When it comes to climate change, I have more questions than answers. There is so much churn and disagreement on this question that cool-headed understanding is hard to come by. There are those who espouse climate change with religious fervor; there are those who deny it with equal passion. From my perspective, we seem to be awash in overheated rhetoric, but very short on actual facts.
Every decision we make, every action we take comes with consequences - both good and bad. When we base our decisions on incomplete or one-sided information, we easily fall prey to the Law of Unintended Consequences. If the unintended consequences are good, we smile and call it an unexpected benefit. If they are bad, we pay the price. In the 1970s, we decided the price of gas was too high, so we decided to simply declare what the maximum price was allowed to be. This sounded like good and kind thing to do to help those with little money, but it was a decision based on incomplete information and the result was gas shortages. The real result of our well-intentioned action was to hurt the very people we were trying to help. By imposing an artificial price limit, we unintentionally violated the laws of supply and demand and we paid a terrible price for it.
Now, for the first time, our technology allows us to observe the world in ways we have never been able to do before. Things we have observed have led some people to conclude that our climate is changing and that this will result in planet-wide disasters. There are people who argue that we have caused this problem ourselves and that we must DO something about it.
By the way, I feel it is altogether fitting that we should take good care of our planet's ecosystem. When we consider that we all live in the same big pool, the golden rule takes on a whole new significance: if we pee in the pool, what are we swimming in? We would also be wise to consider that nature's ability to clean up our messes has limits. There is a fascinating book that helped me to understand the consequences of thinking that nature's bounty is infinite and inexhaustible: Cod: A Biography of the Fish That Changed the World. Among other things, Mark Kurlansky showed very clearly how over-fishing can occur and what happens as a result.
So now we are caught up in the urgency of the problem of what to DO about climate change. Some people feel certain that we must act now to avert terrible disasters. Some worry it may even be too late and that we are doomed. Here is a good example.
These are the perfect conditions for acting rashly and invoking the law of unintended consequences. And if we're not careful, we'll find ourselves stuck with a cure that's worse than the disease.
So how do we proceed? If we wish to succeed without causing worse problems then those we started with, we need to understand the facts. And here is where it gets difficult. There is so much hype and hyperbole that good, reliable, trustworthy facts are hard to come by. To help us find and validate facts, here are some questions we could ask (only some of which are rhetorical):
- Is climate change real? Is it really our fault? How do we know?
- Who are the people whose understanding of these issues is the most thorough and whose motives are relatively pure? What do they say?
- Which voices should we listen to? Which should we ignore?
- To what extent can we believe what we read and hear in the various media? Some media outlets seem a little more careful about actual lying since Dan Rather got caught red-handed; but what can we do to compensate for the practice of cherry-picking only those facts that "fit the narrative"?
- Since the conclusions of different groups of scientists vary so dramatically from each other, should we wonder if they are not in possession of, or not taking into consideration, all the facts?
- Should we assume that all scientists are completely honest and objective, or would it perhaps be prudent to find out who is commissioning a particular study?
- Should we ask who employs or provides funding to scientists? Should we rule out the possibility that some cherry-picking or distortion of facts might also occur in response to benefactors' wishes?
- Who stands to benefit at the expense of others from a climate change panic?
- Are big businesses really evil?
- Is Climate Change just another big business?
- Is this just another big money grab?
- Are politicians really evil?
- Is Climate Change just another excuse to increase the power of government at the expense of its citizens?
- Can we really afford another government "solution"?
I have for many years benefited from the idea that if I understand a problem completely, the best solution will often present itself and sometimes is even obvious. What we want now is a complete set of good, solid facts so we can understand the problem and evaluate the likely effects of possible solutions.
Comments