Catching the attention of the world

Beck, Ulrich. 2010. “Climate for Change, or How to Create a Green Modernity?” Theory, Culture, & Society, 27 (2): 254-266.

In this essay, Ulrich Beck presents a series of arguments to underscore his concerns about global climate change. He’s baffled by the lack of urgency on the matter. He recommends building support among everyday people, moving the conversations from the rick to the poor, so they will see things differently and create a political undercurrent that will motivate leaders to take real action. Beck uses Max Weber’s saying, “Until the last ton of fossil fuel has burnt to ashes,” as a metaphor. Weber views industrial capitalism as having an insatiable hunger for natural resources. It undermines its own its own needs by depleting what it needs to survive (255-256).

Beck claims that there is a “new sociology of social inequality.” It equates social with national inequality. It can no longer suppose that national and international areas will remain distinct. But for Beck, there is no official rhetoric of the interrelationships among global populations. However, there is a sharpening of what we see in everyday life, a momentum that can be used to address the social inequalities of climate change (257-258).

Another important point Beck makes is that climate risks are not equal to climate catastrophes. Climate catastrophes are seen as natural disasters out of our control, but climate risks create anticipations of future disasters, and motivate us to prevent them. When the world public finally discovers that their nation-state system is being undermined global climate change risks, a more cosmopolitan vision will emerge. It will enable people to see themselves as part of an endangered world and as part of their local histories and the need for survival (259).

As the Western news media becomes more concerned with global climate change, they will flex their infotainment expertise by heightening the drama of climate change news stories, claims Beck. It will give people a climate change focus, spurring further discourse and calls to action. This will lead to new ways of consumption that will turn things around (262-263).

Of course, Becks essay is entirely subjective, but he makes his case well. His ideas, while a stretch at time, are not entirely undoable. But who is he speaking to? Aren’t the readers of his essay the elite who has been squandering time as the problems worsen? If he truly desires change, perhaps he should reframe his message for more accessible outlets that will reach a broader audience.