering at the edges of “business as usual”. For example, politicians and business leaders widely believe that we can achieve a decarbonisation of the global economy while maintaining high economic growth. Social psychologist Matthew Adams says such a response is part of an unconscious coping mechanism that simply implies that we have pushed the problem onto a distant future.

As the geographer Erik Swyngedouw shows, climate change politics could in fact be seen as a “post-political” phenomenon where apocalyptic images of environmental destruction and human suffering are used to justify swift action without allowing any real political and economic choices. For example, while on one day the UK government is acknowledging that climate change is already having stark impacts on developing countries by pledging £720m to poor countries, another day of the political calendar is dominated by rhetoric that emphasizes economic growth and even the expansion of the oil and gas industry in the UK.

Urgent action on climate change is thus to be implemented within a business-as-usual framework of high growth and high consumption, despite growing evidence that such growth doesn’t make us happier and that it is very likely to deliver increasing carbon emissions for years and decades to come.

In psychosocial theory these defence mechanisms are also referred to as “splitting”. Consciously we might be talking about the impending sustainability crisis, but unconsciously we find ways to actually maintain the status quo. This is also true for those climate experts who fly around the world, going from one global climate change summit to the next. The very carbon emissions associated with their work can be seen as part of a denial strategy.

In fact, one could argue that those who are very close to the reality of climate change are particularly prone to a need to split their identity. The knowledge they have, and the images they have seen, might unconsciously lead them to the above-mentioned counter-balancing and coping behaviours. Not a good omen for the latest round of climate talks in Peru.

Yeb Saño, Lead Philippines Climate Negotiator & Vocal Critic Of West, Dropped From Lima Climate Talks

Saño has headed the Filipino diplomatic delegation to the talks for three years and became one of the few iconic figures in the 2012 talks after an emotional speech when he broke down in tears and called on rich countries to act urgently for the climate. Photograph: Ted Aljibe/AFP/Getty Images

Oldspeak: “I Am Jack’s complete lack of surprise.” I guess the Transnational Corporate Network‘s controllers saw enough after Mr. Sano’s emotional and personal plea at the talks 2 years ago, and shut his shit down. Can’t have any actual significant change in policy being passionately & charismatically articulated by someone directly impacted by the climate madness their greed fueled activities have wrought. If I were you, I’d go ahead and ignore the Kabuki Theater that is the latest U.N Climate Conference in Lima. This development, tells you all you need to know. OH, and the last sentence of this article: “Politicians from over 190 countries will arrive next week to take over negotiations.” As long as politicians and scientists beholden to the Transnational Corporate Network are running these “negotiations” there will be no change of consequence. Business As Usual is set to continue unabated to extinction. Global greenhouse gas emissions have increased 60 percent in the past 20 years. The only change over that time has been for the worse. 40 Irreversible non-linear positive feedback loops have been triggered. We’re done kids.  There is no negotiating with our Great Mother.  Enjoy Her wonder and beauty while you can. “Profit Is Paramount”. -OSJ

By John Vidal @ The U.K. Guardian:

Yeb Saño, one of the most vocal critics of rich countries in international global warming negotiations, has not arrived at the latest UN climate conference in Lima and is believed to have been dropped by the Filipino government as its chief negotiator.

The move coincides with the Philippines apparently leaving the ‘like minded developing countries’ (LMDC) group, a powerful bloc of nations regarded by the US and Europe as the main obstacle to a new global agreement.

Saño, who has headed the Filipino diplomatic delegation to the talks for three years and is director of the government’s climate change commission, became one of the few iconic figures in the 2012 talks after an emotional speech when he broke down in tears and called on rich countries to act urgently for the climate.

At the UN climate summit in Warsaw last year, Saño and 300 other delegates fasted for the duration of the talks when his father’s home city of Tacloban was flattened by Typhoon Yolanda, one of the world’s strongest recorded cyclones. Last month Sano walked 1,000km from the centre of the Filipino capital Manila to Tacloban.

As another powerful typhoon developed in the Pacific ocean and headed towards the Philippines this week, neither Saño nor the Filipino government responded to calls.

However, a video of Saño was published online on Monday, where he did not explain his absence at the Lima talks but said he would be fasting during the conference because he cared “about the future of this world” and to avert a “climate crisis”.

NGOs said his absence was likely to be linked to his growing reputation and to rich countries’ hardening attitude to political opposition ahead of crucial meetings.

“[Saño’s absence] has certainly left many wondering if this could be due to pressure being brought to bear on small countries like the Philippines by those whose interests such powerful voices threaten,” said Friends of the Earth UK’s Asad Rehman.

Christian Aid’s senior climate change adviser, Mohamed Adow, said: “It is strange that he is not here to join us in Lima. Yeb’s absence is very curious given the significant leadership role he has played at these talks, fighting for the rights of people suffering from climate change. People are scratching their heads as to why Yeb is not on the delegation anymore. He is a ray of light in an often dark process and I hope he has not been excluded from the delegation because some people don’t like the important truth he tells.”

Voltaire Alferez, co-ordinator of Aksyon Klima Pilipinas (AKP), a
network of more than 40 Filipino organisations working on climate change, said the government should explain why he was not in Lima. “Weare at a loss as to why Saño is not present here in Lima. His absence is greatly felt, especially by civil society members who he inspired in Warsaw. They must focus on the negotiations instead of bickering among themselves.”

There is a long history of industrialised countries exerting strong pressure on poorer countries in advance of major climate negotiations. Veteran negotiator Bernarditas Muller was “neutralised” ahead of the Copenhagen meeting in 2009 after she was identified as a leading opponent of the US position and dropped by the Filipino government.

Muller had gained a reputation as a “dragon woman” who would not yield to intense diplomatic pressure in negotiations. She now represents the Philippines on the Green Climate Fund, a key institution which developed countries have recently pledged $10bn (£6.4bn) to, and which is intended to raise $100bn a year to help developing countries adapt to climate change and to mitigate emissions.

The Philippines, a former US colony and important development, trade and security partner to the US, has “a special relationship” with Washington. It receives over $6bn a year in US foreign investment.

The LMDC group represents more than 50% of the world’s population and includes China, Venezuela, India and Indonesia. They traditionally negotiate as a group until the last few hours of the talks.

The Lima meeting, which has entered its second day, is the last summit before countries expect to sign a binding climate deal next year in Paris. Politicians from over 190 countries will arrive next week to take over negotiations.