What if global warming were a 120-metre alien monster | Climate & Clean Energy | David Suzuki Foundation
Photo: What if global warming were a 120-metre alien monster

By Tyler Bryant, Energy Policy Analyst

I recently watched the summer schlock action movie Pacific Rim. It got me thinking more and more about climate change. That won't be a shock to people who know me, as my working life is dominated by climate change issues and anything that reminds me of work reminds me of climate. But, days after seeing the movie I still couldn't shake what the movie highlighted as an important lesson in understanding our failure to act.

To summarize the film's paper-thin plot: giant monsters show up on Earth through an interdimensional rift below the Pacific Ocean. They then descend on a coastal city and raze it. Humanity, recognizing this widespread existential threat, builds giant robots that are able to punch the monsters repeatedly until they die. As the movie goes on, the monsters increase in size and frequency, making the battle harder and increasingly resource-intensive. Humanity decides to build a huge monster wall, which predictably fails. Finally, human-piloted robots must punch their way to the rift to destroy it once and for all.

Sign up for our newsletter

It's easy to view a story about people in coastal cities destroying monsters that come in more frequent and intense bursts as an allegory for climate-induced catastrophes. It's only a small variation on previous monster movies that played on the fear of nuclear devastation after the Second World War. And it's no accident that Godzilla's favourite stomping ground was Japan, where the national psyche included a feeling that city-destroying danger lurks beneath the abyss of geopolitical uncertainty.

Godzilla and the monsters of Pacific Rim are malevolent beings, different from us and separate from our world, just as the silhouettes of American bombers over Tokyo were perceived by the Japanese. The threat is an outside force with motives and visions different from our own. The connection between a giant monster and a flattened city was unmistakable. Contrast this to the climate problem. There is no clear "other" to define the threat for us. The other is us; we're the threat and that makes us reluctant to admit responsibility. Our own motives and aspirations for our future cause the problem. This isn't some imposition of an alien future that we're resisting. The techno-industrial society that most want to expand and deepen is supported by fossil fuel use and its subsequent climate impact.

In the movie, humanity responds with what I would argue is a fairly plausible course of action. Humans adopt a coordinated international effort and put significant resources into combating the threat. Humanity initially responds with technology and becomes beleaguered as the fight wears on but eventually recognizes the need to get to the root of the problem and address it. In the real world, the absence of a clear enemy means human efforts to coordinate responses to climate change have been woefully inadequate. Instead of circling the wagons we bicker over who is responsible and who has to pay. Although we have the technology to "fight" climate change, we don't commit nearly the amount of resources needed to address the problem, unlike building expensive fighting robots. At best, our efforts are the same as those in Pacific Rim: building ineffective walls to keep the danger at bay.

So what does this say about our future abilities to address climate change? Fighting one's self is less a boxing match than a therapy session. It's usually focused on the long game of working out one's problems slowly and methodically. Addressing these issues is also usually nonlinear; we make some progress and then take steps back. We're increasing self-awareness no matter how uncomfortable and telling that may be. Through this process we emerge better. But it's not a destination; it's a continuous journey. Only a strong commitment to recognizing the problem will lead to the actions required. This makes the fundamental solutions to addressing climate not technical or economic but psychological.

With the mostly dire predictions about the type of world that a rapidly warming climate presents to our civilization, is there anyone who doesn't wish global warming was a giant alien monster?

August 21, 2013
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/blogs/climate-blog/2013/08/what-if-global-warming-were-a-120-metre-alien-monster/

Read more

Post a comment


4 Comments

Nov 21, 2013
4:18 PM

The continuous use of fossil fuels suits and benefits no one but the privileged few. WE HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY! USE IT! We risk being left behind, sustaining the only planet in our galaxy that can sustain life. HOW SELFISH! Action must be taken to reduce pollution and to further research into alternative fuel sources that are more sustainable- they are within our grasp! Maybe the 1% will not benefit financially, but humanity and Terra will benefit exponentially! What a concept! LET’S SEE HOW FAR WE CAN GO!

Sep 08, 2013
6:40 PM

It is bizzare that people ignore pollution that happen on the sky because of the use of fossil fuel at stratosphere. It have very high impact on climate and weather but it is very very suspicious that no green organization take notice nor government.

Aug 23, 2013
6:14 AM

Coordinated global effort is the key. The IPCC is a start but not everyone belongs (Canada). There are countries that have made remarkable progress within their boundaries. We have the ‘know how’, no need to re-invent the wheel

Aug 22, 2013
6:34 AM

This brings to mind the story of David and Goliath. This monster is largely parasitic in nature. We don’t have to do battle with it so much as deny it food (our money). It will succumb if we all just find the ways, we as individuals can get away with less fossil fuel. It will take millions of individual efforts to slay this beast.

The David Suzuki Foundation does not necessarily endorse the comments or views posted within this forum. All contributors acknowledge DSF's right to refuse publication of comments deemed to be offensive or that contravene our operating principles as a charitable organization. Please note that all comments are pre-moderated. Privacy Policy »