{"id":387,"date":"2012-10-19T11:37:46","date_gmt":"2012-10-19T16:37:46","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ecooptimism.com\/?p=387"},"modified":"2013-07-07T15:22:11","modified_gmt":"2013-07-07T20:22:11","slug":"dont-argue-the-science","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ecooptimism.com\/?p=387","title":{"rendered":"Don\u2019t Argue the Science"},"content":{"rendered":"

The facts of climate disruption and resource depletion are abundant and the logic is clear, yet we keep losing the argument in the realm of public opinion. As a result, pundits and bloggers have been advocating that we drop the scientific approach and instead make the case by promoting other benefits.<\/p>\n

A recent example: Bill Chameides writes<\/a> in The Green Grok (gotta love a Heinlein reference<\/a>):<\/p>\n

When it comes to climate, \u201cjust the facts, ma\u2019am\u201d doesn\u2019t seem to cut it for some.<\/p>\n

[I]f \u00a0you\u2019re a scientist, [you] provide the unconvinced with more evidence, more data, and surely they will come around. Problem is, scientists continue to do just that and continue to make little or no progress or, worse, lose ground.<\/p>\n

[F]or some, it appears, personal beliefs and cultural associations trump scientific facts.<\/p>\n

Bill McKibben was on Real Time with Bill Maher last week. He was his usual masterfully informative self, as David Roberts of Grist acknowledged. In his post, <\/a>though, Roberts<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Bill McKibben, to the right of Maher. Link to clip here<\/a><\/p><\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u201cTuesday afternoon quarterbacks\u201d (his description) and says he wishes McKibben, instead of following the standard environmentalist\u2019s response to the claim that \u201cthe science isn\u2019t in\u201d by petulantly answering \u201cyes, it is,\u201d had said<\/p>\n

this kind of uncertainty isn\u2019t a reason to sit back on our laurels and wait for more information. It\u2019s the opposite! After all, if there\u2019s a 50 percent chance things could turn out better than our best estimates, there\u2019s also a 50 percent chance they could turn out worse. And if you\u2019ve seen our best estimates, you know that \u201cworse\u201d should give you nightmares.<\/p>\n

From there, it\u2019s an easy leap to the fire insurance argument. (If you know there\u2019s a chance your house might catch fire, do you wait for it to happen or do you get fire insurance and also try to minimize the chances?)<\/p>\n

But in the same way that Roberts says McKibben is almost but not quite on the mark, I think Roberts misses an important part of the argument as well. (Before I get further into this point, let me say that I\u2019m a big follower of both McKibben and Roberts. And just as Roberts couches his criticism of McKibben, acknowledging that he\u2019d be hard pressed to do better than McKibben did, I want to note that my critiquing here of Roberts \u2013 who writes terrific posts — \u00a0is not meant to indicate I disagree with him in any big way.)<\/p>\n

Roberts starts<\/em> to make what I think is the better argument in writing \u201cwhen the response to \u201cit\u2019ll cost too much\u201d is \u201cbut we have to do it,\u201d climate hawks implicitly concede the cost argument<\/em>.\u201d\u00a0 (His emphasis.) He\u2019s absolutely right, but then he lets it go.<\/p>\n

We shouldn\u2019t concede the cost argument, or the sacrifice one, because neither of them is true. <\/strong><\/p>\n

As I\u2019ve often written here<\/a>, when accurate and full \u201ctrue\u201d costing is calculated, the bottom lines almost always tell us that, in the big picture, environmental regulations do not cost more but, in fact, save money.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Image credit: www.groundtruthtrekking.org\/<\/a><\/p><\/div>\n

And the other premise of EcoOptimism is that we can implement these changes \u2013 whether they be regulations or corrections to our free market accounting \u2013 without diminishing the quality of our lives. Quite the opposite, as I hope we\u2019ll continue to explore here; we have the opportunity to improve how we live while diminishing our demands on the planet. As I like to put it, we can not only stop biting the hand that feeds us, we can bandage and heal that hand \u2013 and still eat well. If we don\u2019t, well that\u2019s when we end up sooner or later without food (metaphorically as well as literally) at all.<\/p>\n

But getting back to Roberts\u2019 point about how to best make the environmentalist argument, here\u2019s what EcoOptimism advocates: showing that we can do this without economic disaster and without social upheaval negates most of the anti-environmentalism argument. Combined with the fire insurance metaphor, it disarms hoaxers and deniers by saying, even if this is all a hoax or not true, it doesn\u2019t matter because it will take us to better places in any case. It says there\u2019s nothing to lose and everything to gain.<\/p>\n

Share this:<\/h3>