Six things people say to avoid talking about the climate and human rights
"You can't say anything these days!"
Where I grew up, we drink tea that comes from India and tut when someone brings up colonialism. The summers reach record deadly temperatures and we talk about cracking the barbeque out.
When ‘the lads’ try to burn a hotel for refugees we shake our heads and sigh - how did we get onto such a dark topic anyway? Can’t we put politics aside for today?
I know I’m not the only one who has met a never-ending string of cognitive barriers when trying to have a conversation with family, coworkers or friends about climate and social justice. I am tired of being the ‘radical’ person for trying to have a conversation about the topics that will shape our entire lives. (But Cass, you can be so intense about this stuff sometimes). It can be exhausting and demoralising - but sometimes people surprise you.
As we approach the winter holidays and many of us brace ourselves for frustrating comments and conversations, we’ve rounded up a showcase of some of the most common diversion tactics and fallacies that people use to downplay, diminish or otherwise avoid these topics... And some tips at the end for how to have a meaningful conversation instead.
A major caveat: None of this is directed at the people who truly do not have the time, energy or resources to engage in wider political activism. Marginalised and vulnerable groups already engaged in a day-to-day battle to survive are not the target here. I am calling out people in my own demographic - privileged, majority-white middle class-and-up groups who do have the ability and time to do something - but choose not to.
I would listen (but not to you)
This is the ad hominen fallacy, loosely translated to ‘I don’t like you so therefore your arguments are worthless’. This can sound like “Don’t you agree that vegans can be really preachy though?” or “Feminists don’t have to be so loud,” or “You’re one to talk! You still [XYZ].”
Activists get this a lot. Grown adult men have taken time out of their allegedly packed schedules to compare Greta Thunberg to Hitler, label student strikers as ‘absentees’ and environmentalists as ‘mung-bean munching tree huggers’.
In my own life, I’ve had someone reply to my contribution to a conference about implementing degrowth policies with the simple input that, “I was also idealistic at your age.” Another time, a male friend commented that the problem was ‘aggressive’ feminists who get offended by a man opening the door for them (he had never encountered such a feminist but the internet assured him they exist). None of which addresses or refutes their message - but serves to drag you into a derailing tailspin about the quality of the messenger.
Now isn’t the time / this isn’t the right place / that isn’t the right tone
Similar to the previous point but worthy of its own category. After several years in communications, I still haven’t found the right time and place and tone of voice to bring up the fact that the house is on fire.
Politics and all things that are deemed part of this - including the climate, gender identity, racism or diversity - have entered the realm of a ‘taboo’ topic. It’s a comfortable way to prevent hearing any information that conflicts with your views. And while I’m not advocating for getting a podium and a manifesto out around the dinner table, healthy discussion is necessary for a healthy democracy, particularly in the face of the rise of online misinformation and polarisation.
Related to this, is the phenomenon of ‘tone policing.’ We’ve written about this before and it’s something that black activists face on a greater scale: the suggestion that the person would listen to you, if only you had spoken in a nicer tone, or didn’t get so ‘angry’ (regardless of whether you were actually angry), or spoke with anything other than robotic detachment.
You want us all to become tree-hugging vegans living in communes!
This is the false dichotomy argument. It can take many forms: “Well we can’t all stop taking flights [so nobody should stop at all]” or “I’m one person, I can’t do everything [so I should do nothing].”
It reduces arguments to two extremes as being the only possible options. In political terms, it usually pits the status quo against the most extreme form of the reverse.
This quite often overlaps with the straw man fallacy - attacking an argument you never made - or appeal to emotion. An example: “So if I don’t become a vegan, you’re going to hate me?”
Note on response: Depending on the person, you can point out another option that reveals the situation is not an either/or. Often they come from a genuine misunderstanding, and reveal a lot about the underlying anxieties or assumptions behind their reasoning.
Climate change isn’t such a big deal because it was cold the other day
This is cherry-picking: when someone picks out a particular piece of data and ignores all the rest, in order to support their argument.
Once an elderly woman in my hometown asked me whether I thought women were really still held back professionally, given that we’ve had one woman Prime Minister. Never mind that men still hold over 73% of leadership positions worldwide.
This is just one example. Other classics include “I’ve got a gay friend who’s never faced homophobia [so therefore it doesn’t exist].” Or me a year ago saying I can’t have ADHD because I’m punctual [and therefore evidence of all other symptoms are irrelevant].
This often comes from an emotional place: people are so eager to hear a shred of positivity that they will latch onto any silver lining and discard the wider context. We hope the world isn’t really this way and will lean into the related fallacy - confirmation bias - to look for proof to support our hopes. I can’t say I blame them under a deluge of terrifying news.
But it’s not a productive way to engage with the world. We need to bring in the wider context, even when negative - and emphasise that we can have a world where the positive is not simply lining the negative, but is the bigger part.
Yes someone should do something (but not me)
It is true that the greatest and most impactful changes to our political and economic system must have the backing of our governments and businesses. The unfair shifting of responsibility for the climate to individuals is a long-used tactic by the fossil fuel industry.
However, as corporations and politicians then point to the lack of demand from citizens for change, this quickly spirals into a pass-the-parcel game where nobody is responsible for climate action. At the individual level, it can look like discussions that stay in a comfortable bubble of intellectualisation around what ‘should be done’ to fix society.
