Sustainability scientist Kimberly Nicholas says that in the face of climate change, values and feelings must be recognized, as well as the advancement of science and policy.
Janet Nichols
By David Malakoff
“I was trained to be calm, rational and objective, to concentrate on the facts,” recalls sustainability scientist Kimberly Nicholas in her new book, Under the sky we make: how to be human in a warming world. But because research has increasingly revealed how climate change will change the ecosystems and communities she loves forever, she has struggled to address her feelings of sadness. ‘My dissatisfied education’, writes the researcher from Lund University, did not prepare me for the increasingly frequent emotional crises of climate change, or how I can respond to students who come to her to share their own sadness.
This is a situation that many scientists and professors face these days, writes Nicholas. “Witnessing the death or death of what we love has begun to look a lot like the job description.” But Nicholas says the untimely death of a good friend helped her to believe that the only way forward was to acknowledge that “we will not be able to save everything we love.” Instead, she says, we must “swim through the ocean of sorrow … and realize that we still have time to act and save many of the things we care about.”
Nicholas is no stranger to the emotional setback that climate science can provoke. In 2017, she and climate scientist Seth Wynes, now at Concordia University, published a sensational article showing the most effective actions to reduce an individual’s carbon footprint – such as flying less or switching to a vegetarian diet. go – is rarely emphasized by governments or educators. But it was the study’s finding that childlessness can dramatically reduce a person’s contribution to global warming, generating uproar – and controversy – around the world.
Some commentators have suggested that Nicholas and Wynes promote a “culture of death” or a “liberal-environmental suicide pact.” It taught me a lot about how [these issues] can resonate in a very personal way, ”says Nicholas. Since then, prospective parents have reached out to her and tried to discuss their own decisions about the pregnancy. There is no single answer, she writes. “As a scientist, I have extra authority over my subject of expertise, but no special insight into what makes life worth living.”
Nicholas spoke recently ScienceInsider on her new book. This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.
Q: Who did you write this book for?
A: I wrote it for friends of the university – not for scientists. People who are worried about the climate crisis but do not see how they can make a difference, either personally or collectively. Instead of considering the specifics of specific policies, I try to set out principles that I hope people can apply and follow in their own lives.
Q: You grew up in California, and your family was involved in making wine. You said that climate change really came home when you realized as a doctoral student that higher temperatures could spell the end of the wines you knew and loved.
A: I started studying wine in 2003 and completed my doctorate. in 2009. I was collecting thousands and thousands of grapes and analyzing their color [chemical composition], and how they were affected by climate and their environment. Once I was collecting specimens in the corner of this vineyard and I came across these species that I had not seen before. I asked the owner what was going on. He said: ‘You know, it’s getting pretty hot here for pinot noir. So we are testing some new varieties that can do better. ‘It feels really different to document things analytically – and then experience them visually. And, you know, the last time I was in California, I had a pinot noir and it just tasted dusty, kind of overcooked. Wonderful wines are still made and wine farmers are very adaptable. But you realize there are limits to adaptation.
Q: What do you tell upset students who come to you with concerns about the damage to seagrass, coral reefs or the other ecosystems they were hoping to study?
A: I’m still figuring it out. The most important thing is not to shy away from the conversations. And do not try to explain [their fears] and says, ‘Oh, maybe it’s not really going to happen,’ or ‘Here’s one outlier who can give us hope.’ It’s not really useful … to deny reality or not equip it with the tools to face reality. You have to admit that they run into a house that is on fire. They do not expect us to have all the answers, and I think they are really capable of that. But as teachers, we need to do more to support them by listening and asking questions. And to do more to model in our own behavior how to tackle these difficult issues.
Q: You write that your own approach has included ‘sinking into your sadness’.
A: There are things that are currently changing unrecognizably due to climate change, and it really makes me sad. And for me, grief is an important part of the process of acknowledging it. It draws from my experience that I lost a dear friend to cancer, who died at 37. It was a kind of wake-up call [that prompted me] to think about my core values and what matters. Hopefully this kind of wake-up call can catalyze action. But it does not have to take a terminal diagnosis for life on earth to wake us up with the urgency to work for climate stability. I am not saying that all life on earth has a terminal diagnosis, but it is up to us to take meaningful action.
Q: You argue that one key to climate stabilization will be a change in attitude – a move away from what you call the ‘exploitation mindset’. What did this mean for you personally?
A: I see this attitude of exploitation as a cause of many of our problems, this misconception that humans are generally better than nature and should dominate it. And part of [confronting climate change] is really about changing hearts and minds [to] behavior changes. … A great awakening moment for me comes at a climate science conference. Just about everyone there, myself included, flew in. [The presentations] was a litany of depressing things that took place due to climate change. I felt like I was at this conference of doctors who puffed on cigarettes but told our patients to stop smoking! I realized that we really have an obligation to model the change we want to see. … so I almost stopped flying for my job. That did not mean I could not be a productive researcher. I have collaborations and projects, but I try to focus on work that does not require as much travel or that can be reached more easily by train. The only flight I have not given up yet is to go back to the US to visit my family.
Q: Do you think the scientific community has done a good job of helping people move from climate despair to action?
A: I will say this: I certainly do not think that the failures we see today are the fault of scientists. For example, it has been well documented that there have been disinformation campaigns by powerful interests, including the oil industry, that do not want to make the necessary changes. So I do not blame scientists, and talk much more to sound the alarm. … But – spoiler alert – it’s not necessarily scientists who change hearts. I give it a try. But it also takes artists and writers and culture makers and people of all kinds. I really believe everyone has a role to play.