Climate Cynicism, And Not Skepticism, Is A Symptom Of An Endangered Democracy

When Trump shocked the world by winning the election last November, I tried to look at the bright side. At least, I thought, the people of the US would now open their eyes to the problems and contradictions that have brought him to the White House. It will be only four years, I thought. But there was something I couldn't really stop worrying about: Trump's climate denialism would have an effect way beyond his mandate.

My fears were confirmed last month when the president decided to withdraw his country from the Paris agreement. The audience cheered him, and I could only ask myself, "Why?". I mean, there's a huge consensus that this is a real, present and unprecedented danger for humans on Earth. And there's a huge consensus that we are behind it, and that even the Paris agreement isn't enough.

And if that's the case, why are those people cheering at Trump's reckless decision? Can't they just see the FACTS?

"The facts are not just the innocent victims of politics. The facts have long been put in the service of politics, which is what fuels the suspicions of those who wish to deny them. The politicization can cut both ways."

In this excellent long read for the Guardian, which I've been saving for the last couple of weeks, David Runciman brings a crucial debate to the table. How skepticism (not only about climate) is turning into cynicism, and how that is eroding the very core of democracy.

"A cynic questions the motives of the people who deploy the evidence, regardless of whether it is believable or not. Any attempt to defend the facts gets presented as evidence that the facts simply suit the interests of the people peddling them."

The political use of facts and legitimate doubt, the differences between climate cynicism and previous cases such as Big Tobacco, and what to do (quite urgently) to revert our dangerous course are all in this important article that everyone who's not a cynic should read.