But nobody will take the first step to move from the abstract into action. You will soon find the well of reasons that that person specifically can’t do anything is endless. This can sound like “I’ve got enough to worry about already!” and “Well I already recycle so I think I’m doing my bit!” and “Your generation is going to sort this mess out.” The psychological instinct to cling to the status quo and the social norm can be very strong.
I just can’t believe that it’s really that bad.
The ‘argument from incredulity’ tries to end a debate with the simple assertion that they struggle to believe that [governments aren’t doing something about this / that he would do something like that / that my mate would be wrong about this].
I once commented to a housemate that even the countries with the lowest rate of sexual harassment were shockingly high (this is still true: in Denmark, ranked recently as the safest country to be a woman, an estimated 80% of women have experienced sexism). He said, “Do you think that’s accurate though? I can’t believe any of my male friends would harass someone. It just seems unlikely.”
Note on response: Disbelief is a normal reaction to shocking facts. Validating feelings can help - ‘I know, it’s wild, right?’ - but having scientifically-sourced evidence helps to avoid getting stuck on this hill.
What to do to have a productive discussion
You know your difficult uncle better than I do. The tools that people use to disengage from these conversations are enough to fill a novel and often used unintentionally. And ultimately you don’t need to exhaust yourself trying to convince everyone. Pick your battles.
We have a full edition on climate conversations here. However, here are a few tips that can help create a more productive discussion.
Establish common ground. We can become fixated on the areas where we disagree and forget to connect first with the concerns and feelings of the listener. Forging common ground is key.
Make it personal. I care more about your feelings than yet another report full of terrifying statistics. It can also help close the cognitive disconnect gap between politics and the personal to explain how concretely, external events and policies do affect you.
Listen. In the UK, a recent survey found 31% of the public were angry at climate activists. Often people are primed to be defensive and dismiss us. Discuss with curiosity, questioning why they believe XYZ. It’s a conversation not a competition. We can all stand to learn from each other.
Don’t engage with derailing tactics. You don’t need to address questions that are absurd in their premise (so you’re saying that even if you were on an island and could only eat animals, you would just die?). The devil does not need an advocate. Stay focused on the point you want to make.
Actions speak louder than words. We have to be prepared to walk the walk and show, consistently and regularly, that alternatives are possible. It makes change tangible.
I sometimes feel like, as an activist with a moderate online presence, that I have to walk a tightrope to keep people engaged without making anyone feel too attacked or guilty - sceptics and activists alike. So busy managing everyone’s feelings that the bigger picture slides out of the conversation.
Given the vitriol that activists face and the emotionally charged associations with these topics, it is easy to see why some people prefer to say nothing at all. But we are all grown ups and we can have grown up conversations. And those of us who call ourselves supporters of racial justice, of a free Palestine, and of feminism for all, must be prepared to speak up on behalf of those who risk a far more repressive and sometimes violent retaliation for their views.
I would far rather be labelled as ‘preachy’ or ‘angry feminist’ or ‘radical activist’ than someone who was simply silent for the sake of not rocking the boat. Nothing changes if nothing changes. Remember that just because you don’t see an instant result, doesn’t mean you didn’t have an influence.
We are also just as susceptible to fallacious thinking as the people we demonise. ‘Us vs them’ and ‘with us or against us’ are false dichotomies. Strengthening our work and our movement involves accepting accountability and critique as much as giving it. I will be making mistakes until I die. We can change, and we can make change.
Or I guess we could just talk about the weather instead.
Issy’s recommendations for links:
Climate justice in the Global South: Palestine, West Asia & North Africa - talk by Makan
Events from December 7 – December 3 – Makan - keep an eye out for new events run by Makan, particularly the How to Talk About Palestine series!
What’s Going On?
The United Kingdom leads on the crackdown of climate activism, report finds.
Related: The Labour Party has received over £300,000 from gas and oil lobby groups.TikTok’s annual carbon footprint is likely bigger than Greece’s, study finds.
Related: Twitter is being used to promote climate denial.Death feels imminent for 96% of children in Gaza.
Related: The genocide in Gaza is an environmental catastrophe.Seven quiet breakthroughs for climate and nature in 2024.
Related: 10 energy transition developments in 2024.Idaho criminalises minors travelling out-of-state for reproductive care.
Related: Infant mortality in the US has increased almost 7% since the right to abortion care was overturned - and maternal mortality rates are also increasing.
If you’d like to support The Green Fix, please consider tipping us a virtual coffee.
So Now What Do I Do?
LEARN SOMETHING
Read: ‘Not a done deal.’ The rise of the far-right and how to reverse it.
Listen: How to talk about climate change so people will listen.
Holiday survival guide is you have a politically extremist family.
TRY SOMETHING NEW
CHANGE THE SYSTEM
The Migration and Tech Monitor Fellowship are looking to support people with experience of displacement on tech projects. Deadline 31st December.
Apply to the 2025 SPARK EU Climate Action activist training for 18-30 year olds! Deadline 5th January.
Generation Climate Europe are opening a call for a series of funding proposals from the 13th January! More info here.
The Green Fix is now offering low-cost sponsored slots on the newsletter. Book your slot by emailing wearethegreenfix@gmail.com.
Stay in the loop
You can follow us on Twitter @TheGreenFix, Instagram @thegreenfix_ and LinkedIn. Connect with Cass on Instagram @cass.hebron and LinkedIn Cass J Hebron.