I recall a recent conversation with a student studying international market policy who stubbornly refused to accept climate change as an imminent concern. So I asked — why so? By the end of our conversation it became obvious that he associated climate change with the stereotypical in-your-face-with-a-megaphone kind of personality you might find lining the streets at any anti-Keystone pipeline rally. After switching subjects to the more relatable domain of economic inevitabilities such as stranded assets and burgeoning markets for wind and solar, he seemed a bit more concerned. Soon enough action on climate meant contributing to the fascinating technological transformation accompanying the dying out and demonization of dirty energy. After all, clean-tech potential just keeps getting more awesome. My point, though, is not to advocate for grounding climate change in economic argument. I simply want us to consider alternative ways of framing the discussion — ways that may be more meaningful and motivating for others.
Most action-oriented folk forget that we are a minority whose expertise stems from intense experiences unshared by most. We readily dismiss non actors as hopeless and unwilling to engage in environmental discussion because our idea of what constitutes normal contribution fringes on the extreme. Strong opinions can even have polarizing effects on those who identify with the same overarching cause but hold different personal beliefs on how best to approach it. For instance, I was initially reluctant to engage with climate action at the University. But experience has since taught me that student mobilization around the environment yields immense value by connecting individual purpose with a larger, deeply invigorating movement. Regardless, what qualifies as meaningful engagement is up to the individual to decide, and we should respect that. Though any conviction left unchallenged is a conviction not worth keeping.
In February, Religious Studies Professor Willis Jenkins gave a talk to the Jefferson Literary and Debating Society entitled “What Can Universities Do about Climate Change?” He began by requesting those in favor of University divestment from fossil fuels raise their hands. Naturally all climateer attendees showed support, but many from the Society refused to budge. Jenkins then laid out a compelling case for why the University endowment should be creatively employed as a means for signaling cultural and moral progress at our institution. By the end at least half a dozen more had become pro-divestment converts. Point being, the majority of the crowd clearly exhibited an open mind to the idea of fossil fuel divestment. But what prompted them to change their minds on what is arguably one of the most polarizing elements of the global climate justice movement?
Student opinions can be wobbly. While some stem from ideological principle and well rationalized argument, a good number spring half-heartedly from the dire need to sound intellectually confident amidst a competitive academic community. Lesson being, we should never take others’ opinions at face value because firm foundations rarely lie underneath them. And even then, obstinacy more often stems from an unwillingness to accept individual error than from confidence in one’s own argument. We should, therefore, learn to recognize instances of disagreement, indifference and bemusement as opportunities for mutual growth, not as signs of a polarized community. This message is especially key for action-oriented students who may be more inclined to brush off their passive peers than seek meaningful ways to bringing them into the conversation.
By avoiding divisive terminology while seeking the right incentives, we can bring new bodies into the climate justice movement. Stanford Prof. Robb Willer even suggests more sensitive usage of moral language in politics has the persuasive power to bridge the partisan divide on climate. He states, “Such efforts to understand others’ moral perspectives might not only bring both sides in line on this important issue, but also foster the sort of sincerity and respect necessary to sustain a large-scale collective effort.” Similarly, Jenkins’ argument was effective because it sought common ground for motivating action by reconciling conventional realities with progressive moral imperatives. We do not need to tear down traditional structures to make progress on climate action, but rather use them in creative, harmless ways to advance the positive values of a growing climate consciousness. Divestment need not be divisive.
But any climate talk will inevitably draw a biased audience. Undoubtedly, many of those attending Jenkins’ lecture packed ideologies imbued with green. But I have hope. Take fourth-year Economics major Ben Shapero who, in reflecting on his third-year self, admits, “I knew nothing about climate change, [and] was a skeptic that climate change existed.” In stark contrast, after taking Jenkins’ course on climate ethics, Shapero revoked his earlier thoughts and now offers a fresh opinion: “The science says that climate change exists, [and] there are many different ways to approach the concept. . . [such as] economic policy, ethics and religion. . . Both of these approaches are valid and needed to help solve climate change.” These novel arguments and conceptual models have since inspired Shapero to ponder incorporating the environment into his daily decision making.
I would imagine most University students currently stand where Shapero stood six months ago. While we all have causes to fight for, climate change, while concerning us all, oddly motivates only a minority into action. Thus we would be wise to set aside our megaphones, whirligigs and banners, and temporarily put ourselves into the minds of others. Only then can we begin to build a more appropriate movement for the cause.
Will Evans is an Opinion columnist for The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at w.evans@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
RASHID: Club exclusivity hurts the student body
By Muhammad Ali Rashid | 2 days agoWe need to reconsider how we think about extracurriculars — this hyper-competitive and exclusive culture which implicitly frames clubs as resume-padders must be stopped.
EDITORIAL: Reckon consistently with our history
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoUntil these bureaucracies have proven willing to commit to change outright, it is up to us, students and Charlottesville residents, to continue pushing for that change.
ELJAZZAR: Expand institutional knowledge for student empowerment
By Farah Eljazzar | 3 days agoThe University must take steps to provide its students with the means to easily navigate the resources, offices and structures of the institution.
