Beyond doom and gloom: Dagomar Degroot on the taking action to curb emissions and solve the climate crisis

Sometimes, if a problem feels too complex or insurmountable, it’s easy to just give up. Dagomar Degroot, an associate professor of environmental history at Georgetown University, warns against falling victim to this “doomism” when it comes to climate change. In this essay, Degroot contends that the news media often presents a false binary in how it covers the climate crisis: either we are powerless to stop the collapse of ecosystems, or the crisis is overblown. Degroot argues there’s a third way beyond doomism or dismissal: decisive, deliberate action to reduce carbon emissions, a key factor driving the warming of the planet.

Dagomar Degroot, "Our Planet Is Not Doomed. That Means We Can, and Must, Act." The Washington Post, 7 October 2021.

 

1. Define “doomism” in your own words. Degroot argues that doomism is “wrong – and dangerous.” Why is doomism about the climate crisis wrong? Why is it dangerous?
   
2. According to Degroot, what are the two factors that will affect “the future of climate change”? Degroot offers some “good news” about efforts to curtail the warming of the planet. What is that good news?
3. Degroot relies on two transitions frequently in his piece: “but” and “yet.” Re-read his essay and look at how he uses these transitions to shape his argument. Describe how these transitions help Degroot integrate naysayer arguments into his essay. Pick one of the sentences or questions that begins with “yet” or “but” and rewrite it using a different template from Chapter 6. How did your revision change the tone of Degroot’s essay?
4. How do you think social media platforms like Facebook or Twitter contribute to doomism and climate anxiety? What is another issue besides the climate crisis where you think doomism prevents people from taking direct action or having productive conversations? With this issue, who benefits from the apathy triggered by doomism? Who loses?

Comments

[Waldo]

Though I agree that political decisions have an impact on what happens with climate change, we also have to hold individuals accountable for what they choose to do to the environment. As said in other comments, we have to actually take action on fixing climate change for the better rather than just talking about it. The climate is changing every day regardless. Will you rise to action to change it?

[Will]

While I do agree that taking action on climate change is absolutely imperative to the future of our society and that making decisions through political bodies seems to be the only way to create some kind of solution, I don't think it should be such a politicized topic as it is today. Caring for the environment and the planet that houses us should not be a topic of discussion, but rather a necessity. Why is there such a lengthy debate on taking care of our planet and environment? You take care of your home, why not the body that surrounds your home? Furthermore, I do agree with the previous comment that we should be holding each other accountable for our actions. Holding yourself accountable for the care of the earth is not enough and calling out others on their careless actions is neccesary, however, I do see that certain careless people would need laws in place to hold them accountable for their actions.

[Patrick]

My interpretation of “doomism” would be the idea or belief that nothing else can be done to solve the problem of global warming. In this instance, it would be thinking that the environmental conditions and global warming of our planet is irreversible. However, we have made significant progress in reversing some of the damage done and the threat of “doomism” can stop any progress that we have made or are planning to make. I have to agree with Degroot’s viewpoint on how dangerous it is to give up. We have faced unprecedented events in the past couple of years and I feel this is something important for the public to know in regards to the seriousness of a potential collapse of our climate. In creation of technology to absorb carbon as well as other harmful pollutants, using alternative energy sources which are now more affordable and making small changes we can make a difference and help the future of our planet.

[Logan]

I agree we need to cut down our greenhouse gas emissions and try to slow the heating of the earth’s climate. We should do anything to save and preserve the planet we are so lucky to be on. The whole debate is between if the greenhouse gas levels are too high and we are on the path to extinction or if we can still save the planet, this is something I’ve seen and have had with people myself. If you tell people to not pollute the environment they will say it’s “bound to happen anyway” or the “earth is too far gone” and it just proves that people need to try harder. I really liked how the article didn’t choose a side in the debate. He used a more moderate stance and said we should try to curb our emissions and then even if the climate continues to rise it won’t be rising at such a high rate of extinction that way we can still adapt. I’ve never seen someone take that stance and I agree with it. Most people take very radical views on this global issue. It's either we're all going to die or we can save the earth but we all need electric cars and change our whole way of life. I also liked what Will said in the comment section, he is talking about how stopping climate change should not be a political issue or discussion and just a necessity for us all because we need to take care of the home of our homes and make sure people get to enjoy our planet for years to come.

