In the quest to address climate change, can the stories we share and tell be influential? Are there flaws in the current sustainability objectives? How might narratives help establish enduring foundations for sustainability?

A discussion with a close friend motivated me to delve into these inquiries. He argued that stories serve primarily to entertain, suggesting that science should be our mainstay when confronting climate change. While he was correct about the significance of science, he underestimated the power of storytelling. The books we read, the series we watch, and the podcasts we tune into all contribute to our understanding of climate change. My argument, rooted in a passion for storytelling, prompted me to seek deeper insights, which I now share.

My exploration began with an article titled "Mind the Sustainability Gap" from the journal Trends in Ecology & Evolution, where a group of scientists contend that despite increasing efforts toward sustainable living, climate change and biodiversity loss continue unabated. They question whether the issue lies in the inadequacy of our current approaches or in the goals we have set. The article identifies three crucial elements necessary for sustainability: two short-term and one long-term. The first two are defined as follows:

[First,] objectives related to the Earth’s life-support systems and essential ecosystem services should be derived from a risk framework grounded in biophysical sciences. […] Second, policy instruments must be employed to redirect society’s unsustainable trajectory. Many of these tools are crafted within social sciences and encompass regulations, incentives, and institutional reforms.

These short-term objectives and policies are partially implemented today. The authors note that the Kyoto Protocol, an international treaty addressing global warming established on December 11, 1997, exemplifies a pragmatic compromise that falls short of the measures scientists deem necessary to avert severe climate change consequences. Although these immediate targets are vital, they alone cannot achieve sustainability. The third issue, which is long-term and foundational, reveals a gap we must confront:

Third, a critical examination of foundational and enduring matters (such as values, beliefs, and motivations) is essential to connect short-term policy actions with established long-term sustainability goals. This analysis should draw from the humanities. […] It must reflect on alternative values and institutions and how they can either facilitate or hinder the pursuit of sustainability. A significant societal challenge is to engage in meaningful dialogue to identify core values that are both sustainable and worth sustaining. Thus, the exploration of foundational matters must extend beyond identifying necessary institutional arrangements and confront the ethical and normative dilemmas of contemporary consumer-oriented societies.

While the first two short-term factors are discussed in the context of natural and social sciences, the foundational elements rely on the humanities. The scientists advocate for interdisciplinary research that incorporates the humanities as critical to establishing long-term and foundational strategies.

Historically, the humanities have played a minor role in the sustainability discourse, a result of a long-standing divide between science and the humanities within academia and various programs, legislation, and administration. This division complicates our understanding of the world as a unified entity, primarily because comprehension tools are segregated into two distinct categories. The first category comprises human and social sciences that study humans in relation to one another, while the second involves natural sciences that focus on inanimate objects. Some scholars, like Bruno Latour, a French philosopher and anthropologist, have challenged this separation and its implications. Latour's We Have Never Been Modern prompts us to question whether modernity ever truly existed, suggesting that premodern societies viewed reality through a blend of knowledge about both people and the natural world. In contrast, modernity posits that nature is rationally comprehensible and detached from humanity, while human culture is constructed and lacks direct, empirically validated ties to nature. Latour argues against this modernist perspective, emphasizing the intertwined nature of culture and the environment. This flawed understanding of reality exemplifies the gap between current realities—the mingling of culture and nature—and our investigative tools. He articulates that this intertwined reality consists of "imbroglios of science, politics, economy, law, religion, technology, fiction." This returns us to the issue at hand: while we possess a wealth of scientific data, our actions often fall short. Observations from works like "Mind the Sustainability Gap" and We Have Never Been Modern suggest a need to reevaluate the stark divide between culture and nature and adopt a more integrated approach, thereby rethinking the role of culture (including literature) in the climate change narrative.

In "Writing Science — Fact and Fiction," Bruno Latour and sociologist Françoise Bastide illustrate practical applications of literary criticism methods, rhetoric, and semiotics within scientific literature. They demonstrate how these approaches enhance the structural integrity of scientific texts. Michael H. Whitworth, investigating the connections between literature and science, provides further examples of scientists examining the interplay between these realms:

Early critical work, such as that of Marjorie Hope Nicolson, primarily focused on the impact of science on literature. Subsequent studies, influenced by Thomas Kuhn's paradigm shifts and the work of Mary Hesse and Max Black on metaphor and analogy in science, recognized the potential for a cultural influence on science. This was further supported by the “strong program” in the sociology of scientific knowledge, particularly through the contributions of Barry Barnes and David Bloor, which explored scientific texts for cultural traces and literary texts for scientific elements; this method draws parallels with psychoanalysis.

Both science and literature are actively addressing the urgent environmental crisis. Researchers in the field of econarratology have observed intriguing patterns regarding the relationship between literature and environmental discourse. (Econarratology focuses on the literary and rhetorical techniques of textual analysis, asserting that narratives can profoundly communicate through both nonfiction and fiction. It examines how various forms of narratives engage readers and viewers, potentially influencing their beliefs and actions.) Axel Goodbody and Bradon Smith in Stories of Energy assert:

As vessels for values, political and ethical concepts, and behavioral frameworks, narratives significantly shape our perceptions and interactions with the environment. Readers engage with these values in diverse ways—emotionally and cognitively—and the influence on real-world attitudes and behaviors is complex.

The authors argue that storytelling is an effective means of depicting reality and a mechanism through which we comprehend it. They reference Mike Hulme’s Why We Disagree about Climate Change as a pivotal work that sparked a cultural shift in climate change research during the early twenty-first century. Hulme was among the first climate scientists to recognize that individuals who seem to agree on various scientific premises often disagree on the appropriate responses to climate challenges. He highlights the importance of philosophy, ideology, and the human studies that shape people’s reactions to the scientific data available. Research indicates that narratives convey factual information about our world, and readers often align their perspectives more closely with fictional narratives than with nonfictional ones. Fictional stories appear to be more persuasive, as their impact is rooted in argumentation and evidence.

Stories hold significant value, particularly compelling tales about humanity and nature. They inspire, guide us, and shape our beliefs and values. The true strength of impactful storytelling lies in the emotions they evoke, a sentiment echoed by Jonathan Gottschall in his work The Storytelling Animal: How Stories Make Us Human:

“The emotions of fiction are highly contagious, and so are the ideas.”

Works cited in the article: - Joern Fischer et al., “Mind the Sustainability Gap,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution, vol. 22, no. 12. - Bruno Latour, We Have Never Been Modern. - Bruno Latour and Françoise Bastide, “Writing Science — Fact and Fiction,” in Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology, eds. Michael Callon et al. - Michael H. Whitworth, “Literature and Science,” Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Literature, 28 Sep. 2020. - Axel Goodbody and Bradon Smith, “Stories of Energy: Narrative in the Energy Humanities,” in Resilience: A Journal of the Environmental Humanities 6, no. 2 (2019). - Mike Hulme, Why We Disagree about Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity. - Jonathan Gottschall, The Storytelling Animal: How Stories Make Us Human.