The Interview - Ayana Elizabeth Johnson Has an Antidote to Our Climate Delusions

Episode Date: May 18, 2024

The scientist talks to David Marchese about how to overcome the “soft” climate denial that keeps us buying junk.

From The New York Times, this is The Interview. I'm David Marchese. Back in 2018, a big climate report came out that really shook me. It painted a pretty dire picture of where we're heading, a climate that will likely warm by at least 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2040. And it was a grim warning of what things will look like if we don't reverse course. It now seems probable that we're going to blow past those climate targets, and that's led to a lot of climate fear, pessimism, and activism rooted in anger. But recently there's been a growing counter-response to those darker feelings, including from some experts who have a clear view

on what's coming, and that response is Akasha's optimism. Though she doesn't go so far as to call herself hopeful, Dr. Ayanna Elizabeth Johnson is one of those experts trying to change the mood on climate. She's a marine biologist, the co-founder of a think tank focused on the future of coastal cities, and she's also worked on climate policy, advising lawmakers, and working with the EPA on climate solutions. And she's got a new book that's due out this summer called What If We Get It Right? Visions of Climate Futures. That question, what if we get it right on climate, is one I think about a lot. I'm skeptical, but I wish I weren't. That's why I spoke with Johnson, to see if she can help me think and feel differently. Here's our conversation.

So I feel like over the last decade or so, the framing and discussion about the climate crisis, a lot of it has been rooted in feelings of fear and anger and despair. And I think more recently, there's been sort of a concerted effort to make a kind of a vibe shift about how we talk about climate. You know, one route and more. Climate action needs way better vibes. It needs better vibes.

Why do you think there has been a shift towards talking about and thinking about solutions from a place of, like, positive possibility? We've had, at this point, it's been multiple decades of it's happening, it's coming, it's here, it's bad. Oh, it's really bad. Okay. We should do something. And of course, all that is factually accurate. But the question is like, how do we convey that in a way that brings people in? And projecting endless images of various apocalyptic scenarios is not super motivating, right? It kind of, we went from like,

okay, climate change, is this really happening? To like, how serious is this? To, oh God, it's so bad, let's just give up. And sort of skipped this middle step of all hands on deck. Is it your sense, or do you know if there's data that's been collected that like there are people who want to be involved in climate, but are being sort of rendered paralyzed by fear or despair, or that there

are disinterested people who are just waiting to be motivated by kind of a softer approach? Well, first of all, I don't think there's any one way that we should be communicating about climate. Some people are very motivated by the bad news. They're like, oh shit, got to avoid that. Like, whoa, that's terrifying.

Like, what can I do to prevent the worst case scenario? Some people need that jolt and that's what gets them going. Some people are overwhelmed by that and just don't know where to start. I think there's this false dichotomy between hope and fear, as if there's one is the right way to communicate, when in fact there's like a full spectrum of emotions that can be triggered by various things that you receive about the world around you, about news, about climate change. And all of that is useful.

And so 62% of adults in the U.S. say they feel a personal sense of responsibility to help reduce global warming. But 51% say they don't know where to start. And so to me, the question is, how do we harness and support millions of people in this country alone who would like to be a part of the solutions? That's what we need, is to live in a world where people are really focused on ensuring a livable future on this planet, that we have moved beyond sort of the platitudes of reduce, reuse, recycle. And people don't even really pay attention to the first R there, the reduce people kind of ignore. But how can we really create a culture where everyone has a role to play and we have a choice of like, what are we going to do when faced with this problem? Are we going to put our heads in the sand or are we going to pitch in? You know, when you said the first R in reduce, reuse, recycle is one that a lot of people ignore. You know, it makes me think about an idea that I think is a difficult one for, for lack of a better term, the average person in the global north. It's difficult for them to think about, and that's the idea of sacrifice or sacrificing things that they take for granted or comforts.

