In this editorial, In Denial of Climate Change, we learn about a perspective that’s being taken by some Republican candidates.
The candidates are not simply rejecting solutions, like putting a price on carbon, though these, too, are demonized. They are re-running the strategy of denial perfected by Mr. Cheney a decade ago, repudiating years of peer-reviewed findings about global warming and creating an alternative reality in which climate change is a hoax or conspiracy.
This is a perspective that’s not uncommon among many people across the USA. I wonder, then, what we have to do to demonstrate that we, indeed, have affected — and continue to affect — Nature?
These elections (November) and this mediated hype without debate comes at a time when we’re witnessing the questioning the “value,” “worth” and significance of the Humanities in colleges and universities. For instance, there is a debate, ongoing, in Do Colleges Need French Departments.
In her response, Martha Naussbum argues that,
Cuts in the humanities are bad for business and bad for democracy. Even if a nation’s only goal were economic prosperity, the humanities supply essential ingredients for a healthy business culture.
Nations such as China and Singapore, which previously ignored the humanities, are now aggressively promoting them, because they have concluded that the cultivation of the imagination through the study of literature, film, and the other arts is essential to fostering creativity and innovation. They also have found that teaching critical thinking and argumentation (a skill associated with courses in philosophy) is essential in order to foster healthy debate inside a business world that might too easily become complacent or corrupt.
We in the U.S. are moving away from the humanities just at the time that our rivals are discovering their worth. But a healthy business culture is not all that life in America is about.
What might be the connections between Republican rejection of man-made climate change, the media hype without debate or dialog, and the willingness of citizens to accept the notion that climate change is happening — and has happened — outside our influence?
By this point, there is so much data and research proving our role in climate change that any opposition is just frustrating. Because it’s such an accepted fact of life for me, it is always really strange and scary to remember how many people don’t believe in global warming. When did hard scientific data lose its meaning, to be replaced by loud and dishonest characters in the media? I think it’s easier for people to call it a hoax. No one wants to take any blame for something that could have, and is having, such devastating effects. Accepting responsibility means admitting there is something wrong in the way we live, which is a hard thing to do. And it’s even harder to make steps toward change. Like the shadows on the cave wall, it’s easier to just stay in the dark and blindly follow someone saying its all a big scam. It’s scary to face big problems like this, and it doesn’t help when those who are in power are pushing against it (like the oil companies behind the scenes).
I also think there is a problem in the way the media presents issues of global warming. The news may cover stories of one hurricane or another record high temperature, but global warming is barely mentioned, let alone our role. Storms and droughts appear to be independent events. The media refuses to draw the connection.
The thing that scares me is that time is running out. Do we have the time and energy to fight against Republicans who disagree, or convince people of its validity? Or should we just go ahead with those who are informed? A mixture of both? An Inconvenient Truth was an amazing movie that convinced and inspired many people. But we can’t make people watch it, and even when they do watch it, we can’t make people listen.
The Wu-Tang Clan realized their single C.R.E.A.M, an acronym for “cash rules everything around me,” in 1994, and every time we look into the problems that our country faces with ecological democracy, the media, or our culture I find my self coming back to this notion. The parts of the media and our conservative political parties that continue to deny the existence of climate change are are also reinforcing the notion that capitalism and the existence of free markets will fix everything and lead to our prosperity as a nation. The idea that as long as we are consuming and producing more and paying less contributes directly to America’s willingness to perceive global warming as a hoax. By believing it is a hoax we can let ourselves of the hook financially and emotionally. Even when climate change does reach the agenda in a country where accumulation of wealth is everything spending large amounts of money to fix infrastructure for something that we have “no control over” is not at all appealing. It remains amazing to me that in a time when capitalism and the reign of deregulated markets has obviously put our country into deep economic peril that some still refuse to believe that this system has failed us. If institutions continue to eliminate the humanities in the generations to come we will find more and more people thinking in the kind of linear, money only, mid-set that makes that makes these kinds of beliefs possible.
