I thought I would take this blog to talk politics. While Emma S. Normans article Who's counting? Spatial politics, ecocolonisation and the politics of calculation in Boundary Bay speaks more to geographical politics I thought I would discuss general environmental politics as it pertains to the United States.
The United States of America has a serious problem, science denial. For the sake of brevity I will limit myself to climate science. In spite of being the dominant world superpower we fall far behind pretty much every developed nation when it comes to climate conscientiousness. How could the only nation that ever landed human beings on the Moon become so scientifically illiterate as to ignore the consistent conclusions of thirty years of research?
Simple, we have politicized science. By making it a left or right, republican or democrat, issue both side have blithely ignored scientific consensus because "that study had an *other-side bias." While we have all seen examples of politically/financially motivated "science" (smoking studies funded by the tobacco industry come to mind,) this does not imply internationally recognized bodies of science reach consensus based on political ideology. When it comes to climate science the majority of the Republican party categorically denies its truths. So we have to ask ourselves why, why would men with advanced degrees choose to ignore overwhelming evidence?
First, let's discuss the obvious one, money. Being environmentally responsible costs far more than dumping waste, using old technologies, ignoring inconvenient things like environmental inspection, or investing in "greener" technologies. While full cost accounting shows this to be an utterly fallacious line of thinking the businesses doing the most damage to the environment only see a bottom-line. Unfortunately, there is an almost unbelievable amount of money in these industries (take a look at Dubai From 1990 to 2007 when oil was discovered in the United Arab Emirates.) These industries have a vested interest in avoiding environmental conscientiousness and have the money to get their way. Convoluted legal schemes and donor hiding allow companies and investors to spend billions funding climate science skeptics, lobbying politicians (along with campaign funding,) and falsely advertising how they really do care about the environmentally (British Petroleum ads after Deepwater Horizon anyone?) With the overwhelming imbalance of money on the side of financial expediency, what chance does science have?
Of course all this money provides motivation, but how to excuse your ignorance to the voters? Simple, if you can twist through enough cognitive dissonance to ignore climate science than surely the "fiscally conservative" thing to do is not "waste" money on green technology or "hurt the economy" with requirements like cap and trade or a carbon emission tax. If they can convince the voters that the science isn't real than they simply explain they're not wasting money on it. We have reached the point in science denial where The head of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology wants to eliminate the peer-review process for National Science Foundation Grants and replace it with Congressional (complete layman) oversights based on "the importance to society" of the research. Here we see a power grab to control scientific funding on the basis that Congress knows best how to conduct research. By denying the science that is inconvenient and attempting to control its funding, these congressman are willfully selling our planet's future.
The voters aren't getting their slice of the kickbacks, why aren't they speaking up? If all this is such a grand conspiracy against the people why wouldn't the people oust these greedy politicians? First off, as mentioned above, these industries have the money to fund bogus studies, advertise their innocence, and sponsor news organizations to promote their agenda. More insidiously, we see the true hazard of politicization. If you identify as a conservative or Republican global warming is "against your side." You identify with the beliefs of your party. Simply put, by framing the debate over global warming in to us versus them you essentially destroy any chance of intelligent, reasonable discourse. Studies have shown that, especially in politically charged discourse, even when presented with facts people refuse to change their minds.These studies show that when speaking on partisan issues, when presented with unarguable facts, people will retreat to "I know I'm right" without any evidence. In fact, a recent study has shown that when presented with light-bulbs identical in every sense conservatives, and even moderates, would be less likely to buy said bulb simply because it was labeled "environmentally friendly." These studies demonstrate a rather frighting level of combativeness and a pathetic lack of critical thinking.
The other argument we see against climate change is the completely unscientific argument from religious fundamentals. This article references a new study showing that belief in the second-coming of Jesus Christ has a demonstrable effect on belief that we should make efforts to curb climate change. While many moderate Christians find this idea ridiculous we can hear the strident criticism coming from the fundamentalists that man couldn't possibly effect God's perfect world and He will end the world we he chooses. Of course this is yet another argument from ignorance. Human beings have had a provably negative impact on the Earth. Even if belief in the second coming is reasonable, it is completely unfounded to assume the effects of climate change won't become destructive before that event. Nor is there any reason to believe that global warming would completely destroy humanity, necessitating or triggering a second coming.
The only possible solution to this massive issue is education. You simply cannot make an informed decision without becoming reasonably knowledgeable on the issue. You must view both sides, research, and take the time to think. Yes, I have heard climate skeptics speak, I've read Glenn Beck, and watched Rush Limbaugh. The opinions expressed above have been drawn from well over 100 hours of research on both sides of the issue, including scientific peer-reviewed articles on the subjects. No one expects you to become a scientists, but your opinion matters. Enough informed people can make a difference, this issue is global, it will span centuries, and it's everyone's responsibility.
No comments:
Post a Comment