Abstract

Hope is a disputed concept in the context of the climate movement. Basic analysis suggests that hope is important for political action – however, groups including XR have explicitly disavowed hope, and the facts of the crisis might more readily incline us to despair. Some authors, for instance Diana Stuart, have attempted to resolve this contradiction by arguing that ‘anti-hope’ climate activists are only rejecting forms of ‘false hope’, and that we should instead see their action as being motivated by other forms of hope: one oft-mentioned candidate is the ‘radical hope’ discussed by Jonathan Lear. In this paper, I aim to do two things. Firstly, I show that we should not understand climate hope as ‘radical hope’, but rather as what I call ‘spontaneous hope’ – drawing on Jonathan Gingerich's work on ‘spontaneous freedom’. Secondly, I show that there is a relationship between spontaneous hope and the feeling of (righteous) anger. This in turn can help explain empirical work which establishes a link between climate activism and anger.