Global Warming - The Rhetorical Landscape
In an earlier post, I discussed how global warming is almost certainly occurring, yet the effects are not likely to substantially impact the lives of affluent people living today. Due to this fact, I think the truly scary component of the global warming debate (for most people) is the notion that somehow their lives and habits will have to fundamentally change in order to solve the problem.
Employing a dialogue based around fear for political means tends to be somewhat frowned upon. Of course, it is generally politically expedient to do so, especially concerning topics that lend themselves to just such a dialogue. Terrorism, for example, is an issue that is perfectly suited to fear based politics.
Despite the stigma, many environmentalists have attempted to create a culture of fear surrounding global warming. The Day After Tomorrow attempted to paint an unrealistically gloomy picture of a near future where the world is more or less demolished by meteorological events. More subtly, in An Inconvenient Truth Al Gore attempts to draw a very tenuous connection between Hurricane Katrina and global warming, in order to make the threat seem more immediate and real. If one wants to get people to change, the reasoning goes, one needs to scare them into doing so.
Unfortunately global warming is actually uniquely unsuited to fear based politics. It is very difficult to get people to do something scary (changing) by motivating them with something far less scary (some abstract future event caused by global climate change). In this regard, I think most of the loud voices in the current movement to stop global warming have done their position a disservice. (In particular, I think that the shrillest voices invite a kind of fatalistic despair amongst their audience that tends to prevent small positive steps from being taken. I’ve spoken with people seemingly gripped by such despair.)
One thing that I have learned from writing this blog is that many environmentally sound actions also have economic advantages. In other words, change can be in one’s own self interest as well as in service to the environment. In fact, in a perfect economy (one that reflected the true future costs and returns of every action, as well as those in the present) one would imagine that all increases in efficiency would be economically advantageous. I think it is a government’s job to ensure that the economy operates in a manner as close to this ideal as possible.
Given these considerations, I think the tone of the global warming debate needs to shift towards the pragmatic and away from the cataclysmic. I would like to see studies on the true cost of, let’s say, eating a McDonald’s hamburger, where the likelihood of future healthcare expenditures (perhaps subsidized by the government) and emissions produced by raising cattle are calculated, among other factors. Studies like this could create a pragmatic, economical argument for changing behavior (or perhaps taxing burgers in the same way that cigarettes are taxed) right alongside an environmental one. Until the environmentalist movement moves away from useless fearmongering, it will not succeed in swaying the majority of public opinion towards its cause.
September 8th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
How is it any different to put the costs in an economical context than a catastrophic environmental one? People don’t see or seem to care about the long term risks and costs associated with their behaviors, no matter how pragmatic those risks are. You could sit there all day explaining how it would be more economical to invest in clean technologies and eat local organic foods, and it wouldn’t make a difference. As far as your audience is concerned, both are shrill fearmongering, and besides, you shouldn’t be in a position to tell them what to do (which seems to be a broad characterization of your views). If these kinds of arguments worked, we would have universal healthcare, and the money that goes into destroying the Middle East would be put toward compensating for the economical loss caused by our complete withdrawal from the entire region (the root cause of the problem).
It’s worth examining the difference between terrorism and global warming as far as fearmongering goes, because it doesn’t seem like there should be a logical difference. You say that the extreme environmentalists invite “fatalistic despair” by playing up the potential long term effects of global warming. If you look at the rhetoric on terrorism, it’s nearly identical: We’re fighting them there so we don’t have to fight them here; All these killers want to do is prevent democracy from taking hold in the Middle East; There’s nothing to stop them from hurting you . . .
. . . except a vote for those of us who claim that we will protect you at all costs (”move over, Constitution!). “Keep us in power unless you want to be attacked.”
The rhetorical difference between terrorism and global warming is that you don’t have campaigning politicians (or, for that matter, sitting politicians) who are willing to make those same claims about climate change. Imagine if the Republican candidates were arguing over who would do the best job of slowing climate change and investing in clean technologies for the future. Some would still claim it’s political fearmongering, but you’d see voting trends change the same way they do when one candidate attacks another for not being patriotic enough to do “whatever it takes” to defend the country against that loveably ominous group, the Islamofascists.
September 10th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
I wouldn’t talk about the costs to the economy caused by global warming, but rather the profits possible when developing technologies and industries that happen also to mitigate it. Focus on the positive! I do agree, though, that this line of argument might be more productive with governments than citizens. Many people have a radical sensitivity to up front cost that precludes reasonable long term personal investments.
January 16th, 2008 at 10:39 am
My world is full of scientists (biologists) and I gleen interesting facts from listening to their enthusiastic discussions. Have you read/researched any of the data about the increase in solar flares/pulses? A thought provoking bit of information has come to the table. All of the planets in our system are warming. Aye, the sun, she is acting up again, as is her nature.
This does not shrug off the need to clean up Mother Earth and treat her like the precious entitiy that she is. It does put a spot light on self empowering finger-pointing politicians.
True science stays open to all of the possibilities.