The Great Derangement: Climate Change and the Unthinkable

Ghosh argues that despite the politicization of art communities and populations globally, climate activism has not developed into a fully-fledged movement. He notes that throughout Asia, political energy has been redirected away from the climate crisis toward issues of identity, such as caste equality, gender rights, and sexuality. Returning to the Updike passage he discussed in Part 1, Ghosh argues that modern politics, like literature, focuses on an individual’s interior journey, driven by conscience, rather than on collective interests. In other words, modern politics is driven by a desire for a perfect democracy, which is seen as an abstract ideal rather than a concrete, achievable concept. As a result, a politics of climate change—which requires concrete solutions in the present—cannot exist.

Ghosh describes modern politics as a series of spectacles, such as the fall of the Berlin Wall and 9/11, that eliminate the possibility of meaningful dialogue. He notes that because the means of production are increasingly beyond the reach of the public, political protests and activism have little effect in the modern world. As a result, he suggests that the West is a “post-political” region. He points to the ascendancy of populist politicians like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump as evidence of a public desire to take back control.

Ghosh challenges popular activism that frames the climate crisis as a moral issue, arguing that because the problem is global, solutions must also be global. He argues that this framework is problematic for three reasons. First, it produces a politics of sincerity in which individuals must publicly demonstrate their commitment to ideals, exposing even the most well-meaning activist to accusations of hypocrisy. He notes that the global scale of climate change means individual action can make little difference overall. Second, morality is relative, meaning that not everyone will agree on how an individual should behave in times of crisis. Ghosh points to various individualist philosophical traditions in the United States as evidence of this moral flexibility. Finally, Ghosh notes that the example of Mahatma Gandhi shows that even extreme individual sacrifice can’t stop the climate crisis. Despite Gandhi’s personal asceticism and sacrifice, India was industrialized, with significant effects on the climate. Ghosh notes that the climate crisis may cause society to reevaluate its notions of virtue and responsibility.

Ghosh argues that the Anglosphere—that is, the diffuse geopolitical zone in which English is the dominant language—has an important role in the climate crisis. He suggests that the Anglosphere, and especially the United States, is characterized by conservative, laissez-faire politics, in which individuals make economic choices with minimal government interference. Ghosh connects these politics with climate change denialism, which also frequently insists that the government should not interfere with personal decisions. Ironically, the Anglosphere has also produced the bulk of modern climate science. Ghosh notes that the tension between science and denialism defines climate change activism in the Anglosphere. He argues that this tension is exacerbated by the outside intervention of corporations and “energy billionaires” seeking to create confusion among the public (137).

Despite this public debate, the governments and militaries of the United States and Britain have demonstrated a firm belief in the threats posed by the climate crisis. He quotes several military experts, politicians, and government officials to demonstrate the extent of the government’s commitment to understanding the climate crisis. He notes that this climate research also includes the surveillance of climate activists.

Ghosh acknowledges that most citizens might not expect their government to conceal knowledge of an existential threat from the public. However, he notes that governments have not always acted in the best interests of the public when the alternative benefits a select few. He argues that, on the other hand, it would be inconceivable for these governments to ignore the climate crisis, which is both a foreign and a domestic crisis. Because many of the world’s most powerful nations have fossil-fuel economies, the challenges of the climate crisis have the potential to drastically reorder global power and economic structures. Universal emission caps, for example, would be devastating for the United States. Ghosh argues that for powerful, carbon-emitting nations like the United States, the maintenance of the status quo is the best outcome and that this explains government reluctance to publicly address the climate crisis.

The chapter ends with a warning about the future of governance in the climate crisis. Ghosh speculates that in order to maintain security in an increasingly unstable world, the Western world will militarize borders against climate refugees. The problem is that the challenges of the climate crisis are not constrained by borders.

Ghosh argues that millions of climate refugees from Asia and Africa will die as a result of these anti-immigration policies. He notes that colonial governments in Britain and America have historically valued economic prosperity over human life, and that pattern may reappear. He notes that conversations about population and the environment can often include discussions of population “correction” in countries like India and China.

Ghosh suggests that, as a result of these attitudes, Western countries are unlikely to accept proposals for fair solutions to the climate crisis, which might require the United States to cut emissions by 90%. The modern world has been shaped by imperialism and the disparities it causes, and maintaining the financial and political status quo will exacerbate those disparities. He concludes that even if capitalism were to end suddenly, the policies of imperialism would still impede meaningful action against climate change.

Ghosh contrasts these policies with a strategy he sees in India: “the politics of attrition” (146). He explains that these strategies assume that the poor nations of the global south are better equipped to absorb the shocks and stresses of the climate crisis than their Western counterparts. Food production in Western countries, for example, requires more energy than in other parts of the world, making food supplies more vulnerable to dwindling energy supplies. Developing nations are more familiar with power outages than their Western counterparts and so may be better prepared for the instability that can follow these types of environmental crises. He notes that the elites of developing nations would be relatively protected from climate crisis and might be willing to agree to terms that would ask their poorest citizens to make dramatic sacrifices. Ghosh argues that it would be unethical to expect disempowered people in developing nations to sacrifice in order to maintain the status quo in the Western world.

Ghosh notes that 2015 was a year of historic climate events. Appropriately, that year saw the release of two important documents related to the climate crisis: the Paris Climate Agreement, an international treaty on climate change, and Pope Francis’s Laudato Si, an essay on Christian responsibility in the climate crisis. Ghosh notes that both documents sought not only to describe the state of the world but also to materially change it and that each marks an emerging global consensus that the climate crisis is a serious problem.

At first, the Paris Agreement appears to be a celebration of the collaborative process that brought it into being: The profusion of verbs like “acknowledging,” “agreeing,” and “recognizing” in the text points to a spirit of research and collaboration. On closer inspection, however, the text of the Paris Agreement obscures the causes of the climate crisis and delays concrete justice for an additional five years after ratification. Ghosh’s close reading of Laudato Si’ suggests that the text’s simplicity is designed to make it accessible to the people who have been excluded from formal climate negotiations. He notes that the text insists on the connection between social and ecological justice and names causes of the climate crisis. Laudato Si’ ends with a prayer reminding readers of the connection between humanity and nature. Ghosh connects this prayer to his earlier arguments about the irresponsibility of art and literature that depicts humanity as limitless.

Ghosh notes that, although the conversation about climate change is bleak, the increasing presence of religious groups in climate activism is cause for celebration. He points to Pope Francis and other leaders as evidence of this activism. Because they have the infrastructure to mobilize large, diverse groups across nations, Ghosh hopes that religious groups may provide momentum for the movement. He suggests that religion’s focus on intergenerational responsibility and nonlinear change also makes religious groups well suited to climate activism. Ghosh ends the book by sharing hope for a future in which a new generation of global citizens will face the challenges presented by climate change, transcend the great derangement, and rediscover their connection with the nonhuman. He hopes that these changes will be reflected in a new generation of art and literature.