This country's public discussion about global warming desperately needs to move beyond the tiresome back and forth about whether it's happening. We need to start discussing solutions -- in many ways a more complex and difficult topic.
CNN's Lou Dobbs offered just such an opportunity last night. He had on three climate scientists: Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt, and Alan Robock.
Watch what happens. Here's the first opportunity:
DOBBS: Well, if you all as leading scientists, with your best science, your best minds working in the field, agree that there is global warming and that greenhouse gases emissions are responsible for all or part of it, what can we do, Gavin, to deal with the issue?
In other words: Enough about science. We believe you. What should we do?
GAVIN SCHMIDT, CLIMATE SCIENTIST: First of all, we have to understand the physical basis for those changes. We need to understand the greenhouse gases, we need to understand the effects of ozone and black carbon. ...
OK, right, science. We have to get the science. Check. But now that the science is in place ...?
DOBBS: Well, what are we going to do? Let's on this broadcast tonight, LOU DOBBS TONIGHT, this broadcast decides global warming is caused by emissions. That discussion is over here. Let's talk about what we should do next.
All right, here's the big chance! Solutions!
MANN: Well, you know, first we have to start -- we have to stop the sort of the false debate that has been placed in the public discourse about the science. The science is agreed upon.
OK, right, science. The science in place. It's happening. Got it. Now ...
DOBBS: ... I'm saying to you, we've moved beyond it. The false debate is over. We're going to focus on what pitiful little people on this planet can do to change the outcome.
Luvagod, people, he's practically begging!
So finally, finally, they talk about solutions. Here's the sum total:
ROBOCK: This is a hard problem because it has to deal with our basic source of energy, coal and oil. But it's a simple problem because we know what to do about it. We can develop new sources of energy. And we have to develop a lot of little things, it's not just one solution. So we can use more solar power, more wind power, more biofuels -- not just corn but also switchgrass. I mean, President Bush mentioned switchgrass in his State of the Union. That's burning -- turning cellulose into fuel.
...
ROBOCK: We need leadership from the top. The current budget is cutting research in these things, in energy efficiency and other sources. And they're spending a lot of money in the so-called energy bill giving it to the oil companies.
...
MANN: You know, Lou, there are other simple things we can do. Our fuel efficiency. There's absolutely no reason that we have to be driving around in SUVs.
...
ROBOCK: We can make save vehicles that are much more fuel- efficient if we developed them. We know the technology to do that.
Now, I don't object to any of this on substantive grounds. But imagine that you're Joe Sixpack, flipping past CNN. What a confusing, muddled, mixed, wanky mess! What gets through? What's the take-home message? What would you tell your friends about it the next day? "They said we should do something solar, something, cellulose something, research, SUVs, something ... uh ..."
I don't want to blame the scientists -- they're scientists after all. But if they want to be public spokespeople on this issue, they should develop a simple message about solutions, complete with a catchy slogan or two, and repeat it endlessly. Simplicity and repetition, however uncomfortable a fit for smart people, are the name of the cable news game.
We need the public united behind a few simple solutions. So let's figure out what to focus on, and focus. Every media opportunity should be used to maximum effect.
Comments
View as Flat
kmp Posted 5:10 am
14 Jul 2006
That being said, I agree with you, the components of "what to do" where there, but were stated horribly. How much simpler and more effective if the three of them had agreed in advance to each offer up one strong statement of "what Joe Public can do:"
Conservation & Efficiency
Drive less.
Drive a more fuel-efficient car.
Combine trips to market, work, errands, picking kids up.
Drive at moderate speeds.
Car-pool.
Walk, run, bike, rollerblade, skate.. instead.
Renewable Energy
Investigate the possibility of renewable electricity supply in your area.
Invest in solar, wind, farm methane and other alternative energy projects.
Political Action
Write your congressman, senator, councilman, etc.
Donate money to NGOs working to prevent climate change.
Vote.
Speak your convictions with your dollars; search out and support companies that area committed to sustainability.
Off-set your energy use with carbon off-sets.
Clearly not an exhaustive list, but a number of things that any Joe Public can do, a list of things that can be picked & chosen from as long as you always have the three main buckets - efficiency, renewables, political action.
Kaela
p.s. I just realized that recycling did not even make the list. Umbra will be thrilled.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 5:42 am
14 Jul 2006
Car pool.
Permalink
JMG Posted 6:21 am
14 Jul 2006
I don't have the book at hand, but my paraphrase from memory of the most important things are
Don't drive--walk, take transit, live close to your job.
Eat no meat (or as little as possible)
Insulate your house and use energy-efficient appliances.
If I recall correctly, those are the big ones, the few things that get you 80% of the way there (Pareto principle).
I think those guys did such a terrible job--and I agree with you completely, they were simply tone deaf and flat-footed--is that they probably spend a lot of time with people who have done all these things, and so they are sort of left gulping when you ask them "What should we do?" They forget that most people in America take a car for any trip longer than 100 yards, eat meat twice a day at least, if not more, and haven't had their house weatherized since 1977, if then.
Permalink
Laurence Aurbach Posted 7:02 am
14 Jul 2006
Burn fewer gallons of gasoline annually
Insulate your building, use efficient HVAC and lighting technologies
Use efficient cooking, water heating and refrigerating appliances
Switch to renewable energy wherever possible; conserve whenever possible
Support policies that make solutions like these easier, more abundant and less expensive
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 3:35 pm
14 Jul 2006
E.g., after the scientists said goodbye, the next matter was Lou's poll result: 96% of respondents said illegal immigrants should not receive certain benefits. And one unbalanced person in PA said he would vote for Kim Jung-Il for Senate, since he is sure such a Senator would make border security a top priority.
Anyway, the three scientists were introduced as "climate scientists." It seems it is sensible to ask them about the nature of the crisis, its causes and likely consequences. But they are not necessarily the ones to go to for practical advice on energy sources and conservation.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 2:53 am
15 Jul 2006
Lou was asking questions concerning mitigation from the wrong people. But he was asking the right questions. I know he is paid to ask questions. The mitigation question is blog-worthy because it is so rare.
Permalink
robertmacelvain Posted 6:38 am
15 Jul 2006
GLOBAL WARMING REVERSED!
DIASTER AVERTED... EARTH SAVED!
MAN-MADE CLIMATE CHANGES... PERMANENTLY NULLIFIED!
Albert Einstein provided the perfect scientific answer to Global Warming in 1905 with his paradigm, mass-to-energy equation, which is the key to unlocking all of the clean, cheap, environmentally friendly energy the inhabitants of Earth will ever need, without any pollution or waste stream, and with no carbon dioxide or other greenhouse emissions.
Even the super-powerful Energy Cartel will be unable to prevent millions of individuals around the World from freely switching to this abundant and everlasting Einsteinian cornucopia of "home-made energy," which will automatically reestablish Mother Nature as the exclusive controller of climate change.
http://slow-motion-Thermonuclear.blogspot.com/2006/06/invention-for-sale-slow...
Permalink
sunflower Posted 8:26 am
15 Jul 2006
Permalink
mihan Posted 3:18 am
16 Jul 2006
on guest selection: I've never heard of Dobbs, but he must be trying to muddle the debate and reinforce doubt and confusion. If you wanted to ask about the science, you wouldn't (I hope) invite Inhofe (or even Gore) as a guest. Similarly, if he wanted to talk about policy, why did he invite scientists? I don't get it.
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 4:44 am
16 Jul 2006
Or, better yet, let's have a meeting at which we decide to tear down the existing system and create a new, ecologically-sustainable system, so we can save our skins.
http://ecosocialism.blogspot.com/
Permalink