Climate Change Mitigation’s Fiercest Enemy: The Human Mind
Here’s a piece from the PBS News Hour, presenting the sad fact that the evolution of the human brain is the largest single contributor to our civilization’s sluggish reaction to the climate catastrophe that science assures us is headed our way.
One of these mirrors the old saw: if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. We have survived and made progress through these 200 millennia by dealing with current problems, and repeating this year what seemed to have worked last year. Any aspect of our behavior as a society that didn’t cause an observable failure is automatically deemed acceptable, and, in fact, desirable.
On top of that, layer the fact that human beings are not wired for self-blame. We don’t like to think that our own behavior is causing misery for other people; it’s far easier to justify what we’re as socially acceptable–precisely because it is.
Progress vis-a-vis environmental stewardship will only happen when our society decides that it’s uncool to be indifferent to taking care of the world around us. Before you dismiss that as impossible, remember what happened with mink coats in the 1960s. One year they were fashionable. A year later, you couldn’t find one. Having this happen on a macro scale is not impossible; in fact, it’s a decision that is being forced upon us. It’s either the next step in our evolution, or it’s the end of our evolution.
Craig,
Gloomy alarmist pundits, preaching with moralistic fervor have so far proved largely counter-productive.
The general public isn’t adverse to supporting practical environmental innovation and beneficial practice, but not thinly disguised political ideology masquerading as environmental concern.
The public is weary of being lectured by green-left hypocrites, advocating impractical, ideologically motivated demands to be funded by taxpayers.
It’s the smug, sanctimony of such hypocrites that makes it so difficult to achieve even practical progress in clean technology.
Craig,
Occasionally, I visit the wattsupwiththat.com website. This website seems to specialize in contrarian articles, mostly provocative but containing some insights not found in mainstream media.
The website is described by media as a “climate change denial blog” run by a “notorious climate denier” Anthony Watts who opposes the scientific consensus on climate change.
I note most of the attacks on Watts and his opinions are not based on refuting his scientific arguments, but mostly appear to be based on deriding his political/ideological agenda.
Perhaps it’s the lack of willingness on behalf of both the mainstream media, and Climate Change true believers to discuss or debate any evidence that may alter or contradict “consensus” thinking, that has alarmed so many among the general public.
Alarmist pundits over the years have predicted :
1988, Dr. James Hansen. Asked by author Rob Reiss how the greenhouse effect was likely to affect the neighborhood below Hansen’s office in NYC in the next 20 years, Hansen replied: “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change…There will be more police cars…[since] you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”
Sept 19, 1989, St. Louis Post-Dispatch: “New York will probably be like Florida 15 years from now.”
A) 1990, Michael Oppenheimer, The Environmental Defense Fund: “By 1996, the Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers… The Mexican police will round up illegal American migrants surging into Mexico seeking work as field hands.”
B)October 15, 1990, Carl Sagan: “The planet could face an ecological and agricultural catastrophe by the next decade if global warming trends continue.”
C) 1990, Actress Meryl Streep: “By the year 2000 – that’s less than ten years away — earth’s climate will be warmer than it’s been in over 100,000 years. If we don’t do something, there’ll be enormous calamities in a very short time.”
D) July 26, 1999, The Birmingham Post: “Scientists are warning that some of the Himalayan glaciers could vanish within ten years because of global warming. A build-up of greenhouse gases is blamed for the meltdown, which could lead to drought and flooding in the region affecting millions of people.”
E) April 1, 2000, Der Spiegel: “Good bye winter. Never again snow?”
F) March 29, 2001, CNN: “In ten years’ time, most of the low-lying atolls surrounding Tuvalu’s nine islands in the South Pacific Ocean will be submerged under water as global warming rises sea levels.”
G) Oct 20, 2009, Gordon Brown, UK Prime Minister (referring to the Copenhagen climate conference): “World leaders have 50 days to save the Earth from irreversible global warming.”
All very alarming predictions, but none of which actually occurred.
You can only cry “Wolf” so many times before people become skeptical. When you shut down debate, and silence your opponents with shrill cries of “heretic”, the majority of ordinary citizens don’t become convinced of the validity of your cause, they just become resentful and wait for a leader to liberate them from the oppression of orthodoxy.