We all try so hard, work so hard in a counter-productive direction, against believing in science. Scientists are called wonks and nerds, athletes are called studs. I’ve got nothing against athletes, or for that matter, for or against scientists. I do not fall into either group, although admittedly I’m closer to the science camp, having been trained as an engineer. (Although I now spend most of my days in sales, marketing and management.)
But it seems that we citizens of the USA will go to great lengths to avoid believing in science. No, I understand, that we don’t all want to follow what the “latest study about caffeine” says. I’m not saying that we should all read science magazines any more than we all need to read Sports Illustrated. (Although I bet that Sports Illustrated has more subscribers than almost all the science magazines in the US!) What I am saying though is that when a whole bunch of scientists get together, experiment and study data for years, and come to very similar conclusions, then shouldn’t we give their statements more weight than statements from a science fiction author or an unscientific news anchor?
I think we have a predilection for believing whoever is telling us the happier, simpler story. The story that means that we’re ok, that we don’t need to do anything differently, that we’re still great. Because, and this goes way across the grain of most everything that one sees written about the average US citizen, I think we’re on auto-pilot. Yes, I know that we work more hours than any other society. That we are more productive, take fewer vacations, and have higher GDP per capita than anyone else. But we are doing it through the innovation and industriousness of a relatively small number of people. Most of us are simply following along, taking as much vacation as we’re allowed, and working only as hard as the guy or gal beside us.
How else can we be so reluctant to change? I think that we in the US are willing to do almost anything so long as we don’t have to change anything that we are doing. Change takes a different kind of motivation. It’s not the motivation that gets us out of bed every morning for the same old routine. It’s the motivation that gets us out of bed for a different new routine. And that’s harder.
I also believe that people in the US will follow whatever the easiest and simplest path is. And my worry here is that the only way they will follow a path to solve global warming is when it becomes the easier path, when NOT doing something against global warming is harder than doing something. My fear is that by the time it becomes evident to science-ignoring and science-contorting people, it will be too late for us to have large enough actions to reduce global warming to a livable extent.
And my fear is amplified by the fact that the scientific community is actually NOT in agreement on global warming. Oh, don’t be mistaken, the community of scientists very much believes global warming is real and human caused and will have large scale, even devastating effects on people as well as almost all other living beings. What they are not in agreement on is how fast it will happen and how bad it will be. The IPCC report (nicely summarized here IPCC report summary) is the consensus of the scientists, meaning it is the lowest common denominator they could all agree on. Many key words and phrases were changed to accommodate countries that want a go-slow approach.
My children, ages 16 and 18, will certainly see a very different world by the time they are my age. But how different? Current “accepted consensus” scientific thought is that sea level will not rise too much by then. But, there are those who think that the ice sheet melting on Greenland and the West Antarctic may greatly accelerate. Just recently, a new island was found off the coast of Greenland. We’d thought it was a peninsula all these decades, and it turns out that the ice has melted off of it revealing a mountainous island. Melting has increased greatly on the ice surface. Ice quakes – the abrupt movement of the ice sheet – are increasing exponentially. So will sea levels rise seven to 23 inches (IPCC published predictions), or will it be three feet or more – in my lifetime?
I can’t wait to find out. And neither can you.
What is perhaps most shocking is that by denying global warming, by not working to stop it, mitigate it, reduce its effects, we are all deciding to take part in a global science experiment. Sort of like the frog, the fish and the plants in the closed glass jar. Will they survive? Personally, I never liked the idea of being part of an experiment. I’d like to work to keep the earth the way it has been, I know that works.
We need to act now. We need to believe in the science. We need to stop giving credence to the skeptics and the naysayers who, with no real science back up, deny us our right, our ability, and our need to change our economy to accommodate the earth.
We need to accept that if we start changing now we can turn global warming into an economic engine of growth. Sure, there will be losers, like ExxonMobil, who refuse to change. But there will be winners too; companies like Evergreen Solar, and of source, the rest of us.
We need to accept that sometimes we need to change our routine in order to protect it. When there is a fire in your house, or your neighbor’s house, you get up out of bed off-schedule and take care of the problem.
We need to accept that the US, by dint of being “the world’s only superpower”, is expected to lead, needs to lead, should want to lead, and will be best served by leading. No, it’s not always fair to lead, but it almost always turns out to be better to be the leader than a follower.
Who’s a leader?