I believe that global warming is real and I’ve taken steps in my own life to aid in the protection of the earth for the long haul. For the past 2 ½ years, I have been driving the Ford C-Max hybrid. By doing so, I have reduced my use of fossil fuels, reduced my dependency on foreign oil (another hot topic in the US), and reduced my gasoline budget. It’s a win for my pocket book and for the environment.
Last year, John Oliver of HBO’s “Last Week Tonight” addressed the lopsided portrayal of global warming/climate change in the media (pardon the profanity). You can watch the video here.
As John Oliver states in the clip "you don't need people's opinions on a fact." It's obvious to me that the earth is experiencing global warming. The science backs it up. So why don’t others see it this way? Do they not understand that years of science have proven global warming as a fact? Our challenge for this project is to understand the other view point and to answer, “why are people who oppose an issue I support are correct to do so.”
In order to understand someone else’s views, we need cognitive empathy. According to Roman Krznaric, this form of empathy is about perspective taking. It’s about “understanding somebody else’s world view, their beliefs, their fears, the experiences that shape how they look at the world, and how they look at themselves.”
A lot of global warming debate seems to be centered on government and politics, so I decided to start there to understand the opposing side. As developed nations seek to reduce the release of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases through advanced energy technologies, developing nations do not have the means access to these technologies, thereby counteracting developed nations reduction in carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases. For developing nations, global warming is seen as a hindrance to their economic growth. How can developing nations, with little resources, focus on protecting the earth for the long haul when they need to focus on the immediate needs of their people and growing their economy into one that is sustainable? Even in developed countries, like the US, industries that release CO2 emissions oppose their regulation, as it would impact the economics of their business. This fear resonates up to politicians who then spread it to their constituents with a skeptic’s view of global warming.
The political debate in the US over global warming began back in 1981 with President Reagan’s plans to reduce spending on climate related research and end funding for CO2 monitoring. The spend was cut at a smaller level than initially intended due to hearings held by Congressman Al Gore. Throughout the 1980’s scientists and US politicians were at odds over global warming and CO2 gases. By the late 1980’s the fossil fuel industry was funding organizations whose sole purpose was to create a marketing campaign that discredited global warming, particularly the claims that global warming was man-made. These organizations worked with scientists who disagreed with global warming research and put them in the press so that individuals like you and I would see their views.
By the 1990’s these organizations began campaigning against further government regulations on environmental issues since the science was too uncertain. These actions fueled public doubt. These organizations continued to work with politicians and media to discredit the science behind global warming. The perceived uncertainty portrayed by these organizations throughout the media and by politicians has been an effective way to spread their message to the masses. Those who believe the science to be accurate have been slower to the media machine and thus have been playing catch up for years.
If Americans have been hearing skepticism over climate change for several decades, why would their views change now? As John Oliver pointed out, even now, for every scientist who supports the belief in global warming in the media, there is one skeptic. Viewers see and hear an un-weighted argument for and against the issue.
In 2012, the Pew Research Center released a report about the public perception of global warming. They found that 67% of American’s believe “there is solid evidence that the earth’s average temperature has been getting warmer over the past few decades.” However, those numbers are still heavily rooted in politics. 85% of Democrats, 65% of Independents, and 48% of Republicans believe that there is “solid evidence that the average temperature has been getting warmer.”
Since 1981 when global warming entered US politics, it has always been a Republican vs. Democratic issue. For those Republicans who yearn to return to the “better days” of the Reagan administration, it would be hard for them to change their views despite the growing science. They long to return to the days of less government interference.
In my research to understanding global warming skeptics, I came across Berkley Earth and researcher Richard A. Muller. In 2012, he wrote an op-ed for the New York Times. Through Berkley Earth, Muller, skeptical of the global warming claims from other scientists, conducted his own research. Ultimately, he resolved that global warming was real and that it is man-made. However, he remains ever the skeptic.
According to Muller, “It’s a scientist’s duty to be properly skeptical. I still find that much, if not most, of what is attributed to climate change is speculative, exaggerated or just plain wrong. I’ve analyzed some of the most alarmist claims, and my skepticism about them hasn’t changed. Hurricane Katrina cannot be attributed to global warming. The number of hurricanes hitting the United States has been going down, not up; likewise for intense tornadoes. Polar bears aren’t dying from receding ice, and the Himalayan glaciers aren’t going to melt by 2035. And it’s possible that we are currently no warmer than we were a thousand years ago, during the ‘Medieval Warm Period’ or ‘Medieval Optimum,’ an interval of warm conditions known from historical records and indirect evidence like tree rings.”
It seems that both sides are now playing the provocative claim game to get attention. The glaciers are melting and the polar bears are dying is something you hear often from the non-scientific community of those who believe in global warming. While it is true that the glaciers are melting, maybe the rate of melting isn’t as alarming as I thought. If both sides are using inflammatory remarks, why would someone change their mind? No one wants to be associated with someone who thinks they’re stupid. The same tools that have caused the skeptics to remain skeptics are the same tools that have caused me to believe in global warming. Maybe, we’re not so different after all? We’re just persuaded by a different set of lobbyists.
For the businesses that rely on fossil fuels, this is their lively hood. These companies support thousands of employees around the world. If change is made to fast, it could be catastrophic to them.
For developing countries, I certainly can’t expect them to produce in a way that is better for the environment when they are just learning how to produce and stabilize their country’s economy to begin with.
If we ever all agree on global warming and its causes, Richard A. Muller reminds us, “Then comes the difficult part: agreeing across the political and diplomatic spectrum about what can and should be done.” While I still find John Oliver’s global warming satire funny, it’s clear that we will need more empathy if we are ever to come together for the greater good. We still have a long ways to go, but the quickest way to forging a path forward is to spend some time in each other’s shoes rather than yelling at each other from across the room.
While my views haven't changed, and I'm sure your's didn't either since that wasn't my goal, I have learned a lot today about the role of politics and developing nations in global warming. Imagine if we all did this exercise for other hot button issues our country is facing. Maybe we would all be a little bit more kind to one another.