Out of Sight, Out of Mind

While Damian Carrington lays out a few good reasons why climate change is hard to stop, he is forgetting quite a few reasons for why the problem is not going away. While like most experts Carrington focuses on measurable factors for how to track climate change (energy use, subsidy costs, economic issues), he clearly misses some of the non measurable factors for why climate change keeps on rolling.

The first one of these non measurable factors would be apathy. With problems such as the financial crisis, political disenchantment, and lowering social services right in the face of citizens, dealing with a problem such as climate change is put on the backburner. While climate change does have the very real possibility of creating environmental refugees, and increasing the odds of extreme weather events, to those in the developed world, these issues are “out of sight and out of mind”. Until Manhattan is completely flooded over or the British Isles are swallowed up by the sea, the resources and efforts of the developed world will be severely limited as they look to their own self interest rather then benefit the world.

The other key problem that Carrington fails to mention is the misinformation of climate change being talked about in the media. With rogue news outlets such as Fox News providing legitimacy to the denier movement, individuals still believe that there is a scientific debate on the issue and that the science is not settled. While this might fit the agenda of a small few- Koch Brothers, Big Oil, and The Heritage Foundation to name a few, the selfish interests of these organizations threatens to put the world out of business.

What I am kind of surprised about that Carrington doesn’t talk about is the regressive economics that make fossil fuels so cheap. While Carrington does say how technologies such as carbon capture and storage are unaffordable, Carrington does not make the argument that a rise in gasoline taxes or shifting subsides from oil companies to promising renewable energy products would make these options more palatable.

Stopping climate change, one media outlet at a time

Damian Carrington offered some very helpful insights as to why it has been so difficult to stop climate change. However, I feel that he missed a few very important points.

I think it is incredibly important to note the role of both the media and the people. The media plays a huge role in disseminating information, and often climate change is overlooked, or the information is skewed. It appears to me that most media sources in general are afraid to take a definitive stance on climate change- they often discuss it but as a concept, rather than a fact.

Contributing to the lack of media attention (or the lack of media attention on fact, rather than simply the politics of the matter) is that the science does not appear to be concise, or truthful. Much of the general population is unaware that most studies on climate change do show, to the very best of their ability, that it is happening. As we discussed in class, it is impossible to say, and be 100% sure of, what will happen in the future. Based on this, many people are able to spin the science in their favor. A few important individuals in the media world help to further discount this- it only takes a few important people to start the ball rolling and, eventually, it will catch on and reach the population.

I would also note that the people, the general population, has a lot to do with the lack of action against climate change. On one hand, they are heavily influenced by the media. If the media is ignoring it, or discounting it, you can bet the same trend will prevail among the population.

However, beyond the media, it is important to note culture. Eric Assadourian's article about "consumer cultures" is a great explanation for this. Our culture has shaped us into individuals who want to buy, use, dispose, and begin the cycle again. And we want it all to be easy. Our culture is heavily pitted against the environment. If we will ever see a positive change in the environment, it will almost certainly have to come along with a cultural paradigm shift, as Assadourian noted. When we each calculated our carbon footprint, I think it was made pretty clear that we can not continue at our current rate (not even close!). Each of us are using so many resources that it would take multiple earths to sustain human life if everyone on the planet lived like us.

For these reasons, among others, I think both the media and the individual are two important factors standing in the way of effective action.

Culture, Convenience, and Apathy

It's the end of the world as we know it

And I feel fine.

-REM

Especially in the context of climate change, one factor to consider above all else is the remarkable complexity of the issue. There are no absolutes. A company that produces plastic water filters may campaign against bottled water. An oil company may invest in renewable energy sources. A pipeline that may lead directly to environmental degradation may create thousands of new jobs. This is an important point to consider, and one that appears to be missing in Damian Carrington's article. Even actors that are generally harmful to the environmental health of the planet may have some positive impacts, which makes the battle to stop climate change one in which the lines between friend and foe become less clearly delineated. 

Carrington alludes briefly to politics and the economy as a source of difficulty in the campaign against climate change, yet he does not mention culture along with these societal components. Having discussed Assadourian's "The Rise and Fall of Consumer Cultures" as well as Donella Meadow's "Leverage Points," there are significant and far reaching aspects of culture that complicate the battle against climate change, including the highly ingrained social mentality of limitless and ever increasing consumption. That this notion has become self-perpetuating is a severe and substantial obstacle in reducing climate change, and its association with the political and economic realm of society should not be discounted. As one who believes in the power of institutions, culture is especially important, as it may serve as the vehicle through which humanity may shift into a new paradigm of sustainability rather than consumption, and of longevity rather than trendsetting. 

