As we read and watch coverage of the apocalyptic fires across Australia — for a sense of scale, they have already burned an area nearly the size of West Virginia; at least 25 people are dead; and 500 million animals are thought to have died — a decisive political lesson is emerging from the response of that country’s prime minister and other political leaders. Australian novelist Richard Flanagan describes how “since 1996 successive conservative Australian governments have successfully fought to subvert international agreements on climate change in defense of the country’s fossil fuel industries.” Yet in the face of fires that are unquestionably accelerated by man-made changes to the climate, Prime Minister Scott Morrison has declared that now is not the time to talk about climate change. Meanwhile, Flanagan writes, “While the fires were exploding in mid-December, the leader of the opposition Labor Party went on a tour of coal mining communities expressing his unequivocal support for coal exports.”
In short, dealt a catastrophic blow by fires supercharged in part by Australia’s extractive energy industry, much of that country’s political class has decided to double down on apocalypse.
As Masha Gessen writes in a fascinating analysis of Swedish activist Greta Thunberg and the way she is Donald Trump’s opposite in every way imaginable, this basic clash between realities playing out in Australia is at the heart of the climate fight worldwide: you either believe there is a moral obligation to save the world, or you believe the world, and life in general, are something to be exploited and thrown away in a nihilistic belief that nothing matters beyond the here and now. What the horrific situation in Australia makes clear (where “horrific” encompasses both the environmental catastrophe and the failure of its leaders to acknowledge it) is that there’s ultimately no compromise possible around climate change. Either you are for environmental apocalypse, or you are against it. In continuing their denialism and addiction to a fossil fuel future, much of Australia’s leadership has made this choice as clear as can be.
So reality swamps the lies of the denialists and the do-nothings, at least in Australia — but does that mean that reality will actually win out? Flanagan sees echoes of the past that suggest that the side of denial and death holds the losing hand at this point:
The situation is eerily reminiscent of the Soviet Union in the 1980s, when the ruling apparatchiks were all-powerful but losing the fundamental, moral legitimacy to govern. In Australia today, a political establishment, grown sclerotic and demented on its own fantasies, is facing a monstrous reality which it has neither the ability nor the will to confront.
[. . .] As Mikhail Gorbachev, the last Soviet leader, once observed, the collapse of the Soviet Union began with the nuclear disaster at Chernobyl in 1986. In the wake of that catastrophe, “the system as we knew it became untenable,” he wrote in 2006. Could it be that the immense, still-unfolding tragedy of the Australian fires may yet prove to be the Chernobyl of climate crisis?
Not just in Australia, but around the world, I am hoping that we will see this dynamic begin to play out more and more. This is not a political debate with any sort of moral ambiguity. One side is 100% wrong, only it continues to lie and distort and appeal to the worst, most selfish aspects of our individual natures. As with the model of the Soviet Union, the limitless incompetence and irrelevance of politicians and parties around the world who refuse to meet the challenge of climate chaos should cause them to lose their public legitimacy sooner rather than later.
But there are no rules of history, no assurances that these fools will in fact be turned out of power anytime soon. It’s up to all of us to make this happen. Over the last few days, I’ve been thinking about David Wallace-Wells’ warning that climate change might cause populations around the world to turn their sympathies inward, to their own nations and neighbors. This would be self-defeating, as we need global, coordinated action and empathy to resolve global warming before its damage becomes still-more horrendous. Wallace-Wells worries that coverage and reactions to Australia’s fires so far might signal such indifference, but clearly this story is still unfolding, and the possibility of conveying it to the world is still very much possible. Americans need to make known their sympathy to the Australian people, and outrage toward the Australian government. And when the government of a close ally like Australia so seriously betrays the interests of its citizens, the U.S. should use its diplomatic clout to pressure that government to do the right thing. As much as anything, Australia’s crisis is a reminder that the United States needs to get its own house in order, and to elect a Congress and a president who give fighting climate change the highest priority.