[CG]

Earth is getting hotter by the day. In a century, the level of heat will have ascended too unbearable. Current generations worry about what the foreseeable future will bring. Degroot mentions reasons why the climate is transmuting. The solution is to slow down the process of letting out aerosol pollutants which come from automobiles and factories. In fact, these particles also have a negative effect on human health. Slowly in my years of my life I have come across documentaries, books, articles and multiple platforms that have spread the message on climate change. Most individuals are guilty though. We all grew up with a system and after so many years, it's a challenge to disassemble. That primary indication is acting upon a change. As much as there are people with hope to surmount the rising heat, there are those who accept the fate of human beings' extinction, and nothing can be done to help. This is called “doomism”. I partially agree with doomists. The reason being is that natural causes can occur that humans can’t control such as the changes that happen in the air, ocean and volcanic eruptions that disturb the earth's outer sphere or inner core. Even if our bodies can adapt to environmental changes, to what extent? Natural occurrences are unpredictable. Even so we can still do our part by doing the best we can to balance the climate.

[TM]

In this article, the author clearly defines the idea of “Doomism”, which is essentially humanity’s deathly and upcoming fate as a result of climate change, and therefore Earth’s deterioration. While several political extremists may agree and simply let “Doomism” creep onto society’s rearview, I believe that there is still a possibility to save the planet Earth, but if not then slow the time until “Doomism” occurs. The solution to this proposal would be cutting down carbon emissions, fossil fuels, and other hazardous gasses that essentially ruin Earth’s ozone layer. The sole reason that the ozone layer is depleting, ice caps are melting, and sea levels are rising, is because greenhouse gasses being omitted weaken the ozone layer which protects us from the harmful rays of the sun. By reducing the amount of these gasses being released, I believe there may still be a chance to restore the planet to habitable levels. However, it is not only at the hands of mere communities that this change must occur, but action must be taken by larger corporations as well. Gas companies such as Exxon Mobil, Chevron, and Shell, are few of many companies that contribute to the accumulation of greenhouse gasses. With their help to reduce the amount of carbon being released, not only would the ozone layer be less affected by human action, but the chain effect of harmful gasses being released would be slowed down. This ripple effect of greenhouse gasses being released has the possibility of restoring coral reefs, saving forests which contribute to healthy oxygen consumption, prevent the rise of sea levels, and even help save the elimination of animal populations on the border of extinction. With a new political focus on restoring levels of climate change, it is necessary to act on these matters to preserve the human population, and all animal populations for that matter. This can be succeeded by limiting the amount of pollutants being released into the atmosphere, which can be performed if all humans make a collaborative effort to do so.

[Chloe48]

Like others, I agree that we need to control greenhouse gas emissions and do everything possible to stop climate change. From what I have learned, global warming can be caused by both natural factors and human factors. Among the human factors, greenhouse gas emissions are recognized as the main cause of global warming. From the relevant statistics, the global climate has increased by an average of 0.15 degrees Celsius per year in the expired 50 years. Thus, taking action on climate change is instant. The authors mention that we can solve the warming problem by reducing car emissions, factory emissions pollution, and other measures. And another reviewer also said that big companies like Chevron and Shell should take action, and I agree with this. However, I think that billionaires should also take action. According to research, in the 25 years from 1990 to 2015, the richest 1% of the world's population emitted 15% of greenhouse gases, while the poorer half of the world's population emitted only 7%. In addition, a BBC article noted that in 2021, the climate summit COP26 in Glasgow, UK, was attended by leaders and other delegates from around the world in private jets. I think, in the current critical situation of global warming, those rich people and politicians who talk a lot and call on the people to save energy and reduce emissions while they ride in private jets should be the first to set an example. If they can reduce their use of private jets, it will play a very important role in helping to slow the rise of the global climate. Of course, the rest of us should act as well. For example, we can drive and eat less meat. Only with the joint efforts of all of us can we effectively reduce climate warming.