Or just less is more is maybe a nicer way to. People don't like sacrifice. People don't like sacrifice. People don't like bans. But I think there's a way to frame that as like, this is an opportunity to just like live a different and better life. So make the case for me that it's better. Like, do you think there is a possible climate future that doesn't involve personal sacrifice? I mean, I don't think consumerism is really that satisfying for most people. We're sort of taught that we need to keep up with these trends and like buy all this stuff, but it doesn't really make us happy. Happiness levels are declining. People have fewer close friends. Like, it's not like the current status quo is awesome and we should be fighting to hold on to it, right? We just, like, have a bunch of single-use plastic garbage and just having like piles of garbage

everywhere it's not like super delightful right like having all this fossil fuel-based plastic on every beach and in our drinking water and in our rain and in our beer and in our seafood which is currently the case it's not like that's a life I want to hold on to. And so, so often we think about the changes that are needed, we don't actually look at both sides of the coin. We think about, oh, this is going to be expensive, or oh, this is going to be inconvenient, without thinking about like, do you know how inconvenient and expensive climate change is? It is so much worse. If you actually balance the cost of addressing the climate crisis starting now

with the cost of not addressing it, I mean, those are wildly different orders of magnitude of inconvenience in dollars. You know, just because you mentioned seafood, do you find that people get anxious ordering seafood when you go out for dinner with them? I kind of wish they'd get more anxious. No, I'm judging them out loud. Oh, what do you say? Well, I will not let anyone eat octopus in front of me. That is a hard line. I mean, they're so smart. They're so cool. Like, why would you eat them? I sometimes say when people are like, do you want to go have sushi?

I'm like, do you really want to have sushi with me? And is it stupid for anybody to be buying a beach home these days? I mean, if you like to set money on fire, it's a great plan. I don't know. I mean, the level of denial of the changes that are coming is really off the charts. Like, and the way people joke about it. Like, go to the Hamptons to a cocktail party and tell someone that you're, you work on climate change and they'll be like, so how soon till I have beachfront property? Because I'm like a few rows back right now. Just like as if it's funny and we don't actually have to prepare for things. But I get it. Like, it's really hard to get your head around the amount of change that's coming. Does other people, what you see as other people's denial make you angry? Anger is not really a primary emotion for me. Yeah. I mean, I'm just a regular human. I experience the full range of emotions.

Certainly anger is one of them, but heartache is another. I mean, if we think about just how much we're losing, that can be really hard. Yeah, that can be really hard to deal with. And as a scientist, I mean, I look at all these projections and I could cry looking at a graph because I know the amount of suffering and ecological loss that these numbers imply. But honestly, I feel quite lucky to have been born with a brain chemistry that's not prone to depression because given the amount of bad news I take in every day, that would be really hard to deal with. But there is kind of this soft denial of the climate crisis that I think is extremely widespread, including for someone like myself. Oh, describe your soft climate denial. Well, I feel like I understand the scope and honestly the horrifying scale of our climate future. And if that's true, why don't I do more than compost?

I don't know. Why? Well, it's, you know, I'm supposed to be asking you these questions. This is going to be much more informative for the audience, actually, hearing what you would say, because we're all in that same boat. Like, if this is true. Yes, yes. But, and this goes directly to the heart of one of my first questions for you. It's like, what motivates behavior? And I feel like, you know, for me, what small steps I've taken in response to the climate crisis have been directly the result of feelings of anger and despair.

Both my own. Anger can be very motivating. Both my own and, you know, over the last 10 years, there's been more anger and fury about what's happening than ever before. And that is directly coterminous with the biggest changes we've seen in terms of pro-climate policy, in terms of sort of public awareness of the problem, politicians actually acknowledging that this is a problem. All of this, to me, suggests that anger works. And then there's also, you know, and fear too. Like, it didn't get people to stop smoking by saying, think about how healthy you'll be if you don't do it. They got people to stop smoking by saying, this will really hurt you if you continue to do it.

And my inclination is to think that the same logic applies in climate. And this is all sort of just tangential to the question you just asked me, which is why don't I do more? And, you know, I think I honestly find it too big and too heartbreaking. And also I'm basically comfortable. You know, I'm basically comfortable. I think a lot of us are dealing with this cognitive dissonance, right, between the lifestyles that we have, especially those of us who have nice lifestyles, and the knowledge that it's probably unsustainable. And I think there are all these structural things that are in the way of us shifting our lifestyles.

