As a major in the natural sciences, I entered this course with the mindset that the people who don’t believe in climate change must simply not understand the science behind it. I always thought that maybe, if there was a way to get enough ‘science’ out there, we could convince everyone that climate change was real. For me, the overarching idea, was that if people believed in climate change they would know the it mattered; they would fix it, however, over the course of this semester I have come to the realization that climate change is entirely not a linear pathway of realization to remediation. I would summarize the flaws of my previous notions into three statements, each with a corresponding lesson found in Mike Hulme’s Why We Disagree About Climate Change. The three are as follows:
1. In order to convince the public of the realities of climate change they must be educated.
2. If the public believes in climate change, they will care to solve it.
3. If the public cares to solve climate change, then the problem can be solved.
In this post I intend to briefly explore and evaluate these three important lessons following these assumptions, which, in my experience amongst my peers, are a tough pill to swallow.
The Deficit Model
ENVS-160 has made me aware of the defects of considering science an ultimatum. Mike Hulme points out the “deficit model” (Hulme 2009, 217) to bring down the notions that science is a compass point to navigating potential environmental disasters. The deficit model operates under the assumption, that any disagreement can be cured by “scientific communicators” (Hulme 2009, 217). This was the model of communication, especially pertaining to environmental and political issues, which I had used in my own discourse. The lesson I take away from the deficit model, is that science does not have all of the answers. When Hulme discusses the “Performance of Science” he points out three key weaknesses; the first being “scientific knowledge will always be incomplete”, the second, “knowledge as a public commodity will always have been shaped to some degree”, and finally, “we must be more honest and transparent about what science can tell us and what it can’t” (Hulme 2009, 106-107). Before reading Hulme, I considered science the all powerful vessel of knowledge. Science was pure and untainted, because the scientific method had no room for bias. The alternative to these statements was a tough pill to swallow, but I have concluded that a healthy dose of skepticism can’t hurt.
Agreement to Take Action
My idea was, that if I can convince people that this thing, climate change, was real that they would immediately understand the need to solve it. Again, I was operating under the assumption that everyone else was looking into the future. Hulme posted out the “Nobel Laureates” who were more concerned with “human welfare today” than that of future generations (Hulme 2009, 133). This brought up an enormous ethical question, one with which I am still wrestling: do future generations have the same entitlements as the humans of today? It is the ethical questions which I have found are the most difficult to answer, because in the context of Garrett Hardin’s Tragedy of the Commons, I am only human for ‘wanting my next sheep’ (Hardin 1968, 1244). The ethical dilemma is that humans are inherently selfish, however influential their conscience may be, they will always long to extend their resources (Hardin 1968). As difficult as it is to convince people that climate change is real, it is even more difficult to change the kinds of those who do not see it as a problem. You cannot forge a conscience for a person lacking one, and for this reason, we cannot expect to convince every individual that climate change is an important problem to be solved.
Making Solutions
This particular lesson was the hardest for me to learn. I liked to believe that humans could figure almost anything out, that science had no limits, in the same way that I believed in the “deficit model” (Hulme 2009, 217). It is true, that we could pour our time and resources into research and development of solutions on local scales, but the moment we begin taking about solutions, an entire litany of questions arise:
Should solutions target the individual or the system in which the individual resides?
What exactly is the boundary of anthropogenic climate change?
How do we begin to quantify the reach of climate change?
Should we involve the market in possible solutions or is capitalism at fault?
Is it fair to consider the rights of future generations when considering the degree to which we combat climate change?
The list goes on. On thing that Hulme was very clear about in his book, was that climate change is a “wicked problem” and can’t be solved by generic solutions (Hulme 2009, 334). In fact, one of the few “solutions” for which Hulme feels slightly optimistic is for “clumsy solutions”, and after wrestling with the deficit model, I would agree with him (Hulme 2009 338). “Clumsy solutions” , seemingly aligning with the dialogic model of scientific communication (an alternative to the deficit model), come from “multiple values, multiple frameworks, and multiple voices” (Hulme 2009, 217, 338). These solutions, Hulme recognizes, can’t even begin to solve a problem as “wicked” as climate change. The hopelessness that goes hand-in-hand with impossible solutions is extremely difficult to grasp, especially for someone as hopeful as the me that walked into ENVS-160 in mid-January. I found that I did not want to agree with Hulme, but his points made sense. This was when I came to the realization that the more we dug into climate change, the further we felt from resolution.
References