[Justin Wang]

I agree that taking action is necessary in order to combat climate change. As mentioned in the article written by Dagomar Degroot, media outlets like to depict how people are powerless to make a change. This does not help our society and only prevents the ecosystem from recovering. Although expected by news stations, this fake news is taking a toll on the number of people actively trying to make a difference. This is why the ability to critically think and make your own conclusions is crucial. The ability to critical think prevents people from falling into “doomism”. Taking affirmative action and reducing carbon emissions can play a prominent role in solving climate change. An example of a critical thinker doing everything in his power to solve climate change by adjusting the world to run on clean energy would be the billionaire and CEO of Tesla Inc., Elon Musk. Musk has taken action against climate change with his innovation of Tesla vehicles, an all-electric category of cars that do not produce harmful emissions to the environment. In addition, Musk has a product called “solar roof”. This is essentially a solar panel that goes on top of a home that draws energy from the sun. This technology can save homeowners considerable amounts of money as electricity bills will start to dwindle. Revolutionary technology like this has the potential to rid the world of climate issues. All this goes to show that taking a stand can make a substantial difference in society. The potential collapse of our climate should not be underestimated in any way shape or form. I also believe that news outlets ought to start influencing the masses in order to help our climate. The more people that believe that they can make a change, the better shape our planet will be in the long run.

[Armaan]

While I agree with Degroot that fighting the climate crisis is not a lost cause and that people should not panic, my own view is that having some level of urgency is important to society. If everyone is comfortable with climate change, no one will try to solve it, hence the need for a level of urgency.

-Armaan

[Krish]

Dagomar Degroot believes that climate change is horrible but even though it may seem over, there can still be change made. For the most part, I agree with their statement, but I also think that no one is willing to make the change and put enough effort into the change.

[Aishani]

In their article about Doomism, Dagomar Degroot talks about how Doomism in the climate crisis is dangerous and will hurt more than it will help. I agree with this statement, and further add that by recognizing solutions that are already making a difference in the climate crisis, people will be more encouraged to contribute to helping the effects of climate change.

[Abhinav]

1. Define “doomism” in your own words. Degroot argues that doomism is “wrong – and dangerous.” Why is doomism about the climate crisis wrong? Why is it dangerous?

It is dangerous because with the mentality then it makes it seem that we can not fix the situation when it is very fixable and there is still an ability to fix the situation. We can still work towards making the climate crisis better but by having a mentality that thinks its already doomed would not be the right way to approach the situation.

2. According to Degroot, what are the two factors that will affect “the future of climate change”? Degroot offers some “good news” about efforts to curtail the warming of the planet. What is that good news?

Human generated gas emissions are one of the biggest factors relating to climate change and the sensitivity of those emissions are the two factors. The good news that he has is that degroot says that the emissions will determine the temperature, not the feedback loops.

4. How do you think social media platforms like Facebook or Twitter contribute to doomism and climate anxiety? What is another issue besides the climate crisis where you think doomism prevents people from taking direct action or having productive conversations? With this issue, who benefits from the apathy triggered by doomism? Who loses?

Social media spreads a lot of propaganda about doomism that sometimes exaggerates situations to make them seem like they are worse than they are and they are unrecoverable. Doomism sometimes prevents parents from effectively parenting their children where they think that their children are beyond repair and they give up on trying to be parents. The people who benefit would be nobody and the people who lose would be everybody because doomism makes people give up and hope is what is important to fix the issues we have with our society.

