RSS
Image: Library of Congress
UPDATED: June 24, 2011
In his article Climate of Denial in the current issue of Rolling Stone (subtitled “Can science and the truth withstand the merchants of poison?”) Al Gore writes that the climate “debate” in the media reminds him of watching a rigged professional wrestling match when he was a lad: it looks real, sort of, and is very dramatic, but really it is choreographed violence as entertainment.
The evidence that it was real was palpable: “They’re really hurting each other! That’s real blood! Look a’there! They can’t fake that!” On the other hand, there was clearly a script (or in today’s language, a “narrative”), with good guys to cheer and bad guys to boo.
But the most unusual and in some ways most interesting character in these dramas was the referee: Whenever the bad guy committed a gross and obvious violation of the “rules” — such as they were — like using a metal folding chair to smack the good guy in the head, the referee always seemed to be preoccupied with one of the cornermen, or looking the other way. Yet whenever the good guy — after absorbing more abuse and unfairness than any reasonable person could tolerate — committed the slightest infraction, the referee was all over him. The answer to the question “Is it real?” seemed connected to the question of whether the referee was somehow confused about his role: Was he too an entertainer?
That is pretty much the role now being played by most of the news media in refereeing the current wrestling match over whether global warming is “real,” and whether it has any connection to the constant dumping of 90 million tons of heat-trapping emissions into the Earth’s thin shell of atmosphere every 24 hours.
Gore accurately predicts that when he criticizes President Obama’s lack of leadership on the issue of climate, as he does strongly in the essay, it will be used by critics:
Even writing an article like this one carries risks; opponents of the president will excerpt the criticism and strip it of context.
But in this case, the President has reality on his side. The scientific consensus is far stronger today than at any time in the past. Here is the truth: The Earth is round; Saddam Hussein did not attack us on 9/11; Elvis is dead; Obama was born in the United States; and the climate crisis is real. It is time to act.
Ironically, the 7000 word essay, passionate, rambling and unlikely to convince anyone who doubts that human activities are impacting the Earth’s climate and biosphere or prompt the President to use his bully pulpit, becomes part of the circus. An immediate case in point: the comment section of the Rolling Stone essay is a snarky verbal wrestling match between Climate Hawks and Anti-Gore advocates, with no referee in sight.
Predictably the news and blogs are already filled with the “news” of Gore’s criticism of Obama, and the White House has responded to point out the positive things the Administration has done to address climate and energy topics, which Gore also does in his essay before lamenting the missed opportunities to convey to the American public at large the urgency and seriousness of the climate/energy problem.
Andy Revkin provides detailed commentary on the essay and its impact (or lack thereof).
In all of these discussions, the role of climate literacy and education as an imperative for civic science literacy and preparing for changes that are already well underway is missing in action. Why isn’t the fact that climate change education has been a Presidential Priority since 2009 ever noted in these “debates”? Maybe it is just as well since their long term future and long-lasting impact is unknown.
It appears now that the recent crop of over 100 climate education and communication projects funded by US federal agencies may dry up with diminished funding and political polarization in the coming budget cycles. This leaves an open question: what will happen with the best practices, emerging talent and promising approaches that were developed by the various projects?
There is also a deeper question beyond the policy and political wrestling. Without solid climate science education and energy awareness, how can we as a society step outside the staged arena of theater and snipping in order to make truly informed choices, minimize very real risks, and empower ourselves as individuals and communities in order to build genuine resiliency into our lives?
UPDATE
A reader pointed me to an analysis by John Abraham of Gore’s essay:
Former Vice President Al Gore’s comments reflect a real frustration that is shared by scientists who are concerned about this issue. Every year, the evidence becomes stronger and stronger as our Earth warms, the seas rise, and the ice melts. Every year, the denial machine trots out new arguments that tries to explain away what we can see with our eyes. Every year, the ranks of the denialists get thinner and thinner and the stature of their members decreases.
Despite this overwhelming consensus amongst people who understand climate, there is a gulf found within the general public. Many people are either not concerned or are dismissive. Part of the apathy is a result of terrible media coverage and a well-funded industrial force against taking climate action. When our media defers to experts from think tanks as experts in climate science, everyone loses.
Al Gore’s statements reflected a hope that many scientists shared, that the new administration would champion the cause of environmental stewardship and would resist the forces of denial. Instead of taking a strong and public stand, the current administration has chosen to work within other frameworks, including using stimulus funding to promote renewable every and relying upon the EPA to work on greenhouse mitigation.
