"...climate change seems tailor-made to be a low priority for most people. The threat is distant in both time and space. It is difficult to visualize. And it is difficult to identify a clearly defined enemy."
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
"Having been told that climate science demands that we fundamentally change our way of life, many Americans have, not surprisingly, concluded that the problem is not with their lifestyles but with what they’ve been told about the science."
I think the problem in a nutshell is that modern society, in particular Americans, do not like change. So when someone tells people that change is coming, the response is to ignore it. Case in point: the current economic downturn. How many economic pundits forecast a burst in the housing bubble, or railed against the abuse of credit? Yet did that stop people from obtaining obscene loans for homes they couldn't afford? Of course not.
"Perhaps we should give the American public a little more credit. They may not know climate science very well, but they are not going to be muscled into accepting apocalyptic visions about our planetary future — or embracing calls to radically transform “our way of life” — just because environmentalists or climate scientists tell them they must."
This seems a rather odd statement to me. Americans are quick to hop on the nutrition bandwagon (No eggs! Yes eggs! No red meat! Yes red meat!) and the keeping up with the Joneses bandwagon (you need this new iPod now! Buy this new car now!), so I'm a little reluctant to accept the idea that somehow, they've seen through false science to the core of the matter in this case.
"...it will not stop them from supporting policies to reduce carbon emissions — so long as the costs are reasonable and the benefits, both economic and environmental, are well-defined." This sounds like a case of NIMBY to me. The costs are only reasonable if someone else (rich people) are paying the taxes. The benefits are only well-defined if your personal lifestyle is unchanged.
What I find very ironic about this whole article is that the author claims that environmentalists want radical and unrealistic changes to peoples' lifestyles. And yet, except for a few wackos, most "save the planet" entreaties I read suggest things like taking public transportation, buying a fuel-efficient vehicle, and recycling. Are these really radical lifestyle changes? How many soccer moms really need those SUVs anyway, especially with all the advancements in car safety over the past few decades? We aren't exactly riding around in Model-Ts anymore.
I think part of it is that a lot of people really take issue with the government telling them what to do. They don't want to be told they have to recycle or buy fuel efficient vehicles, and they definitely don't want to have to pay for programs that will encourage people to do these things. However, when the shit hits the fan (for example, water shortages out west), everyone bemoans their fate and says "Why didn't somebody do something?" No one stands up and says, "You know, it's our own dang fault. Maybe we shouldn't have golf courses in the desert".
Very good, thoughtful stuff, Louise.
What do you make of the recent revelations about the warm-mongers cooking the books?
I find that very disappointing, but not altogether surprising. I think the general public would be alarmed to find out how much political bullshit goes on behind closed doors within the sciences. I mean, it's all about getting funding, and therefore, impressing the right people.
My boss and I just had a conversation about me getting an article into an atmospheric science journal -- we decided I had a better chance of one journal over the other because the second was "too snooty". In other words, they only really accept articles/input from academia.
Point being, if you think that any scientific research isn't biased by its sponsors, you're sadly mistaken.
I would like to point out that just because a scientific study may be slightly biased doesn't mean its completely incorrect or without value. After all, "there are lies, damn lies, and statistics" so you can pretty much spin any project one direction or the other. However, since we do have organizations with competing motives, and freedom of speech, it is highly likely that you will still have opposing viewpoints expressed in other venues, even if one venue unanimously agrees that the study in question is correct. It is up to the reader to consider both sides of the question and do their own personal analysis -- which is where we run into a problem. People have a tendency to read only what supports their beliefs, and I believe this is made even easier with the advent of the internet. But that is a discussion for another day.
I think the article gives folks too much credit. The problem with "the public" is that most of them wouldn't know science if it bit them in the ass. How are they going to refute experts? A lot of folks out there are simply not equipped to challenge any sort of scientific findings, so they'd rather rely on their favorite pundit (O'Reilly, Hannity, Gore, whoever) to tell them what to believe. We can't even get folks to agree about evolution, let alone something as murky as climate change.
Out of sight, out of mind. Until it starts affecting us, we're probably not going to address the problem. Up here in Anchorage we're facing a serious shortage of natural gas that was completely preventable with a little forethought. The ice caps are going to have to melt before folks start paying attention, and then they'll probably blame the scientists for not making enough fuss about it.
Post a Comment