Science fiction author Kim Stanley Robinson speaks about climate change in Graham Chapel. (Eran Fann | Photo Editor)

Science fiction writer Kim Stanley Robinson spoke about death, climate change, and its political and economic dimensions in Graham Chapel on April 17 as part of the Global Studies Speaker Series. This talk comes following what Robinson called “attacks on human health” and a “destruction of science” imposed by the Trump administration.

Robinson opened his talk with a cold shower for the audience, reminding them that they were all going to die and that reality cannot be ignored. However, the recent “attacks on human health” will bring this reality to fruition unnaturally soon, according to Robinson.

“The NIH budget just got slashed by 10 billion dollars,” Robinson said. “Ten billion dollars of medical research adds about one month to the average life expectancy of everybody … If every one of those 8 billion people loses a month, that turns out to be 667 million years of human consciousness erased from the future by the actions of fools.”

Robinson, who participated in the Vietnam War protests when he was young, urged young people today to take action against the nation’s “destruction of science,” and frequently criticized the Trump administration, saying that they were “even incompetent at being bullies.”

“I think we need about 5 million people in the National Mall of D.C.,” Robinson said. “5 million people saying we’re here to defend science, defend women’s rights, and so on. It scares governments to have their population filling the streets. Even though the next day nothing in particular has changed, it’s still something that can be done to create solidarity.”

Senior and audience member Lawrence Hapeman was struck by the start of Robinson’s speech, saying that it set a nice tone for the conversation.

“I think it’s really powerful to start any talk by reminding the entire audience that they’re going to die one day,” Hapeman told Student Life. “It makes sure people are appreciating the intensity of these issues, but also are not necessarily paralyzed by that.”

Later in his talk, Robinson transitioned to a broader discussion on climate change, assessing both the severity of the situation and the possibility for change. He pushed back against fatalistic thinking, holding that there will never be a moment where the fight is definitely lost—only opportunities to make things better or worse.

“Getting to Net Zero by 2050 is by no means impossible,” Robinson said. “Every tenth of a degree matters, every ton of CO2 we put into the atmosphere matters … if we don’t stop emissions, none of the [carbon] drawdown methods are adequate, and we’ll still be in trouble.”

Robinson described various methods of slowing the effects of climate change, among them carbon capture, reforestation, solar radiation management, and more. However, he emphasized the importance of ocean level management in particular, saying that it was a rare action humans could undertake that would have a planetary-level effect.

“If we [don’t] stabilize ice sheets in Antarctica and make sure they don’t slide into the sea, [the sea level] could rise in a catastrophic way such that coastal civilizations could be wrecked, and that could be enough to put the kibosh on civilization itself,” Robinson said. 

However, going green is neither economically nor politically trivial, as many countries, those that Robinson termed “petro-states,” rely on fossil fuel assets for a large portion of their economy.

Robinson warned that petro-states face the threat of economic collapse if their income from fossil fuels disappears — an outcome that could lead to widespread societal instability. He emphasized that the world cannot afford for a quarter of its population to be living in failed states.

Despite this risk, many of these nations have committed to the Paris Agreement, embracing climate goals that may ultimately undermine their own economic foundations. Robinson finds this dilemma deeply troubling, referring to it as the “Paris Petro-State Paradox.” He expressed concern that the issue has received far too little global attention.

He estimated that the cost of keeping fossil fuels in the ground for these countries would total around $1,600 trillion, a figure that vastly exceeds the world’s annual GDP. To address this, Robinson proposed that this money be amortized to petro-states over a century, and that the countries would thus join a Fossil Fuel Non-proliferation Treaty. However, Robsinon said petro-states have not been offered monetary compensation in the past for making such commitments.

“Colombia is ready, they signed the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty, and they’re the fifth biggest oil producer [in Latin America],” Robinson said. “They needed immediate compensation to reward them for this virtuous action. They got nothing. We are stupid, as a global civilization, not to have figured this out and acted upon it already [so that other petro-states would see this].”

St. Louis resident Yoni Blumberg was impressed by Robinson’s unique way of envisioning these politics.

“I appreciate how creative and visionary he is in the way he blends research visionary imagination in terms of what’s possible for restructuring global finance,” Blumberg said. “That’s one of his most unique contributions to this kind of shared conversation.”

Robinson also outlined several economic methods for raising funds to reduce emissions in his talk, such as a tax on high frequency trading. He highlighted the importance of using this money to avoid potentially irreversible consequences.

“If a little bit of [the world gross product] was shunted into green projects as the starters, we could decarbonize our society and go about our business, we could dodge a mass extinction event, which is really the thing we cannot undo or unwind,” Robinson said.

Robinson criticized strategies which focus too much on imagining new, uninvented technologies as a solution, specifically highlighting the “Silicon Valley joke” of de-extinction, a science Robinson says we just don’t have yet. Instead, he focused on practical improvements, such as ways to raise funds for fighting climate change.

“There are things that we can’t do, and things that we can do,” Robinson said. “Focus on what we can do. What can we do? We can have lectures, we can pass laws which include progressive taxation. The tax rate in 1953 was when you made more than $400,000, you paid 93% of that in tax.”

Robinson said government intervention and spending can help, but warned that if we fall into a runaway greenhouse effect, it would be too late to spend the money. Robinson recognized American capitalism as the current reality, so he focused on improvements within that system.

 “If you can get to a world that is a social democracy, you’re already doing really really well compared to now,” Robinson said. “It’s by no means perfect. But, if the whole world was running like Denmark, we would be in much better shape.”

Throughout the talk Robinson emphasized the importance of acknowledging reality, and so his advice at the end was similarly practical. Despite climate change’s severity, he stated that it gave the current generations’ lives an explicit meaning, and that “any meaning was better than no meaning.” 

Junior Matthew Pottinger was reassured by Robinson’s philosophy. According to Pottinger, he was conflicted between his interest in teaching and researching evolution, and his desire to contribute to humanity and our planet. 

“Talks like this raise the question I’ve been dealing with for a long time: Is this the most responsible use of my life?” Pottinger asked. “Do I owe myself and my planet to spend my time on something other than knowledge for the sake of knowledge? Hearing him talk about how you can contribute to finding climate change in any field you enter is interesting, refreshing, and valuable.”

Robinson concluded his talk by urging the audience to take action, and reassuring them that such action was possible, no matter the field.

“Whatever you’re interested in doing, wherever you feel your talent lies … all across the spread of disciplines in the university system, all jobs are going to have a good climate change aspect,” Robinson said. “Anything you’re interested in could be good for working on climate change … don’t be depressed, don’t fall into that. Be angry, not pessimistic.