Functional Denialism I/III
Is it the climate?
On its face, you would not call the Breakthrough Institute climate denialist. Founded in 2007, the environmental research center is probably the most prominent proponent of ecomodernism, a school of thought that says technology is key to saving the environment. In 2018, 15 self-proclaimed ecomodernists came together to put their thought into writing. They published the Ecomodernist Manifesto, which is prominently published in twelve languages on the Breakthrough Institute’s website.
“A good Anthropocene demands that humans use their growing social, economic, and technological powers to make life better for people, stabilize the climate, and protect the natural world”, the manifesto states. According to ecomondernism, we should develop technologies, which advance human flourishing while decoupling economic growth from environmental impact. They are positioning themselves in opposition to a back-to-nature approach that has long been associated with environmentalism. “In this, we affirm one long-standing environmental ideal, that humanity must shrink its impacts on the environment to make more room for nature, while we reject another, that human societies must harmonize with nature to avoid economic and ecological collapse.” In concrete terms, it means more GMO, not less; more nuclear, not less; more urbanisation, not less; more industrialisation, not less.
Ecomodernists would point out that this decoupling is already happening. Fore example, many countries with advanced economies see their per capita CO2 emissions fall, while per capita GDP grows.
The reality of course is more complicated than it looks at first sight. To prove decoupling of per-capita GDP growth and CO2 emissions, you’d have to show that these emissions have not simply been outsourced, for example by moving energy heavy industries from the UK to Asian countries.
Still, I think the ecomodernists have a point. Technology can reduce environmental impact. But it has been misused and exaggerated to a point where possible technological advancement becomes an alibi for not implementing climate solutions. Their argument is often crafted the same way: climate change does have an impact, but so do many other factors, ultimately, technological advances do override that negative impact and most climate impact models and climate reporting are way too pessimistic. Have a look at some of the posts on their website:
Technology, Not Climate, Will Determine the Future of our Food System
That’s why R&D funding is more urgent than ever
Advocates like to hype nature-based adaptations as solutions for developing countries. That's not what those countries need.
The “Failure” to Ban Fossil Fuel Projects in the Developing World at COP27 May Actually Save Lives.
For low-income countries, economic development necessitates more, not less, greenhouse gas emissions in the near term.
Needless to say, I am very skeptical of their argument. When it comes to our food system for example, I am quite certain that climate will determine its future. But what they do is the intellectual underpinning of functional climate denialism: you say that climate change is a problem, you agree it’s anthropogenic, but in the same breath undermine all efforts and means to mitigate it if they interfere even in the smallest way with economic growth. They have also done damage to climate discourse by intentionally sowing doubt on scientific consensus.
Patrick Brown, the co-director of Breakthrough Institute’s Climate and Energy Team, claims that scientific publications are biased towards catastrophism. To prove his point, he submitted a paper to nature in which he intentionally omitted data to then claim in an op-ed, nature would not have published it otherwise. Brown’s actions were “monumentally unethical,” according to climate scientist Gavin Schmidt, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. In traditionally climate denialist media, Brown’s stunt was taken with glee. “Climate scientist admits editing paper to fit ‘preapproved narratives’”, wrote Fox News.
I am telling you this, because I think Breakthrough Institute’s position is increasingly shaping political discourse on climate, and it’s weakening implementation of existing solutions. I’ll show you how in the coming weeks.