Climate of Doubt
02/06/10 04:59
A Chinese colleague turned to me when we were alone after a meeting. John: Do you truly believe that humans have caused climate change? I was shocked by the question. As a scientist working on climate change issues, I have seen and read many lines of evidence that the climate is changing rapidly, that humans have caused these changes, and that we must (and can) actively respond to these shifts. Almost as strange as being asked the question was having the question come from a colleague whom I believe to be one of the most effective members of our organization’s climate adaptation staff.
My friend opened his laptop. Let me show you something here, he said. This is a presentation from a Chinese scientist.
The presentation was huge — more than 120 slides long. Most of the slides were right out of publications from the UN’s scientific panel on climate change (the IPCC). Most of the presentation was also in support of IPCC findings.
But not all of the slides.
The gist of the final part of the presentation was that humans have not caused the current period of climate change. Natural causes — shifts in solar activity, variations in earth’s orbit, and so on were the major drivers. If humans have made some contribution, it is very small. And reducing our greenhouse gas emissions won’t do much. Thus, while humans should adapt to shifts in climate, we need not structure our economies so that they emit much less carbon into the atmosphere.
I was even more shocked now. Who believes this, my friend?
This is a very widespread view in China, he said. And many, perhaps most, of my colleagues also believe this. When you come to China to talk about climate adaptation, people are very eager to hear what you have to say. But the message of the human cause of climate change is being lost here.
Well, I said, This is a big problem in the US as well. And in other countries too — the New York Times just ran an article about the growth of climate skepticism in the United Kingdom. But no one I know in the environmental movement in our countries is a climate skeptic. How do you feel that we should respond? Should we begin talking about the causes of climate change at the same time that we talk about climate adaptation?
I asked this question for very pointed reasons. I began giving high-level talks about climate impacts and adaptation strategies about three years ago, and for the first year or so I would begin each presentation with a brief overview of climate science and the evidence for the human “fingerprints” for our current period of climate change. I even showed slides of polar bears. In truth, during this year I gave very depressing talks. Occasionally I would have to stop talking because I would become quite emotional. I never lost control, but I regularly needed to pause during this section of the talk. (Giving 50 talks a year like this was pretty exhausting.) Among friends, I even made jokes about having induced “only a few” suicides during my most recent lecture. Moreover, I felt like most of the questions I was getting were about the human causation of climate change — did we really do it? What was the climate science? This was frustrating, since I mostly wanted to talk about climate adaptation. The climate science was actually becoming a distraction.
As a result, I made a conscious shift: I would drop the “fingerprints” part of the talk, and I would emphasize that reducing greenhouse gas emissions (“climate mitigation”) is actually a form of climate adaptation since it slows down the rate of climate change. More climate mitigation, less climate adaptation. But more than 95 percent of my talks shifted to climate adaptation, with the implicit assumption that climate change is proceeding rapidly and that humans have caused it. All of the questions shifted to climate adaptation — what should we do, how can we do it better, and so on. Had I made the right shift? I turned to my friend.
How should we talk about climate adaptation now, in China and abroad?
He was very thoughtful. He said, I also talk about climate adaptation very often, and I feel strongly that the human role in climate change is too controversial. It is a distraction. We often have only a limited amount of time, and to raise these issues makes people defensive and unresponsive to the message of climate adaptation. There is a major problem in how people respond to the causes of climate change, but that is not our problem — it is an issue in the larger culture, and we cannot solve that problem and deliver the message of climate adaptation as well. Don’t change your talk. And I won’t change mine. Many people are talking about climate mitigation. Almost no one is talking about adaptation.
The presentation was huge — more than 120 slides long. Most of the slides were right out of publications from the UN’s scientific panel on climate change (the IPCC). Most of the presentation was also in support of IPCC findings.
But not all of the slides.
The gist of the final part of the presentation was that humans have not caused the current period of climate change. Natural causes — shifts in solar activity, variations in earth’s orbit, and so on were the major drivers. If humans have made some contribution, it is very small. And reducing our greenhouse gas emissions won’t do much. Thus, while humans should adapt to shifts in climate, we need not structure our economies so that they emit much less carbon into the atmosphere.
I was even more shocked now. Who believes this, my friend?
This is a very widespread view in China, he said. And many, perhaps most, of my colleagues also believe this. When you come to China to talk about climate adaptation, people are very eager to hear what you have to say. But the message of the human cause of climate change is being lost here.
Well, I said, This is a big problem in the US as well. And in other countries too — the New York Times just ran an article about the growth of climate skepticism in the United Kingdom. But no one I know in the environmental movement in our countries is a climate skeptic. How do you feel that we should respond? Should we begin talking about the causes of climate change at the same time that we talk about climate adaptation?
I asked this question for very pointed reasons. I began giving high-level talks about climate impacts and adaptation strategies about three years ago, and for the first year or so I would begin each presentation with a brief overview of climate science and the evidence for the human “fingerprints” for our current period of climate change. I even showed slides of polar bears. In truth, during this year I gave very depressing talks. Occasionally I would have to stop talking because I would become quite emotional. I never lost control, but I regularly needed to pause during this section of the talk. (Giving 50 talks a year like this was pretty exhausting.) Among friends, I even made jokes about having induced “only a few” suicides during my most recent lecture. Moreover, I felt like most of the questions I was getting were about the human causation of climate change — did we really do it? What was the climate science? This was frustrating, since I mostly wanted to talk about climate adaptation. The climate science was actually becoming a distraction.
As a result, I made a conscious shift: I would drop the “fingerprints” part of the talk, and I would emphasize that reducing greenhouse gas emissions (“climate mitigation”) is actually a form of climate adaptation since it slows down the rate of climate change. More climate mitigation, less climate adaptation. But more than 95 percent of my talks shifted to climate adaptation, with the implicit assumption that climate change is proceeding rapidly and that humans have caused it. All of the questions shifted to climate adaptation — what should we do, how can we do it better, and so on. Had I made the right shift? I turned to my friend.
How should we talk about climate adaptation now, in China and abroad?
He was very thoughtful. He said, I also talk about climate adaptation very often, and I feel strongly that the human role in climate change is too controversial. It is a distraction. We often have only a limited amount of time, and to raise these issues makes people defensive and unresponsive to the message of climate adaptation. There is a major problem in how people respond to the causes of climate change, but that is not our problem — it is an issue in the larger culture, and we cannot solve that problem and deliver the message of climate adaptation as well. Don’t change your talk. And I won’t change mine. Many people are talking about climate mitigation. Almost no one is talking about adaptation.
blog comments powered by Disqus
