Jeremy Smith wonders why Global Warming is so popular.
A month or so ago, I wrote an article suggesting that 1) the scientific theory known as Global Warming is popular and that 2) its popularity is, on the surface of things, a bit of a surprise since the theory is jut that – a theoretical explanation that attempts to account for a whole host of gathered (and conjectured) data. My first suggestion, that the theory known as Global Warming (henceforth, GW) is popular (or widely assumed to be accurate in at least its core postulations) seems self evident. I run into GW everywhere, from the national news programs to the Oscars to the stand up routine of the late night comedians. GW makes the newspaper and academic circles as well. I even read about GW in sports reports. If GW were a high school student, he would be the starting quarterback, valedictorian, and prom king. GW is a teen idol.
The second contention, that its popularity is a bit surprising, requires a little more explaining. Scientific theories abound. Some are proposed and then later debunked (phlogiston, anyone?), while others continue on. But not all theories attain the widespread popular support (and subsequent concern) that GW presently enjoys. What makes GW so unique in this way? What does GW have going for it that, say, Hawking’s Black Hole Paradox does not? Why is one a media darling and the other an unwatched PBS special (at best)? Why does my neighbor worry about melting polar ice caps and not about information loss in black holes? Why will people watch Diane Sawyer grimace as she interviews Sheryl Crow about the dangerous effects of carbon dioxide build up in the atmosphere, (and while we’re asking, just what is a pop singer doing talking about such things in the first place), and are not, as yet, too concerned about the cell phones causing CCD (Colony Collapse Disorder – when honey bees go missing. Seriously, look it up. The bees are disappearing, and some think our cell phone usage is causing it. Will Beyonce soon start a crusade to rid the world of cell phones)? What accounts for all this concern for one theory but not another?
A simple answer to the last question would be, “because there is great cause for concern with respect to anthropomorphic climate change,” and likely at least some readers are already shouting at their monitors that such is the case. Whether that is true or not is a subject of debate (both popularly and scientifically), but irrespective of the final verdict about the veracity of the claims of GW, my present concern has less to do with the science involved and more to do with wondering why folks, by and large, believe it to be true.
It may in fact be true that the world is heating up as a result of the activities of man and that this will have catastrophic effects. Or it may be true that the planet is heating up for some reasons other than the activities of man. Or it may be that there is some combination that is causing the earth’s temperature to rise. Or maybe the earth’s temperature is supposed to fluctuate over the course of centuries (or millennia) and this just happens to be a period of time when the earth’s temperature is changing as it always has. Or maybe the temperature should stay the same and any deviance should be addressed to the best of our abilities. Or maybe the earth is heating up “unnaturally,” but we don’t need to worry about it because the effects will be minimal. At this point I am saying that any of those could be true but that none actually explain why GW is so popular. Unless we are expected to believe that the majority of non-astmospheric physicists have weighed the available data and have come to the conclusion that the theory (GW) fits the evidence, then whether or not the theory is accurate does not really explain why it is popular. Something else is driving that train. Why does GW get its own prime time specials, celebrity spokesmen, and documentaries? Why does GW need its own PR firm while other theories wait anxiously on Friday night just hoping that the phone will ring? I think the explanation has far more to do with the nature of man and far less to do with science.
Last time, I suggested that the theory enjoys popularity because it contains enough easily digestible information to make it possible to discuss in 30 second clips, and yet enough complexity to create pseudo-intellectuals (the group I called the Afternoon Googlers). It is the present state of our culture that we no longer recognize the difference between real experts and those who just like to pontificate. I would like to suggest that a second explanation for the popularity of GW is that it functions as a convenient place to dump our guilt.
A Convenient Guilt Dump
Americans spent more than $24 million on Al Gore’s movie on GW. Thanks to Sheryl Crow, Americans got to have extended discussions on how many squares of toilet paper we should use. On earth day (April 20 – I had to look it up, too), ABC news put together an hour long 20/20 newsmagazine program, shot for the most part live, from all seven continents, in large measure to discuss the effects of GW on the various portions of this globe. When GW speaks, people seem to listen.
The same phenomenon was asserted with respect to E.F. Hutton, but his voice carried financial advice sure to make the listener rich. Such a voice, in a materialistic climate such as ours, was understandably heard. But GW’s voice warns of impending disaster, with a large dose of criticism for the way we live. Perhaps doom and gloom messages are bound to be heard, but why are people so willing to be criticized about their lifestyles? Surely the prophetic voice of the church calling sinners to repentance does not enjoy the same opportunities that climate change pundits regularly are given. It is hard to imagine a documentary based on the moral decay of the culture or the horrors of abortion or the damaging effects of internet pornography being made; much less, that such an endeavor would win an Oscar. Try getting on the media circuit telling people that greed is sinful.
But for some reason, people are willing to be chastised for driving big cars and turning on their air conditioners, and they are willing to feel a certain amount of guilt for the lives they live. Westerners in particular are willing, under certain circumstances to experience something that looks and feels like guilt. I think there are least two reasons for this.
There is a theological rationale for mankind’s willingness to feel guilt. As Paul tells us in Romans 1, regardless of man’s best efforts to suppress the knowledge of God and our guilt before him, even the hardest heart experiences moments where a flicker of light pierces through the darkness, and he is reminded of his guilt before God. That sense, be it ever so brief, leaves us feeling guilty. It is often suppressed, ignored, or explained away; yet in the depths of our souls, we have this nagging sensation that all is not right. Such a feeling may be quickly dismissed and ignored, or it may be assigned away, or it may just fester, but it is still there. Something must account for it. For the Christian, a recognition of sin and a wholehearted repentance, clinging to Christ is the remedy. For the world, there must be something else. There is an innate, unquenchable sense that something is amiss, and an explanation for that guilt is a natural desire.
