This is the first in a five-part series (parts
two,
three,
four,
five) that addresses a topic close to my heart: the importance of bad news and the strategic mistake of attempting to focus purely on the
"bright side" of the cultural and infrastructural changes demanded by ecological crises. While frequently pointing out
the kinds of steps involved in a healthy response is important, as is reflecting on the opportunities to embrace
a better life afforded by our dire situation, nonetheless, unless we honestly face up to how serious and well-developed the threats we're moving into are, then any positive response is likely to remain shallow, ever tempted by tokenism and distracting gestures, and ineffectively tardy, since the worst that can happen if we delay is that we reach our
bright green paradise a little more slowly.
My own PhD work on ecological fears in Christian ethics argues along similar lines. Facing the truth of our predicament requires us to experience and process certain emotions - including fear, grief, guilt and the disappointment or despair associated with dispelling certain false hopes. Unless we can locate these experiences in productive and meaningful ways (and I argue that the Christian gospel offers a compelling narrative at this point) we'll remain stuck in paralysing modes of thought: denial, distraction, desperation and despair.