How are we going to create a sustainable global economy that meets the climate challenge when we're not even capable of sustainable communication? The fact is that what we're experiencing right now is a top-down disaster. -Paul Krugman
In the US, the question is how to motivate our Congress to pass legislation restricting greenhouse gas emissions, specifically carbon. If at hearings some scientist says, "Well, really global warming is not a big deal, and besides, don't people like to vacation in warm places?" then that gives the politicians in the pay of the fossil fuel industry aid and comfort. And in fact this is exactly the sort of propaganda coming out of fossil-fuel funded think tanks.
Better to have testimony like this: "Hurricane Katrina may not be directly linked to global temperature rise. But because tropical waters are heating up more than they have in a very long time, we can expect more frequent and more violent storms on average. We can expect more coastal flooding due to the melting of the polar ice caps and the Greenland ice sheet as well as other glaciers and due to the expansion in volume that is occurring as the ocean warms. We are increasing our output of electricity anyway to meet growing demand. Why not regulate the emissions from that output more strictly? Particulate pollution in our country is much lower than it was 30 years ago because of regulation."
I agree that hysteria and exaggeration can ultimately be unproductive, especially in a society with such a tiny attention span. But we have to get the politicians on board, and that may require a more dramatic presentation of the risks in order to obtain legislation as well as more funding for energy research and development--it has plummeted to half what it was 20 decades ago in the US.
The mood in Europe may be somewhat changing in this perspective: a poll in the Netherlands showed a majority of the Dutch want politicians choosing for the environment - even if overall wealth would stay the same or decrease!
Everyone exaggerates to get their point across, there is of course nothing new to that. The point is that those who should do the persuading, should be convincing. When bad, exaggerated arguments are presented and the next scientist is able to show how bad that probability is, the proponent for regulation gets floored.
The other way is to get people on board in politics who are already convinced, and don't feel they need to investigate the matter. Upgrading climate chaos to climate catastrophe sure may be the way to get there, but it's not a method I particularly fancy. I feel we're losing focus on the ball.
I could not agree more that the presentation about climate change has to be convincing. As for the use of the word "catastrophic"--to scientists studying corals, their die-off is catastrophic and has big implications for the food-chain, already being affected by ocean warming and likely to be affected by acidification. A billion people rely on the ocean for food.
And the the 150,000 deaths per year the UN is attributing to effects of climate change--wouldn't it be called catastrophic if a bomb killed that many people?
I think all your points are good ones. The Chicken Little approach will ultimately fail. But so will the "This too will pass" approach.
I could make an argument that one of the best ways to mitigate greenhouse gases is to improve the level of education in the US. That would help the generation that will be greatly affected --present newborns--use their brain power to address the problem. And it would help the public understand the problem and what means need to be applied.
An interesting article on the Stern report and priorities by Lomberg in the WSJ (available to nonsubscribers for the next few days): http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB116243506287110986-lMyQjAxMDE2NjAyNjQwMzY1Wj.html