There is also, I think, a tendency toward guilt common to those who live well. I do not mean, therefore that material wealth is something for which we necessarily need to feel guilty. God owns the cattle on a thousand hills, and he apportions those cattle to whom He wills. But I think there is a tendency for the world, even as it is caught up in its materialism, to sense that there is something unexplainable about the lavish wealth enjoyed by some and the abject poverty experienced by others. Why else do we watch those 30 second commercials asking for money to support the poor in other lands (you know, the “for the cost of a cup of coffee a day, you could give clean running water to these precious children.”)? Why do those commercials gain any hearing from the world? Could it be that the world, at some level, is tortured by a question similar to Isaac Watts question with respect to his salvation: “Why was I made to hear Thy voice, and enter while there’s room, when thousands make the wretched choice, and rather starve than come?” Could it be that the world wonders, “Why was I born into a situation where prosperity is relatively easily attained, while others in the world are fitted only with poverty?” While that wondering may result in nothing more than a fleeting and unspoken concern, does it yet continue?
For at least those two reasons, I think people are prone to hear voices that challenge them to feel guilt. However, I think the degree to which such voices are heard is directly related to the relative ease of the remedy to soothe that same guilt. We will acknowledge our festering sores, but only if the ailment is common to mankind and the balm is relatively painless and easy to acquire.
Everybody’s Doing It
Such is the situation with respect to GW. We are told, “Your lifestyle is polluting the world. Feel bad about it.” But our guilt is not alone, for all of us (particularly those of us in western contexts) are to blame. It is everyone’s fault, and because it is everyone’s fault, it is, in fact, nobody’s fault.
Such is the new attitude with respect to pornography. I suppose pornography has existed for a long time, and was acceptable in certain situations and contexts; but its presence has only recently begun to be flaunted everywhere. It was, for the majority of my life, a vice to be concealed from the eyes of others. If you owned a subscription to Playboy, you didn’t admit it to your friends. But then pornography became easy to access, and with its newfound availability came its increased popularity. And before long, we learned that Americans spent far more on pornography than sports. Everyone sneaked a peak now and again, and since everyone was doing it, it became ok to do. You should not flaunt it in front of your wife, but she no longer expected you to refrain altogether. It was a vice that everyone shared, and with that shared culpability came a certain release from an oppressive guilt. You felt bad if she found your Playboy – but not too bad.
And so it is with the behaviors that are purported to cause an increase in global temperatures. We are to feel bad about the amount of fossil fuels we consume, but that guilt is tempered by the realization that everyone in our culture uses fossil fuels. Everyone owns a car. Everyone runs the air conditioner when it is hot. We are all to blame. We share a collective guilt that runs only culture deep.
An Easy Remedy
But even that global guilt is soon soothed away with a variety of easy fixes. On the hypocritical side, we have the example of Al Gore, who jets from city to city (burning all sorts of fossil fuels on the way) warning us about GW, but then excuses his massive carbon footprint with the planting of trees - a modern day environmental Tetzel offering freedom from guilt for a reasonable contribution (“When a tree in the rainforest is saved, the AC at home is ok”). Or there is the always popular method of looking to some outside source who will step in and save the day, so long as that salvation comes without any uncomfortable changes to our lifestyles. The government will have to step in and regulate the problem, so long as those regulations don’t keep us from that trip to Aspen this winter. We will buy a hybrid car, but only if it still goes as fast as a car powered by a traditional combustion engine. We will start a national bus tour to raise awareness of the ill effects of GW, so long as the bio-diesel bus is comfy.
If it is true that the consumption of fossil fuels on the part of mankind is to blame for the increase in global temperature, and if the rising temperatures are going to result in catastrophic ailments for our planet, it seems to me that the only reasonable solution involves substantial and painful changes in our behavior. If GW is a man-made phenomenon, and the human behaviors causing it are known, why is there such a reluctance to call for dramatic changes? Or, if such a call is actually made, why is it practically ignored? How many have given up their automobiles? How many refrain from airline travel? How many have sworn off electricity not generated in environmentally friendly power plants?
We are told that the present crisis of GW is the single greatest threat in the history of mankind, and yet, the solutions seem to be disproportionate to the problem. If you become convinced that the problem is burning fossil fuels, why do so few refrain from burning them? If the survivability of mankind is really at stake, why do GW proponents still ride on airplanes, drive cars, and use electricity manufactured at plants powered by coal-burning furnaces? Could it be that even the avowed GW advocates are willing to severely limit the effects of their convictions? Is it because we need an easy remedy for our guilt, a way to soothe our souls without causing any real sacrifice?
I am reminded of the popular formula for gaining admittance into heaven: “I’ve led a pretty good life, so surely God will let me in.” Such a statement presupposes that God exists, and that He makes judgments based on what we do in this life. Over and over again, people will hold such presuppositions but remain steadfast in their opposition to making any changes that limit their freedoms. They think God may judge, but are unwilling to alter their behavior if such alterations are unpleasant. We want easy fixes, or more accurately, we want fixes that do not cause us any pain. Such are often the solutions, at least as they are practiced, both with respect to earning one’s way into heaven, and reversing the effects of GW.
GW provides the guilt-stricken man a chance to assign his guilt to something, and then, simultaneously, eases the burden by making the guilt common to everyone, thereby minimizing the actual, individual guilt we are expected to experience. And then as a clincher, GW provides relatively painless remedies. GW becomes a safe place to deposit guilt, and such a scenario makes the theory widely palpable.
No comments:
Post a Comment