Let's be Pragmatic About Climate Change

by Ron Miller

In the last issue of The Charlotte News, Joseph Blanchette challenged the growing "hysteria" over the belief that human activity, "specifically, the release of carbon into the atmosphere through the combustion of fossil fuels" is leading to catastrophic global climate change. He pointed out that a highly-politicized majority consensus is stifling critical inquiry and dissenting views, and warned that this could ultimately be more dangerous than the actual changes that might occur in the planet's weather patterns.

Mr. Blanchette cautioned readers to ignore the "nasty rebuttals" that would surely follow his essay. This is not one of them. Although I am an environmental activist and am generally persuaded by the emerging scientific evidence for human-caused global warming, I think his essay makes a very important point and should stimulate a much-needed public dialogue. I entirely agree that we should evaluate the challenge of climate change using solid evidence rather than politically and emotionally-charged polemics. The health of a democratic society depends on remaining skeptical of majority views and demanding scientific, or at least pragmatic, justification for major policy decisions. "Consensus" alone is no reason to join the carbon-reduction crusade, or any other bandwagon. Hysteria is often the result of unquestioned consensus. I do think there are pragmatic reasons to support this crusade.

According to Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone, an earth scientist and president of the National Academy of Science, "Nearly all climate scientists today believe that much of Earth's current warming has been caused by increases in the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, mostly from the burning of fossil fuels." This is not a hysterical consensus, but the measured collective judgment of the world's leading experts in this field. By most reputable accounts, the evidence supporting their judgment appears to be growing. It is true, however, that there are still gaps and disagreements in the scientific understanding of the planet's complex systems.

Mr. Blanchette, like many other skeptics (some of whom recently gathered for a provocative conference in New York), believes that there is enough ambiguity in the evidence to withhold a conclusive judgment. These people may prove in the end to hold a more correct interpretation of the data, and the "world's leading experts" may turn out to be wrong. It has happened before.

So we need to have skeptics, in science as in democracy. Nevertheless, when I weigh the possibilities from a pragmatic point of view, it makes sense to me to pursue a more cautious (ironically, the more hardheaded "conservative") route than the riskier one. If the majority of climate scientists are even partially correct, then we really should stop pumping carbon into the atmosphere because we'll be in big trouble if we don't. It seems to me a rather high-stakes gamble to bet that they're completely wrong. If, on the other hand, the skeptics do prove to be correct and climate change is occurring as part of a natural cycle, unaffected by human activities, then our carbon-reduction efforts will turn out to be more strenuous than necessary, but we would have designed a more energy-efficient, less wasteful society.

That doesn't seem like a bad deal, especially since the supply of fossil fuels is finite and if we depend on them we need to conserve them. Why would the skeptics quibble with that outcome? I think it is apparent that many of them oppose greenhouse gas reduction because the concerted political and economic program this will require violates their commitment to laissez faire capitalism. In this ideology, if the free market decides that it's acceptable to pour carbon into the atmosphere, then it must be accepted.

But how is this any different from "consensus?" When is scientific evidence allowed to challenge the judgment of the market? Mr. Blanchette does not seem to be aligned with this hardcore ideology; he is just asking us to question the mindless acceptance of a doomsday scenario that benefits certain entrepreneurs and academics who exploit it. Fair enough. So let's be skeptical of hysterical doomsday scenarios and a blind ideological belief in the wisdom of the unrestrained market.

A sustainable society does require concerted political and economic efforts. It does depend on pragmatic, democratic consideration of realities that affect the quality of our natural and human environments. Perhaps this is the biggest challenge of climate change, peak oil and our numerous other ecological issues: we have to acknowledge that in a finite and fragile world the freedom promised by laissez faire capitalism cannot be absolute. We're in this together, and we need to hold each other to some shared vision of the common good. We should make sure that this vision is based on reason rather than hysteria of any stripe.

Announcements: The Charlotte Sustainable Living Network presents a talk by ecologist Amy Seidl, Associate Director of the experimental Teal Farm in Huntington, based on her new book, Early Spring. The talk is free and open to the community. It will take place at the Charlotte Senior Center on Tuesday, April 15, at 7 p.m.

The Charlotte Conservation Commission has updated and expanded its portion of the town website. Now you can find studies and reports, minutes of recent meetings, and a list of numerous local resources available to landowners to help understand and manage wildlife habitat and other natural areas. See charlottevt.org, then click on Conservation Commission.