The Climate We’re Not Measuring: Why Social Temperature May Matter More Than Global Warming

In an era obsessed with tracking carbon emissions and rising sea levels, a British journalist suggests we’re missing the most dangerous metric of all: the escalating degrees of societal hatred.

Reframing the Crisis Narrative

Jonathan Sacerdoti’s recent interview with Visegrád24 presents a provocative challenge to conventional wisdom about existential threats. While governments pour billions into climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies, Sacerdoti argues that the real emergency is unfolding not in our atmosphere, but in our public squares, social media feeds, and political chambers. His metaphor is deliberate and striking: just as we measure global temperature rises in fractions of degrees, perhaps we should be equally vigilant about the “temperature of hatred” in our societies.

This perspective arrives at a moment when Western democracies are grappling with unprecedented polarization. From the January 6th Capitol riots to the rise of extremist parties across Europe, from online harassment campaigns to real-world violence against minorities, the evidence of a deteriorating social climate is mounting. The UK, Sacerdoti’s home country, has witnessed its own share of this phenomenon, with Brexit divisions morphing into broader cultural battles and hate crimes reaching record levels in recent years.

The Data Behind the Rhetoric

While Sacerdoti’s interview doesn’t cite specific statistics, the broader context supports his concerns. Recent polling shows that majorities in most Western nations believe their countries are more divided than ever before. In the United States, a 2023 Pew Research study found that 65% of Americans feel exhausted by politics, while similar sentiments echo across Europe. More troubling, incidents of political violence have increased markedly, with threats against public officials becoming normalized in ways that would have been unthinkable a generation ago.

The economic costs of this social discord are rarely calculated but potentially enormous. Businesses increasingly find themselves navigating political minefields, educational institutions struggle with campus tensions, and productivity suffers as workplaces become battlegrounds for ideological conflicts. If we applied the same economic modeling to social cohesion that we do to climate change, the projections might prove equally alarming.

Policy Implications and the Path Forward

Sacerdoti’s framing raises uncomfortable questions for policymakers who have built entire platforms around environmental concerns. If social hatred truly poses a more immediate threat than climate change, should resources be redirected? Should we have “hatred reduction targets” alongside carbon reduction goals? The challenge is that while we have developed sophisticated tools for measuring atmospheric changes, quantifying and addressing social animosity remains frustratingly subjective.

Some European nations have experimented with “social cohesion” ministries and mandatory civic education programs, but results remain mixed. The digital realm presents particular challenges, as algorithms designed for engagement often amplify the very divisiveness Sacerdoti warns against. Tech regulation, education reform, and media literacy initiatives all become potential tools in this fight, but none offer the clear metrics and targets that make climate policy (relatively) straightforward.

The Deeper Question

Perhaps the most profound implication of Sacerdoti’s argument is that it forces us to reconsider how we prioritize threats. Climate change operates on geological timescales, even as its effects accelerate. Social breakdown, by contrast, can destroy a civilization in a single generation. The fall of the Weimar Republic, the Rwandan genocide, and the Yugoslav wars all demonstrate how quickly the social fabric can unravel when hatred reaches a boiling point.

Yet there’s also danger in Sacerdoti’s metaphor. By framing social discord in climatic terms, do we risk treating it as an inevitable, impersonal force rather than a human choice? Unlike atmospheric carbon, every act of hatred or bridge-building is a decision made by individuals. The question becomes whether we can maintain that sense of agency while recognizing the systemic nature of the problem.

As we enter another year of elections, technological disruption, and social upheaval, Sacerdoti’s warning deserves serious consideration. If we’re truly facing two simultaneous crises—one environmental, one social—which threatens to reach the point of no return first, and what would a genuinely sustainable society look like if we addressed both with equal urgency?