Al Gore and many others who are spearheading the fight against climate change emphasize that it is not too late. They try not to engage our optimism-reflex, our tendency to push back against pessimistic news and to deny a frightening state of affairs. They follow up their bad news with a list of things we can do to thwart the calamity that lies ahead. But they present such a measured point of view that they fail to create a sense of urgency. Is this the best approach?
If you believe James Hansen, America’s leading scientist on climate change, our planet is fast approaching a tipping point after which it will no longer be possible to prevent global disaster. In Hanson’s 2009 book, Storms of My Grandchildren. he argues that we have only 10 years to reduce coal emissions—the major contributor to CO2 buildup—by half and another 10 years to eliminate them altogether, along with other important if less absolutely critical energy policy changes. Three of those ten years have passed, and no progress has been made. Worse, the burning of tar sands and tar shale is becoming more likely. Hansen wrote then, “If the world does not make a drastic shift in energy policies over the next few years, we may well pass the point of no return.” This is what Hansen means by global disaster:
“If we burn all the fossil fuels, the ice sheets almost surely will melt entirely, with the final sea level rise of about 75 meters (250 feet), with most of that possibly occurring within a time scale of centuries. …After the ice is gone, would Earth proceed to the Venus syndrome, a runaway greenhouse effect that would destroy all life on the planet, perhaps permanently? While that is difficult to say based on present information, I’ve come to conclude that if we burn all reserves of oil, gas, and coal, there is a substantial chance that we will initiate the runaway greenhouse. If we also burn the tar sand and tar shale, I believe the Venus syndrome is a dead certainty.”
Perhaps it is time to stop the measured discourse and try to scare the world’s population into action. At some point—as oceans rise and populations become displaced—climate change will become undeniable and people will be galvanized into action, but how do we ignite the necessary sense of urgency before it is too late?
Dr. Andy Rose April 17, 2012 at 9:19 am
Good points here and I concur with most of them. Irony is indeed pervasive in our lives, especially on the collective level as you astutely point out.
One reflection, I believe we have more control over our individual lives than we acknowledge. Yes, I agree with Freud about the impact of our inner life, yet I feel we have repeated opportunities whenever we make choices.
It is, I believe, possible to struggle with oneself and move in certain directions.
Elizabeth Marcus March 15, 2012 at 8:07 pm
Absolutely! Optimism and denial work. How else could we confront the actual lack of control we have over our lives, our incredible vulnerability? We’d never be able to get out of bed! The problem is that what works for us as individuals is now dooming us as planetary residents — and when it is not too late to save the situation!
Joan Stein March 15, 2012 at 7:17 pm
Just took some time off to check up on what is going on on your webwsite – the comments about optimism being hardwired and the potential problem that creates for appeciating the cataclysmic nature of global warming follows so neatly after your Mayan essay. I love the way you keep reverberating and weaving things. On a personal, individual level, our optimism quotient is a form of adaptive denial related to our personal life span, rather than that of the planet. When we are young we think we have all of the time in the world. Ironically, we can’t do anything to stop our own ultimate demise but collectively we can save the planet. Denial of the passage of time may empower us individually in the face of certain death, but doom us collectively when there is a chance for survival.