Surreal—or more, Kafkaesque. That’s the way it all seems to me now. As in the case of the Iraq War, I feel lied to and purposely misled. You should, too. And when experts tried to tell us the truth, we didn’t believe them, couldn’t or wouldn’t. In that sense, it played out for most environmental scientists and their supporters rather like Cassandra’s curse. But no more, not for me at least. For some time, I’ve understood that the progress and threat of global warming is altogether serious—and, our denials notwithstanding, that we are a significant part of the problem. By now you probably know that, too.
It wasn’t just the focused research and sober reports that underscored the credibility, scope and progression of the problem—and our failure to act or even agree on the need to act. It wasn’t just the sinking, impotent feeling that, while blindly self-interested factions continued to contest every scientific study and public policy initiative affirming the challenge, the problem grew larger and the challenge greater. All that is true, but at the heart of the issue is this oddly enigmatic thing called human nature, and its sometimes counterintuitive and destructive self-gratification and self-preservation instincts. And as a result, the protagonists, the odd collection of political, business and religious bedfellows—leaders, so called—cast their accountability aside, and in the clear light of day pursued self interest to the point of self delusion to the detriment and endangerment of all.
It was sad irony to observe the concurrent operation of these self-interest and self-preservation mechanisms destructively gone awry. It was painful to observe the myopic and selfish, short-term views and manipulative actions of this loose but powerful alliance being received by the vast majority of others—you and me—passively, preferring as we do to hear that there really is no problem at all.
And it didn’t help that in the past, so many environmental warnings have been cynically miscast by those same folks as overstated or unsupported cries of “wolf.” That persistent groundwork has made it all the easier for them to effectively dismiss this warning as well. But this time it was too real, too here-and-now, and the threat too great. It took time—perhaps too much time—but most now recognize that this environmental threat will require large-scale remedial attention, planning and action. Now, even the powerful elements of resistance are breaking ranks out of changing self interest. It is finally happening.
The Implacable Opposition
But some will continue to protest that material questions and uncertainties remain. Aren’t there weaknesses in the data, especially for long-ago periods? Aren’t there questions about the assumptions made in the predictive models being used? And as a result, aren’t there uncertainties as to the impact and timing of the problem? The answer to all those questions is, yes, of course. Science often must use statistical methods, assumptions and estimates in its work. It must traffic in probabilities. That does not make the predictions wrong or unreliable. The predictions are necessarily placed in the context of a reasonable range and probability of where the actual results will fall. And that is the case here.
The public naysayers and critics that remain continue to employ the tactics of focusing everyone’s attention on these limited weaknesses in data and methodology—sometimes painting them in broad, obscuring strokes, but just as often focusing on details in order to divert our attention from the larger picture. But the data, the modeling and analysis—a sizable and growing body of evidence—clearly confirm the validity of the problem, its likely scope and timing within a reasonable range that accounts for the uncertainties. That’s called research science. And much of our societal and technological advancement—much of our knowledge—has been based on the same type of methodological and analytical work.
And for those who remain unconvinced that we are playing a material, causative role in advancing the problem, or that there is anything we can do about it, I don’t quite know what to say to you without being uncharitable. I can only suggest that you start reading more credible, comprehensive sources of information, listen to better informed voices, and prepare yourself to be open to accepting and dealing with the reality of the role we play. But regardless, are you really willing to bet the future of the earth on your standard of being absolutely convinced?
It is not just a question of believing or wanting to believe that the actual result will fall on the more benign end of the range of possible climate change, or even if it doesn’t that there is little we can do about it anyway. It is a question of the probabilities: (1) the probability there will be a dangerous, threatening result, an environmental catastrophe by one definition or another, and (2) the probability that our role in it is significant. The fact of global warming and the scope of its potential threat are no longer seriously debated. It’s a fact, and the results could be catastrophic. And while the role of industrial societies, and especially of fossil fuel consumption, is not seriously in doubt either, how much we can and should do to mitigate or remedy the problem remains the subject of interminable political maneuvering and debate—both in the US and the rest of the world.