Another important and related point of consideration is that of convenience. Under the current system it is too convenient for the average individual to make use of existing technologies that are furthering environmental harm. In the specific case of transit, it is easy and intuitive that an individual will visit a petrol pump/gas station when his or her vehicle is running low on fuel. It is less convenient for that person to switch to an electric vehicle, and even more difficult still for that person to find a way to maintain his or her current lifestyle without the use of a private vehicle at all. 

The last major point that went unnoticed by Carrington is that of apathy. Regrettably, the reality of climate change is simply incomprehensible to many individuals, some due to ideology, and others due to an inability to rationalize the concept and apply it to their daily routines. Whatever the reason for their apathy, it is a characteristic that is perhaps more alarming than any other, as those who are truly apathetic are unlikely to take action to remedy a scenario in which they do not perceive a problem. 

Stopping climate change is a complex and colossal challenge. Along with the three major problems mentioned by Carrington, other factors such as culture, convenience, and apathy each play a role in undermining current efforts to restore the health of the natural world. 

Carrington Article

In his short article, Damian Carrington notes some significant barriers to climate change. All three of these are reasonable, but there are some important details that he leaves out.

First, he points out that the U.S. and China need to provide "outstanding leadership" when it comes to combating climate change. This scenario is extremely unlikely for many reasons. As we have frequently discussed, environmental issues have been politicized literally to death in the U.S. to the extent where very few productive measures can be taken. Just this weekend, the decision on whether the Keystone XL pipeline would be built from Canada through the U.S. was delayed until after the 2012 election. This is quite lucky for President Obama since he now does not have to make a decision that was sure to anger a significant number of people no matter what the decision was. It is also evidence that there are too many dissenting groups in the political arena that make easy policy decisions impossible.

This segues into my next point that another problem is that in the U.S., the environmental movement is too diffuse. There are too many interest and lobbying groups for small, individual causes that make it so that broad environmental change is nearly impossible. It would be more beneficial if there was a unified front for environmental change, but that is not the case.

Fight against Climate Change? Maybe tomorrow

Damian Carrington’s piece on why it’s so hard to stop climate change mentions three key barriers preventing us from taking action; politics and economics, cheap fossil fuels and not enough low-carbon energy. Short and to the point, I do think that he missed a few other barriers that are worth noting.

The first barrier I would add to Carrington’s list the lack of confidence in global warming science in the United States. This is so vitally important because if the world hopes to see any sort of climate agreement, it’s essential for the US to take a lead role, something that will prove impossible if the American public doesn’t have faith in science. For whatever reasons, a frightening large number of Americans think that climate change science is bogus, and therefore feel no need to support efforts to combat climate change.

A second challenge to fighting climate change is the lack of motivation from those who believe in it. Back home, almost everyone I know believes that it’s happening and that humans are the main culprit. But other than that, they don’t change their actions to lessen their environmental impact. A great quote comes from the film Hotel Rwanda, when Don Cheadle’s character, the local hotel manager, begs an American cameraman to send footage of Rwandan atrocities to news outlets abroad so that people will call for intervention. The cameraman responds by saying “I think if people see this footage, they'll say Oh, my God, that's horrible. And then they'll go on eating their dinners.” Climate change is the same way. People may notice it and worry about it, but it amounts to nothing more than a few worries in the long run. With climate change affecting many faraway things such as tropical coral reefs and African farmers, Americans are quite removed from the harshest effects of global warming and consequently, it’s difficult for Americans to get motivated to do something to slow climate change.

The final barrier that I would add to Carrington’s article follows the previous paragraph and regards the desire for people to keep their ways of life. The problem is that we need to change our ways of living to make a true impact, yet none of us are willing to do so. We’re seeing climate change partly thanks to the “American way of life”; big cars, big houses with big backyards, long commutes and lots of stuff. If we really want to be serious about climate change then we need to make sacrifices, and not sacrifices like buying a Prius or eco-friendly office supplies. We need people to move into smaller houses, give up their cars, fly less, and consume less of nearly everything else. People simply aren’t ready to take these sorts of steps, and until we realize that our culture itself is contributing to global warming, global warming will continue unabated.

