Global Climate Change and Apathy – Crisis Fatigue?

May 13, 2010

PhotobucketWhen I was back East earlier in the week, I had the opportunity to speak with Bill Paul on a great number of interesting topics related to our renewable energy field. I happened to mention that the public attitude that surrounds global climate change is a moving target, and I speculated that I knew the essential cause: people tend to react more violently to immediate, close-to-home crises (e.g., their personal financial scene) than they do to those that are more distant — either in space (foreign wars) or in time (global climate change). “Yes,” Bill agreed, “No one has the bandwidth to watch a slow-motion train wreck.” What a good metaphor that is.

I’m reminded of my interview with the man generally credited with the discover of global warming in the early 1970s, Dr. V. Ramanathan, now teaching and conducting ongoing atmospheric research at the Scripps Institution. I asked if he agreed that fewer people believed in his theory now than two or three years ago. “Oh yes,” he replied. “People have a limited amount of space in their heads for crises; they can only hold so many terrifying ideas in place at one time.”

A related idea that I support is one I call “crisis fatigue.” I liken it to the phenomenon in which the nerve cells in our nostrils that process smell soon “tire” of a certain odor stimulus and fail to respond to it completely after a minute or two. It seems that the public — at least in the US — has become numb to the enormity of the threat posed by global climate change.

By Craig Shields | Posted in Renewables - Politics | Tagged , , , , | Comments (0)

Global Warming “Debate”

December 1, 2009

PhotobucketI thought I’d write a quick post on the “debate” over global warming.  Perhaps the first thing to note here is that there really are very few informed people actually debating.  Of scientists covering the issue who publish peer-reviewed papers, there are very few who question the concept that human activity is raising the concentration of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, which have caused — and will continue to cause — a rise in the temperature at the earth’s surface. I’ve met many of these people personally, e.g., Dr. Ramanathan at Scripps, and they’re enormously convincing.

Out of fairness, here’s a rare dissenter.

I point out three things:

1) As discussed here, the oil companies have spent a fortune creating doubt in the public’s mind about the validity of concern for global warming.  With a brazen lack of regard for the truth and a callous indifference to your health and safety that rivals that of the tobacco companies, they’ve funded sham “research” companies whose sole purpose is to build a cloud of uncertainly regarding global warming.  There’s no debate about that.

Now is it possible that, again out of fairness, those who stand to profit from global warming mitigation are campaigning in the opposite direction? I suppose so.

2) But even if the global warming hypothesis turns out to be incorrect, no one is saying that it isn’t likely. Is it sane to risk inaction that could result in complete ecological, social, and economic catastrophe?

Here is a video that I think everyone on this planet should watch, that offers cogent reasoning that mankind should take action to deal with the possibility that most climatologists are correct in their theories.

3) Again, even if the global warming hypothesis turns out to be incorrect, even fewer scientists doubt that increased CO2 levels are lowering the pH of the oceans, causing long-term damage to the fragile ecosystems therein.

I would think that this would make it intensely difficult to argue against controlling carbon emissions. But hey, I’ve seen incredible behavior from people where money is concerned before. Why should I think it will suddenly cease now?

“The debate” continues here.

By Craig Shields | Posted in Renewables - Science | Tagged , , , , | Comments (19)

2GreenEnergy Headed for Scripps

November 13, 2009

PhotobucketI must say that the process of interviewing subject-matter experts for my book on renewables is perfect for my temperment as a writer. I don’t aspire to be an authority on any one subject within the framework of renewable energy, but I certainly aspire to grasp fully the fundamental issues at stake in each, and to be able to learn from a good, engaging conversation. Thus it is with joy in my heart that I’ll be headed for the Scripps Institution of Oceanography next week for my interview with Dr. Veerabhadran Ramanathan. I’ll be speaking with a man, affectionately known as “Ram,” who is perhaps the most well-respected scientist on the subject of global climate change. In fact, his assistant told me that he is credited with discovering the phenomenon, correctly predicting in the early 1970s that there would be a measurable increase in the planet’s temperature by 1980. Unless something unforeseen takes place, the full transcript of the interview will occupy an important chapter.

In any case, the process of preparing for these interviews forces me to read and digest short but pithy articles like this one, and to familiarize myself with the nomenclature associated with the key issues. For instance, we all recall from Al Gore’s movie the cooling phenomenon of certain pollutants, which, when they are removed from the atmosphere, will actually increase global warming. This is known as AMGW, or aerosol mask global warming. Of course, there are dozens of such concepts into which to sink one’s teeth. I would say this would be unbridled fun, if it weren’t for the tragic circumstances and the severity of the consequences.

By Craig Shields | Posted in Renewables - Science | Tagged , , , | Comments (0)