This is a pep talk for grown ups. You can do it. You can talk to kids about climate change. You don’t have to say we’re all gonna die, or we’re so screwed, unless you decide to. You can give them hope.
Technology and politics are changing and might yet develop enough for us to get through this trial. If I ended there, it would not be so bad. My next problem is whether we can make the requisite changes in our economic thinking and tribal biases necessary for transitioning to a sustainable and just future for all
If we concentrate on climate change, we can make it hopeful. Maybe we should focus on that emergency for now. If I ignore the foundation of beliefs upon which climate change conditions were built, I can end on a good note. We can do it. Yet, when I look at the foundation, the happy ending moves further from reach. Let me explain by giving an overview of what I say to my kids. First, this PSA.
Open the scene with two parents sitting on bleachers and talking as they watch their kids play soccer.
So, have you had the talk yet?
The talk? Yeah, oh yeah, we talked. Basically I said to keep it safe and respectful.
No, not that one. I mean, the climate talk.
Switch to comforting narrator highlighting bullet points of the climate talk as these points scroll over the scene of parents cheering for their kids
Here’s a sample of how I talk with my kids about climate change.
Acknowledge the reality
Look up current topics with the youngsters. Have them search for Thwaite’s glacier. See how it is collapsing, which might herald the collapse of 4 other glaciers held back by Thwaite’s weight. As temperatures rise for glaciers worldwide, sea levels will also rise. Temperatures, alone when combined with humidity might make areas of Earth uninhabitable outside of air conditioning.
With time, kids can continue searching for information on any of many climate related topics, such as permafrost retreat/decline, increasing carbon emissions, and feedback loops. If possible, it helps to put it all in the historical context of what has been experienced over decades to hundreds, thousands and millions of years.
Highlight the extremes
It’s not just about gradual change. Averages are one measure. Deviation around the mean and probabilities for extreme events are also important. Yes, sea levels will rise, but it’s not just about slowly moving up hill. Warmer oceans hold more heat energy that can be dissipated in storms. The frequency of intense storms may increase. Storms with power exceeding historical norms might become nearly common. More meandering jet streams threaten more prolonged droughts and floods. Food production might not be as reliable and predictable. Climate refugees exist and will likely multiply.
Though these points are difficult to convey and comprehend, young people can handle the reality, especially after hearing about it their whole lives. They get what we’re up against when provided the information. But, we don’t have to leave it at that. There are strong reasons to hope for a not so bad outcome.
Include encouraging news
As discussed by knowledgeable people on DailyKos, Our energy infrastructure is transitioning to renewable sources at an accelerating rate. We have a chance to drastically reduce and possibly eliminate C emissions from fossil fuels used for electricity, transportation and heat within 1-3 decades, by my guess. Does it need to be faster? I don’t know. Could government help? I’ve said yes before. For the time being, voting still impacts the inertia of government for the present few. Vote, yes. There’s also jobs in renewable energy and conservation. Engineers, designers, suppliers, installers and maintenance will all be needed. Young people are making it happen, a big part of it anyway.
We might also be able to scale up carbon capture to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, not all of it, just what we put in at most, hopefully.
Yay, maybe we can do this
Maybe we’ll save civilization, but some climate changes are already baked in. Sea levels will rise via glacier melt even if we cut to zero emissions today. Hurricane intensities, droughts, floods and tornadoes remain to be determined, but don’t look to be going away what with the increase in energy around the Earth’s surface and those meandering jet streams that tend to get stuck more.
Still, there’s a chance. I say we work towards that future.
That’s it then
Except for the entire context of civilization, yes.
Even if technologically advanced civilization survives climate change, we still face some pressing matters. Plastic is killing everything with an internal digestion. We should probably attend to that. Then there’s dwindling habitats for many invaluable species. I suppose we could think about colonizing space. Still, doing so due to the imminent destruction of your home planet by you doesn’t seem like an auspicious way to launch such an endeavor.
It is generally accepted that population is a considerable cofactor in all of these considerations. Whether it’s 9 billion or 9 trillion, most of us can probably agree that, at some point, there might be too many humans. Smaller populations tend to have smaller global impacts. Deciding on a good number of humans is difficult, but not as hard as talking about how to do it.
For starters, a good part of humanity hates another part of humanity based on racial and ethnic fallacies, cultural biases, religious reasons, and historical abuses. How many would say that the right number of those unfavored other groups is zero? Or, how many think that other humans are inferior and less deserving? Is equality possible?
The best way to manage Earth’s resources
We can certainly agree on that, can’t we? Sure. We’ll just put a supply sider, a libertarian, a socialist, a Keynsian, a Marxist, representatives of indigenous nations, a capitalist and a dictator together in a conference room and they’ll hash out all of the details for us. I’d ask what money is doing for us, but I don’t know much.
Providing women access to family planning and equal rights are known to be effective and will only help. We have to get to that and beyond to respectful and rational conversations about managing human populations and the Earth’s resources that I’d say we are consuming at an alarming rate. I’m as skeptical about that as I am of surviving climate change.
Can we at least keep conversations open? As long as people have power to change things through elections, we can hope to prod humanity to survive climate changes and other messes. We will never get everybody to agree. We don’t have to. It’s not about convincing everybody. It’s about convincing enough, as long as voting means something.
At the very least, we can see that the rotation of the Earth is not locked to the sun in its current form, whatever hope that provides, so we’ve still got a chance. We have the technology. There seems to be some who need a change in attitude. Powers entrenched on outdated technology block progress, though change is evident. For civilization to survive, the necessary changes might include the ability to carry on civil conversations without resorting to violence, but maybe not. And, to address the obvious red scare tactic, we’ll be better off without reeducation centers, indoctrination, or coerced buy in.
People need democracy and access to useful information, I’d say. Sane economics that include the environment will also help. Whether we and much of life on Earth survive, it’s happening, messes and all. Might as well try to do my part.
How effective is this talk?
I would like to report on that with feedback from my kids. However, they tend not to talk to me, except for regularly uttering semicoherent grunts and groans, or when they need to press us parents with demands requiring immediate attention and gratification. So, does the talk work? Yuh huhn na, ok, fine, sure, yeah.
Anyway, that’s my approach. I hope it helps for thinking about a conversation, at least.