After reading “In Climate Denial, Again,” I was pretty surprised that some Republican candidates are still rejecting the reality of climate change even after virtually the entire scientific community has agreed that humans are the major contributors to global warming. Having been in this class as well as my natural science and the environment class for more than half of a semester, there is no doubt in my mind that climate range is real, but I had not given enough thought to the fact that not all Americans are on the same page. In my natural science class, we recently looked at OAGCM’s (oceanic and atmospheric global circulation models) that scientists have used to come up with equations that model the temperatures that our planet has experienced. The scientists found that the models cannot even come close to generating the temperatures that we have experienced without including anthropogenic effects. It is difficult to understand how some citizens can support politicians who blatantly reject well-accepted scientific findings. There is no “debate or dialogue” because many people are willing to accept what they hear in the media without additional thought or research. The connection here is that people do not sufficiently understand the value in discussing and challenging ideas or authorities. We learned in Empire of Illusions that young people learn how to maintain the current systems without criticism because it is easier and sometimes more profitable to avoid change and confrontations. Earlier in the year, Hector brought up the point that we find the most strength in ourselves when we are most vulnerable. It may be against our nature to put ourselves in vulnerable positions, especially psychological ones, such as thinking critically or accepting that our race has changed the climate. However, this is the time when we actually need people to debate, risk failure, think outside the box, and offer creative solutions to the current problems. Avoiding debate should truly not be an incentive to reject climate change. Discussion is vital to achieving the consensus that will help us form a united front against global warming and the deterioration of the environment.
Charlotte
Very well done, Charlotte. Particularly important is how you weave in the experiences in your other courses to add value and voice to your concerns.
As I read your post, perhaps one of the problems is that the media — and politicians — are not doing a good job explaining the science, not as well as you do here. Another aspect is that the media — and those that pay the media — do not highlight the “scientist” as a kind of “hero” who can lead us to solutions. Instead, we’re caught up in a “who is louder” and how can be more negative approach that does not address the fundamental issue you bring up here: what about the science?
In MIT Professor’s Climate Change Op-Ed Proven False you can see the debate taking shape around the science.
And here’s another one, Scientific models predict continued decline in Washington Post circulation that uses poor coverage of climate change, with some science and data, to argue that (a) the Washington Post does a poor job and that (b)
You see how complicated this is when we’re dealing with who said what, the science and media delivery systems. As you suggest in your post, people don’t want to be involved in such a messy discussion — which is when and where the loudest voice enters the game to ensure the sheep follow a certain path, which is usually to maintain the balance — or lack thereof — of power in place.
There is a strong connection between the Republican rejection of man-made climate change and the questioning of the “worth” of humanities in present day colleges. I think the connection lies in our incessant drive towards a capatialist focused society. In “Ecological Democracy”, the concept of neoliberalism supports the Republican point of view of limited government and interference, and complete economic profit. Republicans feel that Democrats “have seized on the cap-and-trade climate bill as another way to paint Democrats as out-of-control taxers” . You can directly relate neoliberalism to the cap and trade system some Democrats are promoting to reduce global warming because these are just more uneccessary taxes in the eyes of Cheney and other Republicans. Also, neoliberalism relates to the question over the worth of humanities because they are irrelevant in a world where economic growth means everything.
Contrary to the Republicans belief, this cap and trade system is an effective way to reduce pollution and alert businesses that climate change is a real concern to the government. Therefore in response to higher taxes, they must implement greener technologies. As well, just as Signapore and China have realized, learning the humanites will only further our understanding of business and thus help us to reach our greater goal of economic growth. Thus, until we are either devasted by another huge catastrophe like Katrina, or we are economically surpassed by China, we will have realized what we have done. But, by that time it will be too late.
One of the reasons we all came to Middlebury was to receive a well-rounded education in order to be able to intellectually ponder and discuss a variety of academic topics. The rejection of climate change by republicans and the acceptance of this point of view by some citizens is a result of the narrow and oftentimes limited education many Americans receive. For example, the majority of politicians studied political science as undergrads and then went to graduate school where they became even more focused on politics. As a result they may lack the scientific background necessary to understand climate change or have never given any credence to science and consequently have no problem denying scientific findings. If the humanities programs at universities are cut it will only narrow the scope of the education that Americans receive. As Naussbum states, the humanities cultivate creativity and imagination and without them and education becomes too one sided. If people lack these critical thinking skills they will be more inclined to blindly follow what the media and politicians tell them without questioning it. If we put the power of choosing who governs us in the hands of people who are unable to think for themselves and understand the consequences of what their vote could mean to our country then we are dooming our country.
Indeed, Cooper — I found this editorial, by Maureen Dowd, this AM, instructive (stay with it), especially about assumptions we make and how images work with or against them:
Making Ignorance Chic