The aff’s narrative of climate change fails to account for historical narratives and thus justifies a privileged epistemology which does material harm to marginalized populations

Narratives of climate change that have varied across time and space continue to affect understandings of present-day climate change. Scholars, however, are just beginning to uncover the diversity of these narratives, not to mention their implications for social relations and power dynamics. As Mike Hulme explains convincingly, climate science alone is not enough to explain either how we think about climate or why global warming has led to such rancorous debates in recent decades.4 Climate is an idea as much as it is measurable, quantifiable weather patterns. And these perceptions of climate have changed considerably over time, for distinct peoples, and in different places around the globe. There are even narratives of denial that can block climate change adaptation.180 As such, it is necessary to approach climate, as Hulme does, by scrutinizing diverse meanings of science, economics, values, and international politics when trying to pinpoint people’s perceptions of climate change. One of the most prolific narratives is that of global warming crisis, which parallels the declensionist narrative embedded in modern environmentalism. Climate narratives—and indeed much climate history scholarship—perpetuates the environmentalist tale of tragedy, natural resource depletion, and catastrophic collapse that has long been at the heart of the environmental movement.181 Moreover, the dominant view among both environmentalists and those striving to mitigate global warming today is that climate change has resulted from the capitalist economy and the industrialized nations that have been ruining the earth and depleting its natural resources through unregulated, irresponsible pollution. Many in the global warming community use this narrative implicitly or explicitly in their efforts to curb emissions by regulating industry and slowing capitalist consumption. Recent research is increasingly challenging this narrative because of its inherent power dimensions that can further socio-economic and political inequality. Diana Liverman challenges what she identifies as three dominant global warming narratives: the crisis narrative, the differentiated responsibility narrative, and the market solutions narrative. These narratives serve some people more than others, they have directed too much attention to international treaties and north–south disagreements, and they also promote neoliberalism and other market-based solutions rather than offering distinct solutions outside past practices.10 For example, historical narratives of vanishing glaciers—a common motif of climate change stories—often serve particular groups such as scientists, conservationists, and tourists rather than local residents or marginalized populations.182 And in some cases, the way this narrative of melting glaciers creates a vision of glaciers as vanishing water towers—as has been done in mountain ranges worldwide—can empower certain groups like hydroelectric companies and large-scale irrigators (and thus disempower local residents), even though glacier retreat has serious hydrologic consequences for all these social groups.1 But in other cases, local residents in Peru, for instance, have mobilized the global narrative of climate crisis and melting glaciers to fight for their rights to water against a multinational energy corporation and the effects of neoliberal privatization. Although these local Peruvians used collective action to seize control of a large reservoir from Duke Energy, they gained international attention and support in part because they broadcast a (correct) story of vulnerable populations struggling to maintain water supplies below disappearing glaciers.183 Historical scholarship on climate can play a unique and important role here in uncovering this diversity of meanings, narratives, impacts, and responses to climate change. It is the job of historians not only to uncover these histories in the first place, but also to help push their conclusions into broader discussions about climate change today.