[Siona]

When it comes to the topic of climate change, most of us will readily agree that it is an issue. Where this agreement usually ends, however, is on the question of the severity of the climate crisis. Whereas some are convinced that we are doomed, others maintain that there is still hope for the world. I maintain that there is hope, but the reality and urgency of the situation must be addressed appropriately.

[loblob]

When it comes to the topic of climate change, most of us will readily agree that the planet is heading towards a negative direction. Where this agreement usually ends, however, is on the question of how fast this grim future will arrive. Whereas some are convinced that there is no point to fixing any of the issues as we are doomed no matter what, others maintain that we must remain optimistic and actively strive for the constant improvement of our greenhouse gas emissions.

[MJ]

Doomism is the idea that we as a society have created the impending doom that is climate change, and that we now have no choice but to do nothing and lay in the bed we’ve made. Degroot argues that doomism is wrong because there is still a chance as long as humans make the effort to change. He also states that doomism is dangerous because it makes the general public believe there is no hope.

Degroot states that the 2 main factors that affect the future of climate change are human-generated greenhouse emissions, and Earth’s climate sensitivity. The good news he offers is that the younger generation is in fact making efforts to bring the crisis to light. They are making noise to catch the public eye and legal eye.

Degroot uses “yet” and “but” often in his writing to propose an argument or opposing viewpoint to a previously established topic. He introduces the belief of a naysayer, then combats it using those words. For example Degroot states, “It is not enough, and large-scale efforts to adapt to climate change are only in their infancy. Yet it is beginning to feel possible that the climate crisis can be overcome.” This can be rewritten as, “It is beginning to feel possible that the climate crisis can be overcome, yet some readers may challenge my view by insisting that it is not enough, and large-scale efforts to adapt to climate change are only in their infancy.” This revision changes the tone of the essay swapping which side of the argument comes first.

Social media contributes to doomism and climate anxiety by rapidly spreading whatever piece of information is found, and creating a sense of panic for problems, when in reality, solutions do exist. One issue that falls under the idea of doomism is the current age of entertainment. Many people believe that the younger generations use social media too much, but that there is nothing to be done because it is too late. The people who benefit from this apathy are the older generations who wish to revert to the “good old days”, and the people who lose are the younger generations who are being attacked for simply growing up during this time period.

[Deborah]

In recent discussions of climate change, a controversial issue has been whether it holds any merit in this conversation. ON the one hand, some argue that climate change has reached a point of no return. From this perspective, the ideals of doom-ism are highlighted. Though I concede that climate change is a problem that has exponentially gotten worse, I agree with the author of this article as they argue that hope should not be lost. There are plausible actions that can be taken right now to make a substantially positive impact on climate change.

[Uma]

In discussions of the many aspects of climate change, one controversial issue has been the idea of "Doomism," which was addressed throughout Degroot's article. The author contends that people should have an optimistic view and the extreme mentality could be harmful to our future's outcomes. My own view is similar to that of Degroot's, however adding the ideas that the urgency and viable solutions should effectively be communicated with the public for change to be seen.

[Sushama]

When it comes to the topic of climate change, most of us think that it is a big deal. Where this agreement usually ends, however, is on the question of how we can make changes to reduce climate change. Whereas some are convinced that there is no way to reduce climate change, while others try to make a change that benefits the Earth and us.

[Lorraine Ordenes]

This is the second time that I've read something optimistic about fighting climate change. This inspires us to continue the fight because what's the point of fighting when you have already lost the battle? We have been presented with the facts that greenhouse gas emissions contribute to warming the earth, leading to climate change. What's worse is that global warming may hinder the healing of the ozone layer which is already on its way to recovery. However, according to Degroot, there is a piece of good news here. "We are not committed to a much hotter future", he said. He is also optimistic that there is a possibility that the climate crisis can be overcome. This is also a reminder that we should not give in to "doomism", which is basically the belief that the human future is doomed because of environmental crises. Degroot says “doomism” derails progress especially when a significant number of young people agree with this belief. This article is a wake-up call that we can and must continue what the previous generations have done to fight climate change.