Misinformation Gone Wild

Climate Change, the never ending ping pong battle of he said, she said, over whether anthropological climate change exists or not. The simple rationalization of the argument mentioned above is only further enhanced by the “Friends of Science” and “Grist” websites we looked at for this week’s assignments.

Just by simply looking at the content for both of these sites, it is quite obvious to see that the intent of both sites is to talk to their base. In the case of both “Friends of Science” and “Grist”, all of the content on the website is slanted heavily towards the left or right. While the “Friends of Science” organization paints itself as not being funded by any organization, they do not disclose the funding provided by specific individuals who may have ties to organizations focused on climate change denial.

While both sites are in their right of free speech to publish whatever content they want, I find that both sites provide a disservice to the public by publishing their radical views. A well educated individual should know to always look for various forms of media and information on any topic to try and get a well rounded view on any issue in order to form a valid and well researched opinion. However in the case of climate change-with these sites in particular, no matter how much digging that is done, individuals will always end up back at square one knowledge wise since all the information posted on one site is counteracted by information posted on an opposition view.

Ironically, while the following argument might seem adverse to the goals of each organization, it would actually be better for the organizations to post well balanced information on their site. If they believe the strength of their argument is correct and should win out regardless, what is so wrong with publishing fair and balanced opinions of taking out studies on their own and publishing unbiased results? This past week, a big story that hit the newswire was that Richard Mueller- a noted climate change denier changed his view on the issue after conducting a fair and balanced study using the arguments of his opposition. Best of all, the study was funded by the notorious conservative group The Koch Brothers.

Over the summer I was lucky enough to work with an organization called Climate Central that is focused on providing clear and non biased results about the science behind climate change. While working there, I saw firsthand that people working there were focused on getting out the truth of the issue and making people who otherwise would not care about the issue interested in climate change in their own lives. When articles were being discussed for what to write on, individuals took great pains to both comment on various out there liberal papers and conservative reports. It is my opinion that taking these pains to be apolitical and scientifically accurate is the best way of getting people’s mind made on either side of the aisle.

Internet Convictions

Both of these websites have the possibility to convince viewers of their perspectives at first glance. However, both sites become less convincing with further viewing. On its homepage, the Grist website seems to hold a wealth of information, but as you scroll down the website, you notice that it is the same posts arranged into different categories. Also, the site is maintained by someone whose credentials are, "Former musician, turned tree planter, turned software engineer. Same old story... I have been blogging about climate change since 2006 at A Few Things Ill Considered." These are hardly reputable credentials and don't present significant scientific evidence. The Grist website could have been assembled by anyone with a computer and ability to Google search. It seems that the website is geared towards people who already believe in climate change and and need to be able to present their arguments to those who are skeptical or who don't believe. It is helpful in the sense that the author links to many other sources, but again, the author himself has no valid scientific credentials, making him not an authoritative source.

The Friends of Science website has a few user-friendly positives. Meant for the climate skeptic, the site is nice because a wealth of articles that support its viewpoint and many of them are ranked on a star scale from 1-3 for technicality. This means that people will have an easier time getting through the website based on their prior knowledge of climate issues. However, upon closer inspection, the website can be easily discredited. One of the scrolling quotes across the top talks of the "Kyototo" Protocol. The name of the website is ironic as well, since "Friends of Science" would normally be assumed to discuss how global warming is happening and is serious, since that's what the majority of the science tells us. A graph on the first page that is used to try and show lower global temperatures and CO2 levels is misinterpreted by the site. They use a best fit line for CO2 concentration that shows it barely declining between 1999 and 2007 but the rest of the graph clearly shows that the concentration level has increased substantially since 1979.

Overall, neither website is particularly credible, although Friends of Science simply looks more professional. The Grist website perhaps has better information and the data it presents are not as easily discredited as Friends of Science.

The Bad Guys Win

There is more than one way to discuss such controversial issues as climate change. With this set of issues, as with any controversial topic, there is a manner of discussion that is more amiable, more diplomatic, and more likely to lead to an actual discourse on the subject in question. This approach was demonstrated by the website of the Friends of Science. The alternative, a more confrontational, argumentative approach, was exhibited by the Grist website, "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic." While both websites offered a wealth of content, there were noteworthy differences in both purpose and approach that would, in my view, make the former much more effective than the latter. 

