Apocalypse Soon: A weekly reckoning with life in a warming world—and the fight to save it

A weekly reckoning with life in a warming world—and the fight to save it

 Police at the scene of the shooting in Buffalo, New York, on May 14

John Normile/Getty Images

Soaring gas prices, accelerating drought, crop disruption, shockingly early and unusually large wildfires across the American Southwest, and now, bewilderingly, an extended baby formula shortage: Resource scarcity—both climate-driven and market-driven—has been making headlines for months. The survivalist communities I keep a fascinated eye on are convinced their time has come, their expertise proved useful, their hoarding of canned goods vindicated. 

 

For years, prescient climate writers have been pointing to an emerging problem as the narrative around climate change moves from the abstract long-term danger (i.e., this will hurt the next generation) to the more immediate, concrete threat. Resource scarcity forces communities to a fork in the road: Will you treat a lack of stormproof housing or safe drinking water as a communal problem to solve or a competition? 


Just because climate change has become impossible to deny, these writers have warned, doesn’t mean climate deniers will start voting for city cooling centers in heat waves, affordable housing, and low-emission public transit. Instead, some will flip straight into ecofascism: blaming resource scarcity on overpopulation or immigration; favoring racist and xenophobic policies to help white people hoard resources rather than making the world more livable for everyone.

{{#if }}
 

Support Our Journalists

Our writers and editors are bringing you vital reporting, explanation, and analysis to understand the current climate crisis—but they need your help.

Here’s a special offer to subscribe to The New Republic.

—Heather Souvaine Horn, deputy editor

Try The New Republic for just $10
 
{{/if}}

This repellent view is held by the 18-year-old white man who murdered 10 people at a supermarket in a predominantly Black neighborhood in Buffalo, New York, on Saturday. “Like mass shooters in New Zealand and El Paso, Texas—who set out to murder Muslims and Latinos, respectively,” Kate Aronoff wrote yesterday, the shooter in Buffalo “referred to himself as an ecofascist, pointing to overpopulation of nonwhite people as a driver of environmental destruction in a rant that amounted to microwaved Blood and Soil nationalism.” Elements of his manifesto also, she argued, closely resembled rhetoric from right-wing politicians and pundits who for years have been signaling a shift from climate denial to specifically right-wing climate policy:

“For too long,” Buffalo shooter Payton Gendron wrote, echoing [California Congressman Tom] McClintock, “we have allowed the left to co-opt the environmentalist movement to serve their own needs.” He blamed the left for “presiding over the continued destruction of the natural environment itself through mass immigration and uncontrolled urbanization, whilst offering no true solution to either issue."

There’s reason to worry about these kinds of beliefs spreading, particularly among the young, Kate wrote. Concern about climate change is very high among young people, she noted, and while many climate voters lean left, that’s not guaranteed: “The paranoid racist fantasies of national decline being spun by the likes of Carlson, J.D. Vance, and other ‘populist’ GOP luminaries offer a grab bag of ideological frameworks that viewers can map onto their own set of concerns,” and Carlson in particular “has casually flirted with ecofascism in recent years.”

 

Last week, Rob Meyer at The Atlantic wrote about Democrats “blowing a once-in-a-decade chance to pass meaningful climate legislation” before the November midterms. Nancy Pelosi doesn’t seem to realize, he wrote, that “if Democrats fail to pass a bill this term, then America’s climate commitment under the Paris Agreement will be out of reach, and worse heat waves, larger wildfires, and damaging famines across the country and around the world within the next decade and a half will be all but assured.”

 

Rob’s piece is worth your time. But the repercussions of Democratic fecklessness go well beyond the ones he lists. Yes, aggressive action is needed to keep global warming from spiraling completely out of control. But it’s also needed because politics abhors a vacuum, and the globe is replete with maniacs: If halfway-reasonable politicians don’t come up with a response to climate change, someone else will.

 

 

Heather Souvaine Horn, deputy editor

 

Advertising

 

Good News

The nonprofit First Street Foundation has released a tool that allows people to figure out their home’s risk from not just flooding—for which data has long been available—but also wildfire, over the next 30 years. Use the tool, or read The New York Timeswriteup.

Bad News

The top-line figures in the aforementioned data are extremely worrisome. For example: “Half of all addresses in the lower 48 states face some degree of wildfire risk,” The New York Times reported, “a number that will rise to 56 percent by 2052. In some rural states, including Wyoming and Montana, more than 90 percent of properties already face some risk.”

 

Stat of the Week

1 in 6

A new review published in Lancet Planetary Health has calculated that pollution is responsible for one in six of all deaths worldwide. Worth noting: This review comes hard on the heels of a study released last week that found that dangerous chemicals (many of them fossil fuel derivatives) are showing up to an alarming degree in the bodies of pregnant women.

 

Elsewhere in the Ecosystem

Frequent TNR contributor Kathryn Joyce has a thought-provoking interview up at Salon this week with environmental social scientist Joseph Henderson, whom she talks to about the ecofascism espoused by the murderer of 10 people in Buffalo last weekend. Henderson talks about a student of his who submitted a paper advocating a genocidal response to climate change, and explains why this is such a dangerous moment:

The reason we are really concerned about ecofascism is that you’re starting to see this rise. A lot of people assume that if we teach people about climate change, they will want to create a world that is more just and peaceful. And that’s really ideologically blinkered. My student who was an ecofascist fully understood the science of climate change. He got it. But he took it places that were illiberal, authoritarian, anti-democratic. It doesn’t follow that if you teach people about climate change, they’re all of a sudden going to create a world that is more just. They’re going to integrate it into their existing politics. And what we’re starting to see, especially among the more fringe elements of the right wing, is that there is an awareness of climate change and they’re taking it in these more fascistic, anti-democratic ways. 

Salon | Kathryn Joyce

 

What Subscribers Are Reading

It’s tempting to believe high prices are all about price gouging. But the reality is far wilder.

by Kate Aronoff

 

The self-immolation of an environmental activist in Washington, D.C., revives an uncomfortable debate over the practice—and how we should talk about it.

by Eleanor Cummins

 

Advertising

 
The New Republic
Introductory offer: 50% off fearless reporting. 1 year for $10.
Donate
facebook
 
instagram
 
twitter
 

Update your personal preferences for [email protected] by clicking here

Copyright © 2022 The New Republic, All rights reserved.

Our mailing address is:

The New Republic 1 Union Sq W Fl 6 New York, NY 10003-3303 USA


Do you want to stop receiving all emails from TNR? Unsubscribe from this list. If you stopped getting TNR emails, update your profile to resume receiving them.