But how did we get here? Who played what roles and why?
The Players
It has been easy to understand the motivations of business executives—at least the ones profiting from the products, by-products, practices and processes that destroy environmental balances, ecosystems, and the self protective qualities of the planet’s atmosphere. They do fear being cast as the ones most responsible for bearing costly remediation or righting harm done, but many still prefer to take their chances at casting the people harmed in that role, the citizen taxpayers. And most of them won’t make costly changes unless mandated by laws and regulations; it’s just the way the system and incentives most often work.
It’s just that human nature thing. The cost of altering or abandoning irresponsible policies, damaging practices or polluting products would materially reduce their profitability, at least in the short term. And they are all about the short term: short-term revenues, short-term costs, short-term profits. Their pressures and incentives are powerful: some quite shamelessly open, and some subtle and co-opting—but all are powerful. I’m sure you understand. So long as they can say that they operate legally, they are less likely to change. Profits, power and greed make addicts of us all.
But some companies are beginning to see that their short-term and long-term self interest may now be better served by solving this problem. More of them are publicly changing their views. One group of chief executives from large, prestigious companies has called on the White House and Capitol Hill to mandate changes on companies to reduce further greenhouse gas emissions and otherwise act to abate the impact of global warming. They understand what it will take.
And much of the insurance industry, including giant Swiss Re and others, have concluded that the threat of catastrophe, the cost, and our role in it are all too real and growing larger. These are the people who make their living quantifying risks and underwriting related losses and costs. It’s not an arm-chair exercise for them, not an ideological, theological or political disagreement. It’s dollars and cents and financial survival. But for us, the stakes are higher.
And what about our politicians, especially the most ideologically conservative, those who recoil at proposed business and environmental regulation, those who advocate for constituent businesses that are the worst environmental offenders? In the interest of political control and power they protect their gerrymandered districts and the financial interests of their most ardent and generous supporters.
They too have played their part in undermining the objectivity and alleged “agenda” of the steady stream of scientific evidence clearly indicating an environment gravely at risk. Warnings issued have been effectively dismissed. Dilatory tactics and the worst of subverting spin, propaganda, and lawyerly detail mongering by party and government leadership obscure the policy forest for the political trees of self interest. Power, influence and prestige make addicts of us all.
But this too is now changing. At some point, even politicians must act accountably.
And then there is the Christian Right—those Christians most theologically and ideologically conservative, and most politically active. And do not misunderstand or be mislead—surely, you must know—large number of our politicians, including some of our most powerful, share many of their views and, regardless, are captive to their political power and influence. You cannot really be surprised that we’ve heard the same message from a conservative executive branch, Capitol Hill, and the media of the Christian Right’s para-church organizations. The political right and the Christian Right, sadly, regrettably, now appear almost inseparable.
But why have so many among the Christian Right been so interested in disputing the credibility of scientific findings about the environment? What has this to do with their faith and cultural values agenda? Why would this be a priority? Is it merely a matter of political bedfellows—they, the ideological right, and business—a matter of alliances and mutual back scratching?
Or could it also have something to do with scientists, especially life scientists? The climatologists and other environmental scientists work alongside biologists, biochemists, botanists, and paleobiologists—liberal scientists, by definition, in the view of many of the Christian Right. And if they would discredit the work of these scientists in one area—human evolution—how can they accept or support their work in another? Just as many of their leaders and pastors have blithely denied the overwhelming volume of research findings revealing and supporting evolutionary processes, so they have also undermined the increasing volume of research findings revealing the threat of global warming and our role in it. It may seem inconsistent, even ironic, for a religious faction to turn a blind eye to the stewardship of God’s creation in this way, but I’m sure you understand that too. Theocratic culture, power and identity would make automatons of us all.
But there is reason for some optimism in this area, also. Many evangelical Christian leaders have closed ranks and made common cause with the scientific community over addressing the problem of global warming. This is notable because large numbers of evangelical Christians also identify with the Christian Right. And at least some of them are rediscovering and restoring their obligation to honor and protect God’s creation.
