The German scientist on her new book arguing that inequality, wealth and sexism are making the climate crisis worse – and what we need to do about it
The thesis of your book is that the climate crisis is a symptom of global inequality and injustice. That will be quite topsy-turvy to some people, who think global heating is caused by the amount of carbon that we are putting into the atmosphere.
Yes, of course, if you just stick to the physics, then the warming is caused by the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, but the amount of carbon in the atmosphere is caused by the burning of fossil fuels. And it is also the case that those who benefit from the burning of fossil fuels are the few already wealthy people who have stakes in or own the companies themselves. The vast majority of people do not benefit. The American dream is social mobility, not burning fossil fuels.
You are arguing that racism, colonialism and sexism all underpin global heating. Tackling those things seems more challenging than a technical solution for the climate crisis.
Of course it’s more challenging than just inventing some stuff. But we have solar and other renewable sources of energy and this isn’t solving the problem. The problem will only be solved if we address the underlying causes. I argue those are the inequalities in our society.
Some would say those kind of statements are political, and scientists should stick to the science.
The idea of writing this book came through my work because every time we do a study, we look at what the role of climate change is in the weather event that ultimately led to disasters. But we also look at what else is happening, who was affected, why were they affected. I would say in all cases, what turns weather into a disaster is not how much it rained but how vulnerable people are and how well prepared. Therefore, depending on which type of weather event we are looking at and where in the world we are, we always find that the more unequal the society is, be that a US city or a state in western Africa, the more severe the consequences.
The relationship between the extraction of fossil fuels and colonialism and racism seems clear, but can you explain how sexism intersects with global heating?
In all the studies we have done, we have found that the more patriarchal the structures in a society, the worse the consequences of climate change are. If women are excluded from decision-making and don’t have access to finance, many more people die and lose their livelihoods in extreme weather.
Why do you find the term natural disaster misleading?
There are natural hazards, although because of climate change, they’re also becoming quite unnatural in some instances. But whether it turns into a disaster has very little to do with nature and a lot to do with social vulnerability.
Is the Cop [UN climate summit] process fit for purpose? It seems to be more about maintaining the status quo.
It is definitely not fit for purpose because it’s not achieving what we need: faster change and change that would really benefit the majority of the people and not just the very few. But it’s not the fault of the Cop process. It has actually achieved quite a lot because if we hadn’t had this conversation, we would be on track to a four- or five-degree [warmer] world. We are now on track to a three-degree world, which is still a world we absolutely do not want to live in. But it is thanks to the Cop process that we talk about climate change on an international global level. The Paris agreement states that we care about climate change because it violates human rights and we want to do something about it. That is a major achievement. What we have to do now is not to say: “Oh it’s all shit, let’s abandon it all.” But how can we make these institutions stronger because they can serve us well and we need them.
