Climate Change Advocacy - Effective v. Less Effective Techniques

posted by Curt Bentley, on October 21, 2007 09:48 pm

One of the big surprises of my semester so far, for me as much as for anyone else, is that I enrolled in a global climate change class at the law school. I consider myself to be a global warming skeptic, albeit not a strident one. My concern with emissions has never been climate change. It has always been air pollution--especially the effect of particulate pollution on children's lungs. Keeping the air clean for kids is a cause I can get behind. Same with reduction in fossil fuel use to eliminate energy dependency. As far as desired policy goals, I actually have quite a bit in common with global warming crusaders. I already do everything Al Gore suggests at the end of An Inconvenient Truth . And, I despise the fact that so many people (especially here in Utah) appear to drive high pollution vehicles (that spew black smoke in my face every time their automatic transmission shifts down) for no apparent reason other than their vanity and the weekend boating trip. But the global warming crusaders have always rubbed me the wrong way.

Why? Well, I find crusaders quite annoying as a general rule. I have been one, at times, and I don't generally look back on my crusading episodes as my best moments. I, as a rule, prefer logic and reason to emotion. Maybe that is why the stop global warming crusaders annoy me so much. Al Gore is my case in point. He travels the world, convinced in his own mind that he is saving it, and derogating the intelligence and sense of responsibility of everyone who disagrees with him. Most times these derogations are quite subtle. They often appear in the form of "we need to educate those who don't understand what is going to happen . . ." and "they are well meaning, just like us, but misguided." I'm not sure whether those words are used, but that's the thought behind whatever is said, I'm sure. It's just like when Republicans attempt to appear broadminded by acknowledging that "Democrats are patriots, too" . . . a backhanded compliment if there ever was one. I experienced all this during my time at the University of Iowa, where my liberal colleagues viewed me as a casualty of a religious upbringing. I could just see the thought in their heads as we debated . . . "Curt has the intelligence necessary to do good in this world, if only he hadn't been raised as a conservative Mormon . . ." That was never said, and my friends treated me very well, but I sensed it nonetheless. Anyway, global warming folks have always alienated me (and perhaps others like me) by their alarmist (this is the end of the world for our children) and condescending approach.

But, I have, for the first time in my life, seen a different side of the global warming camp since taking my class at the law school. My professor, from the political science department, is an advocate for dealing with global warming, but not a crusader. Here is his approach to the problem. He argues that the science is not certain, but there is substantial evidence to suggest that problems may be coming down the road if we continue certain policies. Therefore, shouldn't we take preventative measures in order to hedge against the possible consequences of climate change? Additionally, he advocates economic development in the third world as a way to deal with any negative effects that come. The position is as follows. The best way with dealing with the effects of climate change is economic development. It allows people the ability to adapt to changing conditions (such as drought or sea-level rise or whatever). Therefore, one of the best climate change mitigation policies is to develop the third world . . . and the best approach to that may not be limiting emissions. This seems somewhat in line with the Kyoto Protocol's approach. I'm not sure if I agree with my professor's positions, but I seriously consider them because he presents them reasonably, and not like a crusader. He acknowledges the uncertainty in causation (although he thinks it is minimal) and more importantly the uncertainty as to the effects that global warming will have if it continues. In my opinion, global warming crusaders would have a lot more success if they tried to be more reasonable about their positions and (1) stop the fear mongering by acknowledging that global warming probably won't end the world, (2) present their policies as a classic risk-mitigation strategy rather than the response to the crisis of our generation, and (3) talk about the air pollution and energy dependence implications of their policies.

I'm sure there are those out there (perhaps many of them) who are already doing this. However, people like Al Gore are hurting the cause, I think. Just my opinion.

Add New Comment

Your Name:
Your Comment:

Security Code: