Did you question why it reached 70 degrees in Binghamton this November? Climate change may have something to do with that. Rising temperatures impact everything from raging wildfires to intense and unpredictable hurricanes and floods worldwide. This July, we experienced the hottest day ever recorded on Earth, and it will only get hotter if we continue on the current trajectory. Despite some denying its existence, there is no escaping the rampant effects of climate change.
Climate change poses an existential threat to Earth, caused in part by the extreme emission of greenhouse gasses and the burning of fossil fuels since industrialization. The consequences have the potential to be fatal. With the Climate Clock displayed in New York City showing that we have less than five years before the effects of climate change are irreversible, it is important more now than ever that we as humans come together to make a change. So what’s stopping us? The answer — optimism.
Humans have an innate tendency to be optimistic or pessimistic in most situations. The typical glass-half-full, glass-half-empty debate is simply an aspect of human nature. Optimism defined more specifically is the “ability and willingness to observe the entire inner landscape of thoughts, feelings, and perceptions (whether judged as positively or negatively), and choosing the perspective and subsequent action that maximizes one’s well-being.” Personal well-being extends beyond emotional health as optimists generally tend to be physically and mentally healthier than their pessimistic counterparts, with more robust immune systems and a strong work ethic and resilience. There is no doubt that optimism generally tends to have merit.
However, when it comes to climate optimism, optimism is questionable. While the individual may still experience beneficial personal outcomes from holding a positive attitude, the environment suffers as a result. In a study published in 2015, David Jiménez-Castillo and José Manuel Ortega-Egea evaluated the effects of optimism bias, the tendency to overestimate the likelihood of positive events and underestimate the likelihood of adverse events, on environmental activism. They found that for people who primarily receive their news through TV, documentaries, interviews and radio, optimism bias moderates the effects, leading to less climate activism. This shows the negative implications of optimism on climate change — people are less likely to fight for change if they are overly optimistic about the environment’s future. Optimism lulls people into complacency, providing a false sense of comfort.
We have increasingly seen discourse in the media about how we shouldn’t worry about the climate and the amount of progress we have made in the right direction. While it is not inherently bad to recognize the positive strides we have made in combating climate change, climate optimism creates tension between hopefulness and urgency, and we do not have any time to waste. A typical climate optimist may say something along the lines of, “To date, 126 parties have ratified the Paris Agreement. Change is already underway.” Statements like these reflect how we entrust the work of bettering our climatic conditions to others. However, if everyone holds this “optimism” that others will do the work for them — especially elected officials — nothing gets done. This also demonstrates optimism as a privilege, as those whose lives are uprooted by massive floods, fires and hurricanes, among other mass climate catastrophes, cannot simply look the other way, hope and wait for something to get better.
This optimism, however, may not be due solely to people not caring about climate change. According to University of New South Wales Professor Ben Newell, “if people perceive climate change as psychologically distant from themselves, they could construe it in more abstract terms, potentially impeding action if the threat is perceived as less real, tangible or relevant.” When people place a mental distance between themselves and a problem, it can also be a sort of coping mechanism, a way to deal with the shock and anxiety felt about a situation. When it comes to climate change, when that distance is placed, it allows the person to remain hopeful about the state of the climate, even if nothing is being done to help it. Nevertheless, optimism about the state of the climate creates a society of people who are entirely okay with going on about their lives normally, even though we are in a desperate time crunch.
According to Brian Kateman, a food and environmental journalist, it is too soon, in reality, to feel optimistic about the many problems we have yet to solve. “We haven’t yet figured out how to support the population we currently have, on the planet we currently inhabit, without causing irreparable damage to our environment” and “the ‘stakes are very real,’” Kateman stated. Additionally, Liza Featherstone, another journalist, noted that optimism can look suspiciously like greenwashing, which is when a company misleads the public into thinking its products are environmentally sound. Featherstone went on to state that there should always be room for grief and anxiety in climate discourse — it does not need to be all positive or all negative.
This is especially important to keep in mind surrounding the recent presidential election. President-elect Donald Trump has never made environmental protections the priority of his administration — something that is gravely concerning considering that the coming four-year term of his presidency is the last before the climate clock predicts the damage we have done to our environment will be irreversible. Notably, Trump recently announced his pick of Lee Zeldin as the new head of the Environmental Protection Agency. Zeldin, a former Republican congressman who represented Long Island and an avid Trump supporter, made no moves to support environmental protections during his time in Congress and voted against environmental bills 85 percent of the time. In 2022 alone, Zeldin “favored an amendment that would have cut the EPA’s budget, voted for pulling the [United States] out of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and opted against investment in conservation and restoration of America’s wildlife.”
In a statement on his selection of Zeldin, Trump said, “He will set new standards on environmental review and maintenance, that will allow the United States to grow in a healthy and well-structured way.” However, the United States might not have the time to grow. Even if worldwide efforts to mitigate the effects of climate change continue, with or without U.S. involvement, the United States is still the second largest emitter of greenhouse gases on the planet — no substantial progress can be made without U.S. participation. Optimism about the climate, especially by the American people and leaders, can stall worldwide climate protection efforts, even if the rest of the world is working to prevent climate disasters. Immediate action is needed, and the complacency of the people and the government alike in thinking that everything will work out in the future will destroy our environment once and for all.
While it is okay to have hope for the future, we must not let optimism blind us from reality. Climate change is an urgent matter and, without a bit of fear and gravity, nothing will ever get done to mitigate humans’ disastrous effects on the natural world. We need to collect and organize, reject complacency and call for action from our governments and big businesses to do something to protect our climate. If not, the next generations may not have a livable planet.
Danica Lyktey is a freshman majoring in psychology.
Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the staff editorial.