On Converting
I've recently finished reading a book that has changed my entire worldview. Things that were once important to me, are now less so. I have a new purpose, a new direction, a new dedication.
I'm talking, of course, about global warming. (What did you think?)
That sentence really doesn't pack much punch, now does it? You probably read, "global warming" and thought, "Oh… Oh? Really? That's what's got you writing duplicitously?" (Man, you love the SAT words, don't you?) I can't possibly explain it better than Daniel Gilbert, Harvard psychologist and bestselling author on how the human mind works, who said:
"Global warming isn't trying to kill us, and that's a shame. If climate change had been visited upon us by a brutal dictator, the war on warming would be this nation's top priority."
But don't take his word for it. Mine, either! I'm far less qualified than him. But therein lies the problem. When you try to wade into the popular debate over global warming — or "climate change" as it's being increasingly referred to — you'll hear tons of opinions and arguments, some of them more convincing than others, from both camps.
The popular (political, media) debate has evolved over time, from "Warming is happening!" vs. "No it's not!", to "There's nothing we can do about it!" vs. "Yes there is!", and to "Trying to fix it would destroy our economy!" vs. "It could actually improve the economy!". It's enough to make your head spin. Who's right? It's hard to say with any level of certainty.
Ok, so it's not hard to say and be certain about: I'm right. There. Done. That was rather easy. What's actually difficult is to say, with certainty, and without scientists poking holes in your reasoning. (This is covered in-depth in the book, and maybe I'm getting ahead of myself here.)
Until this week, my official opinion on global warming climate change was this:
- The climate is warming.
- That's a bad thing. Given enough time (maybe a thousand years?) it could kill us.
- Humans are (at least partly) causing it.
- But sooner or later, the brainiacs and nerd patrol will figure it out, come to a consensus, and do what's right.
- And we will live happily ever after.
Naive? Perhaps. But perhaps you are in a similar state of mind. If so, the book I read might be of some help to you. It does not tell you which side of the debate (Who's right?) to believe, but rather it shows that what we need to think about is "What's the worst that could happen?" (No coincidence: that's the title of the book.) and try to answer that question for each possible scenario, using a risk management (think insurance companies) methodology to determine where to place our bet.
Thomas Schelling, a Nobel Prize winner in economics, said:
"This idea that costly actions are unwarranted if the dangers are uncertain is almost unique to climate. In other areas of policy, such as terrorism, nuclear proliferation, inflation or vaccination, some 'insurance' principle seems to prevail: if there is a sufficient likelihood of sufficient damage we take some measured anticipatory action."
So here's the scary part. Predictions keep getting worse. Not just any predictions by any shmoe, mind you. These are updated predictions by vindicated scientists (their previous predictions have come true — sooner than predicted!) with the best track records in the field (climate science), who after further research have refined their models, improved their data, and had it all checked out by their peers (in peer-reviewed journals). For my money, there's no-one better to believe. And their latest findings show that if we don't make drastic changes in as little as the next few decades, things could get really bad, really fast.
Can we afford to ignore this information? We've invaded countries and started wars with less-certain intelligence. (This is not an offhand exaggeration — the evidence is in the book.)
Maybe I'm getting ahead of myself again?
One of the more sobering points the author makes is that changing your light bulbs, turning down the air conditioner, and driving a little less will all save you some money, but in the long run, won't amount to bupkiss.
I could go on at some length about this — indeed, I already have. I'll stop here and spare you more of my own propaganda. I promise you that this book is better organized, more intelligible, and less stuffed with personal opinions and propaganda. (He even discusses sources against his own argument, and provides links to even more.) It really does make an honest and valiant attempt to be fair and unbiased (which I am apparently incapable of).
And for what it's worth, my official opinion is now:
- The climate is warming.
- That's a bad thing. Given enough time (maybe a hundred years?) it could kill us.
- Humans are (very likely mostly) causing it.
- Humans can do something to slow, stop, and possibly even reverse it.
- The politicians and media will argue forever, (or until climate change kills us, whichever comes first) if we let them.
- The science has been settled to beyond a reasonable level of certainty (as evidenced in this book), and the most probable outcome is the first four lines of this list.
- … Therefore:
- I have to do something about it.
- … Yes, little old me.
My changed opinion means that this issue is now at the forefront of my mind, and really, what else matters? Will it matter that people need blood after half of the eastern seaboard of the US is underwater? Will people still care about Cancer and AIDS research when Hurricanes and Typhoons are a daily occurrence? Methinks not. Hence my "conversion." This is now my issue.
I'm starting with you. If you are willing to read and consider the concepts in this book — even if you disagree with me — I would love to share it with you. I'll lend you my copy. What do you say? I read it in about 6-8 hours, so it's really not much of a commitment.
Or if you want, you can buy a copy for yourself: What's the Worst That Could Happen? By Greg Craven
After that? I'm not so sure. I'm hoping you'll pass it on, too… but it's too important to just hope. I'm trying to think of a way to get it in front of Oprah or the President — someone who could actually affect change. Got any pull with either of them?
Recent Comments