Here's a long-term perspective on climate change and its influence on human societies. Consider the fate of the Norse settlement of Greenland, established using European farming systems during the relatively warm period that preceded the Little Ice Age, and that of the neighbouring Inuit, who adapted well to an icy environment.
The Norse settlements on this rather marginal land, really only suited to pastoral farming, fishing and some forestry, and named ‘Greenland’ in a rather optimistic form of Viking marketing, nevertheless survived for about 450 years. However, scientific analysis of sediments shows that from the start the land was degraded by deforestation and soil erosion, so that by the time the climate deteriorated, the Norse inhabitants were already struggling and dependent on imports from Iceland and elsewhere in Europe.
By comparison, the Inuit, who had settled another part of the island, coming north from mainland America, had adapted a lifestyle that was independent of farming and forestry, hunted seals and whales, had little need of wood for building or fuel, and had developed revolutionary boats, based on sealskin stretched over whalebone frames. However, it seems that the Norse had little positive interaction with them, did not seem to copy their technologies and generally regarded themselves as superior, describing the Inuit as ‘Skraelings’ or wretches.
The nub of the story is that the Inuit survived the worst privations of the Little Ice Age, while the Norse did not. The detailed descriptions of archaeological excavations of their final settlements make poignant reading. Likely reasons for their failure to adapt and ultimately to survive are described by Jared Diamond in his book Collapse1.
“There were many innovations that might have improved the material conditions of the Norse, such as importing more iron and fewer luxuries….copying from the Inuit or inventing different boats and different hunting techniques. But those innovations could have threatened the power, prestige and narrow interests of the chiefs. In the tightly controlled interdependent society of Norse Greenland, the chiefs were in a position to prevent others from trying out such innovations.
“Thus Norse society’s structure created a conflict between the short-term interests of those in power, and the long-term interests of the society as a whole. Much of what the chiefs and clergy valued proved eventually harmful to the society……..Ultimately, though, the chiefs found themselves without followers. The last right that they obtained for themselves was the privilege of being the last to starve”.
Are we fated to make the same sort of mistake? Certainly some of Diamond’s observations carry echoes for our present times. A key problem is reluctance to make change or move outside our bubbles of perceived normal and rational behaviour. The Norse, after all, had lived in Greenland for 450 years and the ecological decline triggered by their activities may have been too gradual for them to recognise or for everyone to take seriously. The climate change that finished them off would have been well-nigh impossible for them to predict. By comparison, we’re fortunate that science has identified these threats, giving us the opportunity to take action.
Whether we take action in time depends on how we handle recalcitrant problems, such as the interests of elites (politicians, fossil fuel lobby, etc.) being different from those of the main population; short termism; fossilised planning rules and the slow speed of decision-making in democracies. We need courage and determination to challenge all of these.
After all, supposed 'hair shirts' are usually not as bad as imagined and climate campaigning can also bring its own rewards. Greta Thunberg has recently revealed how her climate actions have revolutionised the quality of her personal life. '“I know lots of people who have been depressed, and then they have joined the climate movement or Fridays for Future and have found a purpose in life and found friendship and a community that they are welcome in.” So the best thing that has come out of your activism has been friendship? “Yes,” she says. And now there is no mistaking her smile. “Definitely. I am very happy now.”'
Similarly motivated, many MCA members have come out of retirement and plans for an easier life because we care about the futures of our children and grandchildren and those of others. We may be angry about inaction and lies and frustrated about repeated failures from politicians to live up to their promises but we are NOT unhappy.
Like Greta, we find that willingness to accept change and positive action along with like-minded people bring an unexpected contentment and hope. That’s why we’re still smiling, even in the middle of a climate crisis. Maybe deep down we believe that when it comes to the crunch, people will ultimately rise to the occasion and take action. We hope not to be proved wrong and that it happens sooner rather than later.
For expert insight on what to expect at COP 26, here’s the pre-COP episode of the podcast Outrage & Optimism. It ends with a clip from the children of Craigmillar in Edinburgh, with their positive imaginings about futures in the face of climate change. For a shortcut to by-pass the grown-ups, go to our Youth Engagement section.
1. Diamond, J. (2011). Collapse. Penguin Books.