In her 2009 book, co-authored with husband Andrew Farley, Climate for Change: Global Warming Facts for Faith-Based Decisions, Katharine Hayhoe wrote: “Most Christians are not scientists, and it’s hard to say how many scientists are Christians. In our family, we are both.” The Texas Tech atmospheric physicist, who’s also an Evangelical Christian, has long been one of the most vocal evangelists for the environment. Hayhoe has been featured in the James Cameron-produced TV series Years of Living Dangerously and once nominated as one of the most influential people in the world by TIME. She talks to WIRED about president Trump, clean energy, and, of course, climate change.

Katharine Hayhoe on anti-science sentiment

Most people don’t reject science wholesale because they actually have a problem with the science. The same equations of radiative transfer and non-linear fluid dynamics that explain how our stoves work or how airplanes fly provide the basis of our climate models, too. Rather, people selectively reject a specific set of scientific findings: those they perceive to be a threat to their ideology or worldview, and hence to their identity.



How can the reality of climate change be perceived as a threat? First, there’s the pragmatic aspect: six out of ten of the wealthiest corporations in the world either extract oil or create the cars that use them. And there’s no getting around it – to fix the climate, we have to wean ourselves off fossil fuels as quickly as we can. These companies have a significant financial stake in muddying the waters on the science and delaying action on climate as long as possible; because every year that carbon emissions continue, they make an additional profit. Climate change solutions threaten their bottom line.



Profiteering is only one part of the picture, though. Climate change is, at its root, a tragedy of the commons. We can only fix it by working together, and working together typically implies government legislation. For many people in the United States, where the concept of personal liberty has been virtually deified, any implied interference of the government in their lives is anathema. As one man put it honestly, after a talk I gave to water managers in south Texas about preparing for a changing climate: “Everything you’ve said makes sense; but I don’t want the government setting my thermostat.” People believe climate change solutions threaten who we are, and how we live.



The true threat, however, is the delusion that our opinion of science somehow alters its reality. If we say we don’t believe in gravity and we step off the cliff, we’re still going down. Sea level will rise regardless of any legislation we may pass, and the climate is changing no matter how many politicians say it isn’t. The window of time to prevent widespread dangerous human interference with the climate system is closing fast. Rejecting this reality puts us all at risk.

On the responsibility of scientists

Climate scientists are like the physicians of the planet. Our planet is running a fever and we’ve run the tests, analyzed the data, and drawn the conclusions. Humans are responsible; the impacts are serious and even dangerous; and the time to act is now. And just like physicians, I believe we have a moral responsibility to inform everyone affected by this – which includes all seven and a half billion of us on this planet – of the risks we face.



Now, more than ever, we need evidence-based decision making to ensure we safely negotiate the challenges posed by hunger and disease, political instability, social inequality, and many other issues that are being exacerbated by a changing climate.


On the March for Science

Some argue that scientists should not support the March for Science because it politicises science. To those, I would say: “I deplore the politicisation of science and I avoid the perception of being political as much as possible; but at this point there is nothing we can do to prevent it. That ship has sailed.” Politicians have politicised the science, and given us no choice in the matter. Our only choice at this point is to accept their false framing, or to fight against it.



On what she would say to Donald Trump

As scientists, we often operate under the knowledge deficit model – the idea that, if someone is saying something that is incorrect, all we need to do is explain the science to them, and they will change their minds.



My most frequently recommended Global Weirding episode tackles this myth: “If I just explain the facts, they’ll get it, right?” And the answer is, no. When it comes to politically polarised topics like climate change, that model completely falls apart. Arguing facts and data with people who disagree is far more likely to backfire, further entrenching their objections.



Why? Because such polarised topics have been internalised. They are not a matter of what people know in their heads, but rather who they believe themselves to be in their hearts. So arguing facts and data is not perceived to be an intellectual exercise, as we scientists perceive it, but rather a direct attack on their identity and their value as a person.



That’s why, if I were asked to speak to the president about climate change, I wouldn’t show up with my scientific reports, my charts, and my data. I would simply say, “How do you want to go down in history – as Nero, who fiddled while Rome burned, or as the hero who saved the world? You stand at a pivotal point in human history, where you have the chance to be either one.”

On the risk of artificial intelligence

While I recognize the challenges and the potential threats associated with AI, the reality is that if we don’t fix this climate challenge, we won’t have an AI problem to worry about. Unchecked, climate change will lead to famines and droughts, sea level rise and storms, heat waves and floods that will devastate our economy, our food and water resources, our health and even our political stability. We care about a changing climate because it threatens the foundations of our civilization, a civilization that grants us the luxuries of technological development.



On the power of Facebook and Google

Social media corporations such as Facebook facilitate and even enable the tribalism and cultural polarisation that lie at the root of so many of our problems today.



On the next big scientific breakthrough

In the area of clean energy, the next frontier is low-cost, high volume production, transmission, and storage. The cost of solar energy is already breaking records in developing countries and emerging economies, from Peru to India. Wind energy is spreading across the fossil fuel bastions of China and Texas. Teens are winning science prizes for turning algae into biofuel with experiments they conduct under their beds and in their garages. The biggest need right now is not how to generate the energy at an affordable cost, but rather how to provide it when and where people need it.



This type of research isn’t ‘cool’; people’s eyes tend to glaze over when you start talking chemicals, recycled cooking oils, or even urine. But this is what’s needed to truly break the fossil fuel stranglehold on energy sources for electricity generation, industry, and transportation.