You cannot take a train instead of a plane if that train doesn't exist. I feel like there is obviously an enormous amount we can do as individuals, but really the system around us is not set up for success. I mean, this is why I focus on policy and not shaming individual people into like tiny actions in their own lives, although we really do need to, they do add up, like we should all do more and better. But I think this is the need and the opportunity. This is why it's so important to have things like the almost $400 billion in the Inflation Reduction Act that help to seed this transformation. Like, how can people afford to electrify their homes? We have millions of buildings in this country that need to be retrofit.

We need to take out all these boilers. We need to change our HVAC systems. We need to put in heat pumps, induction stoves, electric water heaters, solar panels, green roofs, right? Like there are these like big- And the grid has to be transformed to accommodate. The grid has to be transformed. These are not things individuals have control over. It's not that simple list of, you know,

vote, donate, spread the word, protest, lower your carbon footprint. Like, that's not enough. And the fact that I know you went out of your way to make sure to interview a climate person in the first few episodes of this show, like, that's something only you can do, right? You know, maybe I just have like an unexamined rage problem or anger issue, but, you know, it makes me mad to hear that. If you want to be mad, there are actual fossil fuel and big ag who are making these decisions that are impacting life on this planet for the 8 million or so species that share it. and so short-term thinking and so quarterly earnings, profit, shareholder, dividend-driven that they are jeopardizing biodiversity and quality of life for all of us. But do you have, like, are there historical models where massive social change was rooted in feelings of joy and positivity and not, you know, indignation, moral outrage, conflict?

I don't think there's any movement that's just based on one emotion. The ways we're experiencing the horrors of environmental destruction are motivating people to get in the streets but it's also like we love nature we love clean rivers we love all of these things like the caesurus of aspen leaves. Why would you not want to keep that around? And it's just a matter of like, what do you do with those feelings? Can you remind me what caesurus means? There's so many good nature words. It is the sound of leaves in the wind. Tell me other good nature words.

Heterocore is the smell of the soil after it first starts to rain. Oh, that is a good one. I mean, then there's like the Latin names of Caribbean fish species like Lactifrish tricotor. There's so many good ones. What's the non-Latin name of that fish species? That's a smooth trunkfish. That's also a great name. Also a good name.

Yeah, they're hilarious. But, you know, I feel like I'm being like a David Downer here, but just we get there, the amount of carbon emissions that are already in the air will result in something like $38 trillion worth of damages every year. Like, that's baked in. So what are we talking about, really, when we're talking about possibilities?

What is it that you don't want to give up? Do you know what the thing I don't want to give up is? I don't want to give up the range of possibilities for my kids. You know, they're seven and nine, and I, you know, these are totally selfish things to bring up. But, you know, like. I assume you care about other people on the planet besides your children, but like— My wife. You seem nice.

I hope things work out for you. Thank you so much. I appreciate that. I just don't know how to think about the future. That's like—I'm talking with you today, and really like the fundamental thing is like I'm trying to understand how to think about the future. And I don't feel like I understand it. What you mentioned about wanting to secure a good future for your children, this is the number one thing that drives people to do something about climate change. It really does come down to love as an enormously powerful motivator. I don't have children, but if I did,

I would want to be able to look them in the eye and say, I did everything I could to secure your future. And I think most parents feel that way. I feel that way about my godchildren, for sure. I feel that way about children that I barely know at all. And so I feel like whether it's fear, anger, or love, anxiety, like all of those can lead to us further rolling up our sleeves. That's the inflection's okay not to be hopeful. I feel like there's so much emphasis in our society on being hopeful, as if that's the answer to unlocking everything. I'm not a hopeful person. I'm not an optimist.

I see the data. I see what's coming. But I also see the full range of possible futures. I feel like there's so much that we could create. It's not gonna be perfect, but yeah, how can we each be a part of getting it as right as possible. I think what getting it right could look like would be a good thing for us to pick back up on when we speak again next week. Yeah, I'd love that.

After the break, my second call with Dr. Johnson, I ask her more about specific solutions to the climate crisis and what she thinks might stop us from pursuing them. I think I don't engage as deeply as I should with the political divisions in America and around the world as being a really, really enormous barrier to getting any of this done. Hello. Hey, Ayanna. How are you?

