No one receives more scorn from believers than a heretic.
Lucy Biggers is one such case.
Initially rising to prominence as a self-styled activist, Lucy was once a feverish voice in the fight against climate change. Later, she would reverse her position. In her words, “the common knowledge surrounding climate change isn’t just slightly wrong. It’s that the truth is usually the opposite of what we’re told.”
Today, as well as working as Head of Social Media at Bari Weiss’ The Free Press, Lucy has become a podcasting regular, all while continuing to publish riveting articles here on Substack.
Why did we invite her on?
”When you start to get success and accolades, it’s so hard to leave… It’s a comfortable way to live. Even when I saw the contradictions, I ignored them. I knew that if I went against the group, I wouldn’t be their friend anymore.”
The term ”cult”, like “Nazi” and “bigot”, has been so exhausted, it has no real meaning left. Every religion, cause, or political faction is a ‘cult’ to someone else, and deploying melodramatic language when it’s unwarranted - as we know now - does nothing to help your motives.
Then again, cults do exist, and some ideologies function accordingly. Perhaps none more so than ‘climate change’. Whether or not you agree with the ‘scientific consensus’, there’s no question that its most vocal advocates behave unnaturally, often eschewing rational argument for hysterical, panicked moralising.
But why? What is it about this belief that has such an all-encompassing effect on those who hold it? What’s more, why has it been adopted by nearly every political leader in recent memory?
We’re fascinated by anyone who speaks out against their tribe. Apostates make for compelling stories, and also allow us to get a glimpse into the psyche of those who think differently. Lucy is one such case, and hers pertains to a subject we have found ourselves troubled by for some time. It only made sense to explore it with her.
What did we talk about?
If you want to indoctrinate, start early.
That’s how Lucy’s story begins. Prior to her having any interest in politics at all, climate panic was instilled in her by the education system through the mandatory viewing of a film that terrified so many of her generation. Given how things have turned out, it almost seems quaint now.
”I saw Al Gore’s [climate change documentary] An Inconvenient Truth in school assembly when I was 16. It was my first time hearing anything like that, and I was filled with such existential dread. I thought I had 10 years left to live.”
A former teacher (drink), Francis laments the effect this kind of politicisation has on young people. Rather than teaching them to be open and optimistic about their planet, they’re imbued with a debilitating shame. A guilt for having been born. Is it a stretch to call it 'brainwashing?’
”I go further than that - I call it a crime against humanity. The destruction of human capital that has happened as a result of this propaganda… It’s heartbreaking.”
It might be in recession now, but at its peak - the era in which Lucy found herself at the centre of it - it was a star-making movement. This cause célèbre gave us countless celebrities. Fittingly, the most universally known was, indeed, a child.
Greta Thunberg is a peculiar case study. At the age of 15, Greta became one of the single most recognisable people alive after staging a series of protests outside Swedish parliament, pleading with her nation’s government to act on ‘the science’. Quickly, she was invited to the UN, COP25, and enjoyed a level of fame only few have this side of the millennium. Lucy was privileged to see her work firsthand.
”When I interviewed her, I realised something: this was a very professional operation. She would walk her bike into the room mulitple times, purely so the camera crews could get lots of photos. I only had a few minutes with her, and she was very charismatic and eloquent, but it struck me as weird…”
How come?
”She struggled with anxiety about climate, and her way of dealing with that was to become an activist. If that was my child, I’d be showing them counterfactuals. There’s so much out there to suggest that the ‘climate crisis’ is not existential, and the fact her parents didn’t… It’s a reflection on their values. And we can see that now; she’s very confused. She’s gone full Marxist.”
Should we be shocked? While the climate crisis is allegedly due to kill us all indiscriminately, those who are most feverish about it all fall on one side of the aisle. The right is not without its tree-hugging contingent, but the spread isn’t even close.
It seems counterintuitive. Wouldn’t the more traditionalist wing of politics be the one most committed to protecting the Earth? Shouldn’t the conservatives be the ones conserving?
In theory, yes. In practice, nothing could be further from the truth. To Lucy, while the ideals of environmentalism sound right-of-centre, the approach is wholly Marxist.
”There’s a lot of overlap. Both ideologies have the idea of the ‘intelligent bureaucrat’ - the central planner who knows so much more than the average person, and so they should be in charge of everything. They’re both utopian - you’ll give up anything to get there. Socialism strives for equality, climate activism seeks to save the planet. It’s all control in the name of the ‘greater good’.”
It’s a difficult mode of thinking to abandon. Once you accept the ‘greater good’, how can you bring yourself to challenge it?
How did Lucy escape the groupthink?
What were the facts that led her to reconsider her positions?
”I read [environmental scientist and Obama advisor] Steven E. Koonan’s book Unsettled. The science is exactly that: unsettled. He explained that extreme weather - floods, hurricanes, droughts, etc. - have not gotten worse because of climate change, and my jaw hit the floor. Every time one happens, the news will say it’s because of climate change, but even the UN can’t find a pattern.”
It’s certainly compelling. Still, that’s only one example. Lack of evidence is not the same as opposite confirmation. Besides, what does ‘settled’ even mean? How one-sided does it need to be?
In 2013, a study found that out of over 4,000 peer-reviewed papers on climate science published since 1990, 97% agree, explicitly or implicitly, that global warming is happening and is human-caused. If that’s not ‘settled’, what is?
