Readers know that I was mightily bothered by Andy Revkin's attempt to classify certain thinkers as part of the "middle" of the climate debate. Some folks have attacked Revkin because they think one "side" -- the "alarmist" side -- is correct. That wasn't quite my point. What I was trying to get at I just found summarized in a comment by Michael Tobis over on John Fleck's site. Tobis makes the point with many fewer words:
Opinion space is multidimensional, not linear. That is my problem with Revkin's approach.
Journalism's common error isn't just about concentrating on extremes, it's about modeling the whole conversation as a one-dimensional spectrum of opinion.
In particular I cannot think of dramatically different positions prominently held where I lie on a line between them.
For instance I believe that 1) we will be in big trouble if we don't change course 2) changing course will not be technically difficult nor have a large impact on lifestyles 3) changing course *will* be socially difficult 4) the short-term impact of this necessary difficult adjustment will be negative on the whole 5) changes in individual behavior (green shopping) not only don't matter significantly but are likely to be modestly counterproductive in non-obvious ways 6) nuclear power and coal with carbon sequestration are likely to be necessary 7) geoengineering other than carbon sequestration is far too dangerous to consider 8) universal development and dignity is possible but only with very careful planning.
Some of these opinions are not widely held, and some which are widely held individually are not often held pairwise by the same person, but I find them entirely consistent. Where does that put me on the "spectrum"?
I am not objecting to the idea of being reasonable. I am objecting to the idea that the "middle" is a useful construct. It trivializes irreducible complexity and also suggests the feasibility of complacency and modest action.
That's just it. The climate issue is extraordinarily complex, and there are many different questions in contention. Different people will come down in different places on different questions. Trying to model that complexity as points along a single line distorts the discussion. It obscures more than it reveals.
The only thing I'd add to Tobis' point is that deeming certain people "centrist" is not only inaccurate. It is also pernicious. There is a well-understood psychosocial dynamic in journalism whereby certain writers try to establish their bona fides among their peers by contrasting their reasonable views with extremists on "both sides." When a national journalist deems a person "centrist," it confers a unique kind of credibility and standing on that person. It gives that person an exalted place in the national discussion. It makes that person's views a kind of benchmark against which others are judged.
Why, of the many innovative, creative thinkers and writers working around climate and energy today, you would want to give that kind of credibility to Gingrich and Lomborg is a mystery to me.
Climate psychology in cartoons: clues for solving the messaging mystery
Children and riot police face off in Canadian “Moms” video
Obama gives his first real climate speech—really
Comments
View as Threaded
ce1907 Posted 7:28 am
21 Nov 2007
is a knave or fool
or both.
The world we actually live in is complicated.
Permalink
wesrolley Posted 7:37 am
21 Nov 2007
On the subject issue, Climate Change, I have been a vocal supporter of Ed Mazria and the Architecture 2030 approach of forcing change through building codes, local permitting processes, etc. It takes a lot more organizing to pull this off, but it does more to eliminated the need for future new coal fired or nuclear energy plants than any protest on the steps of the capital.
Even to start showing political opinion as a triangle would be a novel idea. Another one would have been to use the recent Step Ip Up sessions to organize people for local action on energy standards for new / renovated building. But that is not the way progressives organize protest.
Wes Rolley
CoChair - EcoAction Committee
Green Party US
Permalink
ce1907 Posted 7:54 am
21 Nov 2007
Permalink
Michael Tobis Posted 8:57 am
21 Nov 2007
Still, if you're gonna put my name in boldface on the front page couldn't it have been for something on my blog and not John's???
Here's my own article in response to Andrew's middle muddle, for instance, which I thought was pretty good too.
Anyway, thanks, seriously, and happy holiday to you and yours.
mt
Permalink
jfleck Posted 9:38 am
21 Nov 2007
Could you elaborate on the evidence in support of this "well-understood psychosocial dynamic in journalism" that you bring up? I know that it's been a useful framework for you in viewing this situation, but what evidence do you have to support this hidden motivation you're ascribing to Revkin and other journalists you're describing? And how might you distinguish between those who are "try(ing) to establish their bona fides among their peers" versus those who genuinely believe that what they're saying is a reasonable description of the world?
Permalink
Steve Bloom Posted 10:06 am
21 Nov 2007
Shellenberger and Nordhaus are a different case since their argument about the poor strategy being pursued by the U.S. "big enviro" groups is absolutely right. I happen to think their particular solution is somewhat off the mark, but I don't doubt their sincerity. (Just to note that one thing they have in common with "Big Green" is the need to dance around their relationship with the Democratic Party. 'Ware the fate of the environmentalist Liberals in Canada.)
It seems that the idea of an idealized middle came first and was followed by the need to shoehorn enough people into it (whether they fit or not) to make it seem credible.
To put forward what may be way too irreducibly simple a paradigm for some, IMHO there are people who sincerely want to avoid dangerous climate change and then there's everyone else. There is no middle.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 1:45 am
23 Nov 2007
I disagree. All the evidence seems to point that we set in motion at the onset of the Bush Administration all the policies needed to "solve" the problem.
In this case, Al Gore is a Johnny-Come-Lately to the debate, and intellectuals such as Revkin are trying to climb aboard the bandwagon by cutting a place at the table for themselves. Their methods? By insisting that we don't know what we're doing.
The evidence is to the contrary.
As I commented in your article on California, that is proof positive that the most sprawled, auto friendly state can achieve the best carbon outputs. The evidence mounts that CO2 will go away not with a bang, but with a whimper...and that we already are on the right path.
Thus, taking the right approach...kicking back and letting the "system" work through this, is probably the best, linear, approach to it all. Simplicity is the right idea.
"We all believe technology offers great promise to significantly reduce [greenhouse gas] emissions -- especially carbon capture, storage and sequestration technologies."
President George W. Bush
June 11, 2001
My Log
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 6:58 am
24 Nov 2007
Don't get me wrong, I like reading this stuff. But I think people tend to relate to their world view and expertise and are much biased by their own opinions.
Onward through the fog
Permalink