This month, I interviewed Dana R. Fisher, author of Saving Ourselves: From Climate Shocks to Climate Action. Dr. Fisher is a social scientist, professor, and author, and her research focuses on questions related to democracy, civic engagement, activism, and climate politics, including activism and engagement around climate and systemic racism.
Tell Congress: Commit to Climate Investments and Clean Air Progress
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Can you tell us about your book, and how it is different from your previous work?
Saving Ourselves brings together all the research I’ve done around climate policymaking and climate activism since the 1990s. Perhaps most importantly, the book explicitly talks about how to chart a path forward.
Usually, I don’t chart a path forward. We as academics tend to end with research findings. We always conclude that more research is needed and then outline the research we need to do next. Certainly, there’s still more research to be done. But in the case of the climate crisis, the writing is on the wall, so we don’t need a lot more research; we need more climate action. Saving Ourselves lays out how and why specific actions will be most effective at getting us through the climate crisis with the fewest people harmed in the process.
You talk about climate shocks in your book. What are climate shocks, and how widespread are they?
This is a definition of climate shocks from Saving Ourselves: “Climate shocks are deviations from normal environmental patterns in the form of droughts, floods, heat waves, or other extreme events that have been exacerbated by climate change.”
Climate shocks are not new disturbances but disturbances that are bigger and have more of an effect on society. They are exacerbated by concentrations of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere that lead to climate change. Climate shocks are widespread already. All the models of climate patterns predict that they are going to get worse. By getting worse, I mean that climate shocks will occur more frequently and be more severe. Extreme heat is an example of a climate shock. It’s not just that we’re going to have heat waves but that they are going to come more frequently and they’re going to be hotter.
You conclude in your book that social change is impossible without a radical transformation in the way that the state, market, and civil society interact. How do these trends relate to parents, grandparents, and kids who participate in climate activism through civic engagement?
First and foremost, one of the most important actions that we can take for our children is to be active participants! This isn’t about a political party or ideology at all. We hope everybody cares about our democracy. Being an engaged citizen is one of the important tools that we should be teaching our children. And while the schools can teach that somewhat, it starts at home. If you talk about politics around the dining room table, research shows that your kids will do it; your kids will actually participate, and they’ll do more than vote, which is what we need everybody to do.
Your book describes a three-step strategy for activists: building community, capitalizing on moral shocks, cultivating climate resilience. What could this strategy look like for a parent concerned about climate and their children’s health?
Of the three steps that I discuss in the book, concerned parents should start by cultivating resilience in their communities. Cultivating resilience is about preparing for climate shocks. If flooding is common in a neighborhood, we can prepare environmentally. We can plant vegetation, like river birches. We can identify other nature-based solutions to prepare our communities for when climate shocks occur.
At the same time, we must cultivate social resilience. Social resilience is the way that we take care of our friends and neighbors. We must be there for one another when climate shocks happen. Social resilience is about making sure that our schools are prepared for disruptions exacerbated by climate change and that parents and others are there to help one another if a climate shock occurs. Some people will be hit hard by extreme weather events and will need support, including food and childcare.
As you engage in your work as a social scientist, how do you assess President Biden’s climate agenda?
As a social scientist who studies climate policymaking, I have written numerous papers on failed climate legislation over my career. This is the first time ever that I’ve had the chance to write a paper about a successful climate policy: the Inflation Reduction Act.
President Biden’s administration is the most supportive of climate action of any administration we’ve seen. They are very focused on what we call “incremental policymaking.” It’s a slow process because they’re working through a two-party system. They’re trying to make sure that they can keep as many people in support of the policies they’re promoting as possible as they move forward. So they compromise a lot.
The Inflation Reduction Act is a wonderful example of compromise and incremental politics. Incremental policies are very effective over a long timeline because they keep as many parties as possible involved in the process and working together to achieve the necessary changes. If we didn’t have this climate crisis looming and we didn’t have such a limited timeline, this type of incremental policymaking would be wonderful, and we would be celebrating it.
It just unfortunately isn’t enough because of the timeline of the climate crisis and the fact that the Biden administration inherited what the Trump administration left behind. The Trump administration spent four years dismantling the capacity of the federal government to address climate change and protect communities against environmental pollution.
You talk about the idea of “apocalyptic optimism” in your book. Can you explain what this means to you?
I call myself an apocalyptic optimist. Apocalyptic optimism is understanding how bad it is going to get in the world because of the climate crisis. But also recognizing that while things are going to get worse, we are ultimately going to be able to save ourselves by working together and harnessing people power.
I know from natural and atmospheric scientists that we are at this moment standing at the edge of a precipice where we may see cascading effects of the worsening climate crisis. So we’re going in the wrong direction; this is the apocalyptic part. Some people would say that given what everyone is expecting this summer and beyond, we should be feeling downtrodden and depressed. But this is where I take a different perspective.
I’m very optimistic about people power. I’m optimistic about groups like Moms Clean Air Force and others that have so many members trying to do right by their communities and their children. And I believe that we can make a difference. We just have to work together and focus our attention.
May is National Mental Health Awareness Month. How do you view the relationship between mental health and the climate crisis?
The climate crisis is doing a doozy on our mental health. It is contributing to anxiety, concern, and worry about the future, particularly for young people. We are hearing scientists scream at the top of their lungs, along with the UN Secretary General, that we’re not doing enough, and yet we see business-as-usual coming from so many sectors and governments right now.
A lot of people are feeling anxious about it. That makes a lot of sense, but what I think we can do is create support for one another and recognize the power that we have within ourselves. I personally feel like anger is a good motivating emotion, but it also can just be concern and support. And those emotions can help us work together and recognize the type of work that’s needed to address the climate crisis.
Saving Ourselves: From Climate Shocks to Climate Action is available at independent bookstores and retail bookstores and online. Use code CUP20 to get a 20% discount from the publisher.
Tell Congress: Commit to Climate Investments and Clean Air Progress