An op-ed piece in the NYTimes (4/9/14) by Nordhaus and Shellenberger, the chairman and president of an environmental research firm, argues that it does. Perhaps so, but the authors’ defense of this position leaves much to be desired.

The article claims that a decade of research supports the idea that “fear-based appeals about climate change inspire denial, fatalism, and polarization.” It says, for instance, that Al Gore’s documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth,” contributed to the increase in backlash and to the sentiment that climate concern is exaggerated. It would be more convincing if psychological studies were put forward instead of merely the statistics showing the increased denial. How are we to know what exactly people were responding to? Why should increased doubt about climate change not be due to the success of the media campaign launched by the fossil fuel cartel in response to Gore’s documentary? When every piece of scientific evidence about climate change is met with a barrage of misinformation put out by a well-funded coalition interested in extracting every last bit of coal, why blame the scientists?

The article points out that directly linking weather disasters to climate change can backfire. But this is an entirely different point. There is no direct link, so claiming there is one invites debunking. Suggesting that we tone down the rhetoric is worth discussing; suggesting that we adhere to scientific facts is not.

Still, it may be true that arousing fear can lead to denial. What’s a researcher to do? Scientists argue that they have an obligation not to spare us the bad news, no matter how frightening, a position hard to argue with. A major issue not addressed in this article, it seems to me, is an evaluation of how the bad news is delivered. Yes, any hint of hysteria or exaggeration makes us think of Henny Penny, the neurotic chicken who thought the sky was falling. But is it true that calm, informative, science-based reporting, however dire the message, produces passivity and fatalism in the subject? It would be very helpful to know this, given the magnitude of what is at stake.

More useful is the article’s description of what works: focusing on positive solutions. Certainly it makes sense that conservatives will respond better to solutions that are not restricted to solar and wind proposals, which inevitably seem too blue-sky to them and probably reawaken memories of the 60s and 70’s, when the cultural wars began. Nordhaus and Shellenberger argue for putting nuclear and natural gas back on the table, approaches they claim are rejected out of hand by “virtually every major national environmental organization.” Is this true? James Hansen, America’s leading expert on climate change, has been arguing for an immediate shift from coal to nuclear energy for years. Although it remains the fastest way to reduce green house gases, the Japanese Fukushima nuclear catastrophe of 2011 no doubt undercut any move toward nuclear. In any case, there are other alternatives, geothermal and natural gas being the most likely choices.

Surely, it also matters who the messenger is. A recent (4/29/14) NYTimes op-ed that better addresses the kinds of trade-offs that need to be considered is by former NYC Republican mayor, Michael Bloomberg, and president of the Environmental Defense Fund, Fred Krupp. Together they discuss in depth the pros and cons of shale gas development, arguing for regulations that can insure environmental safety while exploiting a resource that can free us from much more polluting fuels. The article treats us like grown-ups, detailing the risks and defending the proposed solution with thoughtful science.

topics: nature