The Irony
How ironic is it that the seats of power and influence in the most enlightened and educated country in history have so often been occupied by business leaders, politicians, and politically-oriented Christian conservatives who have found it profitable or in their self interest to dismiss our most accomplished research scientists? So powerful has been the collective need of these leaders to shelter and protect yesterday’s ideas, thinking, and order of things, so brittle and fragile has been their hold on their truth and their fear of change, that they have undermined the validity of scientific findings and recast objective reality.
And it is also ironic that it has been these selfsame, self-proclaimed defenders of truth that have subverted the truth and the long-term health of their environment—and in so doing, their companies, their polity, the credibility of their faith foundations, and the very health and lives of their people.
You may remember in Greek mythology Apollo’s selfish and resentful curse on Troy’s Cassandra: her prophesies would be true, but no one would believe her. For too long, scientists and others who have continued to raise the flags of warning have surrealistically shared Cassandra’s frustration. And for much of that time, the business, political and religious interests most co-opted by their self interest and the status quo have played Apollo’s role too well. Through rhetorical legerdemain—spin, by any other name—they daily misled and confused us over what was fact and what was not, and delayed too long the course of action most prudent in protecting the health, lives and interests of all people. And all that time, they and we have continued to despoil the place where we live, the place that nurtures and protects us.
Your Role and Mine
And then there are you and me. But what have we done? Nothing, you say. Exactly. We haven’t wanted the additional inconvenience and cost either, have we? We just wanted it all to go away. We were too inclined to accept convenient assurances and blinker our eyes to the possibilities that might complicate our lives. We wouldn’t accept the responsibility of challenging those we have come to know should not be trusted. So deep and ubiquitous has been our aversion to the truth when inconvenience, discomfort or loss attends it. We’ve preferred to believe that those powerful groups, those leaders rendering accommodating points of view, were not acting out of their own self interest at all, but rather had all of our best interests at heart. We just wanted to believe it. We wanted to trust them.
But as the scope and depth of the problem has finally become clear, as the increasing level of required cost and sacrifice is starting to become clear as well, we cannot blame only the business executives and politicians who shamelessly and unaccountably followed their basest incentives. That’s what we should have known to expect of them. No, if we want to know who else to blame, who else is at fault, we must look in the mirror.
Of course, blaming our human nature—and that’s what it is—will provide little relief or comfort. And although we can always try to blame our political system, that won’t get us very far either—and it misses the point. Our political system is ultimately our only hope. And it only responds to us when we voice and vote our opinion, our position, clearly and consistently. That is our power, and politicians understand it very well. But we have not exercised that power. So they have responded to our silence in the only way they know how: they’ve listened to those other interested voices, the voices of core constituents and money that pander to their hubris and power. It is long past time for you and me to more often be clearly heard.
If, knowing what we now know, we fail much longer as a nation to build consensus and act, if we wait for the waves of crisis to lap up on our door step, much greater will be the social calamity and the costs. These are not merely projections for our distant future. The cycle has already begun. We are already seeing some of the results and incurring some of the costs. The elevation of CO2 levels and temperatures, the melting of permafrost, glaciers and ice caps, are continuing much faster, more broadly than most projected. This is an active, growing threat to our living places and the quality of life that attends them—and for many, their very lives. And just as this did not occur overnight, it cannot be reversed overnight.
But if views are now changing, will they change fast enough? Leading voices and most people are starting to call for remedial action. It is surely time to agree on a plan, the course and scope of our action, and the need to effect it now. But if we continue to delay, or further allow delay, and those in authority fail to act or prescribe too little, who can we then blame? By then, all we can do, the only act of honesty left to us, is to look in the mirror with despair and resignation, and recognize in ourselves both the face of Apollo’s resentful self interest and that of Cassandra’s tears.
First written: August 2006
© Gregory E. Hudson 2007
No comments:
Post a Comment