The Friends of Science website clearly stated their objective and opinion. Their purpose, stated in the "About Us" section of their website, clearly summarized their objective (to put pressure on the government and focus public discourse on the issue of climate change by educating the public), and furthermore provided their opinion: the Sun is the main direct and indirect driver of climate change. The Grist website, in contrast, was featured in a more reactionary arrangement, identifying the main talking points of climate skeptics and providing responses to these points. Departing in nature from the FOS website, the Grist website seems mainly to function as ammunition for diehard climate change activists, providing them with quick rebuttals to be deployed against the skeptics in any scenario imaginable. 

In terms of evaluating the content, FOS offered informative articles that were arranged by topic and rated according to the level of technical detail. FOS also contained an extensive section on peer reviewed articles and official responses of FOS to pieces of legislation, other environmental entities, and publications related to the field of climate change. Conversely, the Grist website contains many blog entries among its lengthly list of responses, with a main contributer being a self-described "former musician, turned tree planter, turned software engineer." On the plus side for Grist, many articles do contain numerous references to related articles to bolster their arguments, though in many cases these links bring up other Grist articles (in some cases by the same author). It should be noted that although I consider myself very much a supporter of the perspective advocated in the Grist page, I, from as objective a viewpoint as possible, unhappily concede that FOS has trumped Grist in terms of content.

There is no question as to which website is more effective. FOS succeeds as the more viable contender of the two, simply by virtue of the fact that it presents well supported information that strengthens its point and acknowledges its own perspective relative to the debate without attempting to disguise its biases. The Grist website, by contrast, is aggressive and unlikely to serve any purpose other than to solidify the opinions of individuals who already subscribe to its view regarding climate change. The hard line adopted by the Grist page is more likely to alienate skeptics, as some of the links make use of strong rhetoric that includes an allusion to advocacy for arresting climate change skeptics. The axiom that "soft words win hard hearts" may be most valuable to consider for the Grist page, as such powerful language, while effective perhaps for motivating a supportive base, is usually ineffective in creating a mutually respectful dialogue between two parties of differing ideologies. 

If I read it on the Internet then it must be true!

Looking at these two very different websites, I get the sense that they both only have one true purpose; to discredit the other side of the global warming debate as much as possible. While the two sites are on completely different sides of climate change (its happening versus it’s a lie), they both make their respective arguments with scientific data and helpful bullet points to better influence visitors.

How should we make sense and evaluate the scientific claims?

As a non-scientist, I really have no idea how to make sense of their scientific claims – and that’s why I think the sites work so well. I think most competent people have at least a basic idea in their heads of the scientific reasoning used by both the global warming skeptics and the scientists acknowledging global warming. Both sites’ scientific data makes sense, since they probably would be quickly discredited if they were making up the data, and both sites seem to be run by reasonably intelligent and qualified people. In this sense, the two websites remind me of my freshman year statistics class, because all I remember from the class is that no matter what data you have, you can manipulate it to get any point you want across. Likewise, I got the feeling that the two websites are using very similar data that only differs in the way its presented and interpreted.

When it comes to the evaluation side of things, I think one has to pay attention to the details to see which website is really “telling the truth”. For example, Friends of Science claims that the Earth is cooling, yet at the same time attributes the current rise in global temperatures to solar activity and natural long-term fluctuations in the Earth’s climate. Taken alone, each of these arguments is very reasonable, but any competent person has to wonder why Friends of Science is claiming the Earth is cooling while the Earth is warming due to solar activity. It’s looking for these inconsistencies that allows the average person to effectively evaluate each website for its scientific content.

Is one site more convincing than the other?

Absolutely. The simple fact is that the Friends of Science website discredits itself within the first few minutes of browsing thanks to the inconsistency found above. And as a non-scientist, I found that Friends of Science posts graphs and charts that only a scientist would understand – it seems as though the site tries to prove its point to the average person by showing incomprehensible data; “if I can’t understand it than it must be legitimate science!”. How to Talk to Talk to a Climate Skeptic meanwhile presents its data in a very dumbed down, easy to read way – the way a non-scientist like me likes it. Furthermore, How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic also has much more information on its site – which in makes in more credible in my opinion. And finally, the use of out-of-context quotes at the top of the Friends of Science site tells me that the site is desperate for more effective ways to influence visitors. After all, it’s always the losing candidate in an presidential election who brings up the most out-of-context quotes of the other in a futile attempt at victory.