Why is climate change not taken seriously in the U.S.?

Is it a communications failure?

Posted by Andrew Dessler (Guest Contributor) at 10:48 AM on 14 Mar 2007

Read more about: climate | climate change skepticism | United States

Recent news articles have pointed out that we in the U.S. do not consider global warming a critical threat. Some bloggers have argued that this is the result of a communications failure (e.g., here or here or here).

The decision whether to worry about a looming issue is a value judgment, not a scientific one. You and I could agree entirely on the science of climate change, but disagree about whether it's something for our society to address.

For example, one argument against us worrying about climate change is that our descendants will be much richer than we are, so they will be better able to address whatever climate change occurs -- thus, we should leave the problem for them. At its heart, this is a moral choice.

In any case, one should not blame scientists for this position because it does not involve scientific misunderstanding.

But I don't think that explains the U.S. public's position. Rather, I think people are not concerned because they simply don't recognize the possible impacts of climate change. Why not? Because the Bush administration has made it a goal to obfuscate and downplay the risks and potential harms of climate change.

Consider for a moment the power the president has in determining what people worry about. His administration was able to convince most U.S. citizens that Iraq was a threat so grave we needed to invade immediately. And he was able to get the looming bankruptcy of social security on to the agenda simply by talking about it.

The president has great power to control what the public worries about -- and does not worry about. For global warming, he has made it his goal to downplay the risks of climate impacts and emphasize the economic risks of emissions reductions. Given his immense power, is it any wonder the general public is not terribly worried?

Thus, I don't view the present situation as a failure of communication. This is a highly technical issue, and the forces opposed to action have waged a generally successful disinformation campaign. And the most powerful agenda setter, the president, is doing nothing to raise awareness or concern on the issue.

Given this situation, I am actually hopeful that things will improve in 2009. Most serious presidential candidates from both parties support action on climate change, so I think we will see a change in presidential rhetoric in the next administration.

I expect that will ratchet up the U.S. public's interest and concern level on this problem.

For story: Why is climate change not taken seriously in the U.S.?
5 Comments | Post a Comment

A priceless moral question.

I will not wait until 2009, nor use a lack of leadership as an excuse. Nor do I blame journalists, scientists, obstructionists, corporate structure, greed, sloth, wrath, envy, hubris, lust, gluttony.

I blame avoidance on a failure of American ethics. Other indicators of immorality -- preemptive war, torture, plans to vitrify Iran, lost civil rights, injustice, corruption,...

We can not solve global warming issues in the vacuum of morality.

by sunflower at 1:56 PM on 14 Mar 2007

Beware the Ides of March!

A classic day for assassinating tyrants ...

I do not understand the premiss of the argument that "our descendants will be much richer than we are," so therefore let us do nothing and leave the problem to them. How in the world can we make that prediction about our descendants? (Well, yours, not mine, since I do not have any.)

And even if they are wealthier, is it not assumed that there will persist an unjust distribution of wealth, with a huge gap between the wealthy and the poor, such as exists today? In that case, how will the motivations of the wealthy be any more enlightened then, than those of their ancestors are today?

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

by caniscandida at 7:05 AM on 15 Mar 2007

I agree ...

... that the "wealth of future generations" argument has some practical and moral issues. To begin with, it assumes some reasonable rate of economic growth. However, economic growth relies on the stability of the climate, so can you have it with climate change? Also there's the obvious moral issue of passing problems on to future generations. Overall, I am not in favor of that argument.

Regards

by Andrew Dessler at 10:24 AM on 15 Mar 2007

Climate change con

IMO climate change is a big international con, perpertrated namely by the scientists who formulated the idea, and the IPCC.
to look at it plainly and in simple terms, the world climate is a constantly fluctuating entity, like a lifeform. The climate can differ widely over thousand of years, even hundreds. The IPCC is covering itself by shouting wildly at anyone who disagrees, labelling them heretics as if this Global Warming/Climate Change fiasco were some new religion. I dont discount that the Earth is warming up, but didnt we go through this problem before? in the 1970s? were we not talking of polar ice caps melting, sea level rises, a frazzled earth?

we have nothing to worry about, the temperate will probably have gone down in 5 years!

NOTE: in medieval times the earth was 5 degrees hotter than it is now, woe betide us, remember how all those poor english serfs were killed in the great flood of 1354???? no, neither do i

chris

by Chris Haywood at 4:53 PM on 15 Mar 2007

A few thoughts

Chris-

The temperature of the medieval warm period (MWP) was NOT 5 deg warmer than today. That's preposterous. A recent National Academy report concluded that we simply cannot say whether the MWP was warmer or not than the present. The IPCC concluded that it was likely that the present-day temperature is warmer than the MWP. Obviously, there's some disagreement about whether today is warmer than the MWP or not. But no one confidently argues that the MWP was significantly warmer than today. I'd be really interested to know where you heard that.
The argument that because the temperature has varied in the past, today's warming must be natural is based on faulty logic and no science. I've written about why the scientific community thinks that humans are to blame for the recent warming here. Check it out.

Regards.

by Andrew Dessler at 5:29 PM on 15 Mar 2007

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.