I'm good. This is The Interview. I'm David Marchese. You know, one of the things that you had said near the end of our first conversation was the phrase that's the title of your book, What If We Get It Right? Can you give specific examples of what getting it right on climate looks like? What are things that are within our grasp that we can get right? So many things. I mean, we know how to transition to renewable energy. We know how to insulate buildings.

We know how to put on green roofs or reflective roofs on buildings. We know how to improve public transit. We know how to shift our transportation towards electric. We know how to avoid food waste, which is actually a huge source of greenhouse gas emissions as food is rotting and releasing methane. We know how to just reduce our consumption. There's a million things we could do. Of course, there's room for innovation, but there's absolutely nothing that we need to wait for. So I'm always very impressed when people have what feels like very reasonable, plausible answers to these big questions about life on earth. But in your sort of, if you're tossing and turning in your bed at night, what skepticism do you have

about your own ideas? Like, what might you be wrong about? I think I tend to, I think I don't engage as deeply as I should with the political divisions in America and around the world as being a really, really enormous barrier to getting any of this done. I'm not in the dark

about it, but it's not something that infuses my daily life and work. And every time it hits me, I'm just like, how can we get past this? Like the question of this upcoming election, the stakes are so high and we have so many people who do not appreciate the risks that we're facing and so are not motivated to do much to address them. So unfortunately, the climate crisis is going to give us a lot of tests for how we can collaborate across various social divisions. But a lot of the solutions to climate change people agree on, even if they don't agree on the problem. People are very excited about the new battery manufacturing plants in deeply red parts of this country because they're good jobs. Texas and Iowa have the most

wind energy of any place in the US because it's profitable. So the economics of the transition to renewable energy and implementing climate solutions make a lot of sense. And so we may have to just skip over some of these divisions and let self-interest in various ways guide us towards where we need to go, even if we don't all agree on exactly the contours of the problem. You know, I gotta say that there was a response that I gave to you based on a question that you asked me in our prior conversation that I've really been thinking about since we spoke. And I was talking about the context of the future

and, you know, sacrifice, or if we might have to sacrifice. And you had asked me what I was so afraid of giving up. And I was really thinking about that since be reluctant to change behaviors or be scared of the future in some ways maybe actually has more to do with some selfishness. That's good of you to admit. I think we all want to hold on to our comforts. Well, is there sort of an antidote to that kind of thinking? And then also, is it possible that that just is human nature? I think the answer is community. We have to be responsible to more than ourselves. We have to feel an obligation to more than just our children. It can't just be a selfish desire to hold on to what we currently have, which is even that illogical because the world is going to change around us and the things that we have, we won't be able to hold on to because we can't actually control all of society and live in a bubble. And so you can maybe rip really tightly onto your comforts in the short term,

but the more we resist being part of the collective solution, the less likely that collective solution is to happen. I mean, in a sense, you're echoing a bit of this bunker mentality, right? Where we have these wealthy people who are buying up land in New Zealand and wherever else, trying to just save themselves. And to me, that seems like such a sad way to see the world, right? Like, do you want to live in a bunker for a year eating canned rations? Like, is that the life we want to build? Or do we just all try to make sure we have a world where there's enough for everybody?

Where no one takes too much and we share what we have? I'd rather share. That's Ayanna Elizabeth Johnson. This conversation was produced by Seth Kelly. It was edited by Annabelle Bacon. Mixing by Efim Shapiro. Original music by Dan Powell, Elisheba Etoub,

and Marion Lozano. Photography by Philip Montgomery. The rest of the team is Priya Matthew and Wyatt Orme. Our executive producer is Alison Benedict. Special thanks to Rory Walsh, Renan Barelli, Nick Pittman, Isaac Jones, Maddy Macielo, Jake Silverstein, Paula Schumann, and Sam Dolnick. If you like what you're hearing, follow or subscribe to The Interview wherever you get your podcasts.

And to read or listen to any of our conversations, you can always go to nytimes.com slash theinterview. Next week on The Interview, my co-host Lulu Garcia Navarro speaks with Netflix CEO Ted Sarandos. I don't agree with the premise that quantity and quality are somehow in conflict with each other.

I think our content and our movie programming has been great, but it's just not all for you. I'm David Marchese, and this is The Interview from The New York Times.