I did it. I read our first-year book, The Ravaging Tide. I struggled through atmospheric thermodynamics. I conducted research at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. I finally saw An Inconvenient Truth last week. I’ve done as much as I can to immerse myself in the study of climate – and it was almost enough to make me give up.
Maybe it was reading morbid passages from The Ravaging Tide describing how societies “slit their wrists and then stand by as every last drop of blood pours to the ground.” Or maybe it was listening to Al Gore warning us how “making mistakes in generations and centuries past would have consequences that we could overcome,” but, “we don’t have that luxury anymore.” I’m not sure why exactly, but I slumped into my chair in the Hoff Theater.
I was suffering from climate anxiety. The alarmism of the environmental movement convinced me of the insurmountable nature of our problems with Mother Nature.
Luckily for me, right after the ending credits, climate scientist Daniel Kirk-Davidoff took the stage to lead an audience discussion. With a disarming demeanor and charm reminiscent of Bill Nye the Science Guy, he was remarkably reassuring, saying, “The first thing to we need to do about climate change is be optimistic.”
Optimism from a scientist? What does he know that I don’t?
Well, he began, we can deal with this crisis without destroying our economy or quality of life. The solutions are affordable even with existing technology, and we could ease into them by gently subsidizing clean energy production and taxing greenhouse gas emissions.
One of the least cost-effective techniques for mitigating global climate change is capturing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. This involves dropping huge amounts of lye through the air to catch carbon dioxide molecules so they can be extracted, liquefied and pumped underground. Even this incredibly roundabout method would only cost about $1.50 to trap the carbon dioxide produced by a gallon of gas.
Kirk-Davidoff is on to something with his optimism: It is vital to the success of environmentalism. The successful social movements of the 20th century in the United States have stayed away from negativity and have instead been guided by a grand vision of the future. Rather than complaining about oppression, Martin Luther King Jr. inspired us by proclaiming, “I’ve been to the mountain top … And I’ve looked over. And I’ve seen the Promised Land.” Even on the other political extreme, Newt Gingrich’s ungainly brainchild, Contract with America, pledged to “restore the bonds of trust between the people and their elected representatives” and offered “a detailed agenda for national renewal.”
Unfortunately, the “sky is falling” rhetoric of the environmental movement has taken hold because both the severity of our problems and the selling power of sensationalism have increased. This type of rhetoric is dangerous because it risks scaring people into denial or into mistakenly believing that we cannot avert crisis without annihilating our quality of life. We need to change the way we frame the debate. Harping on science ad nauseum won’t change the minds of those who aren’t already convinced. We can start off by articulating how environmentally conscious development can improve our lives by decreasing our daily commutes and eliminating our energy bills.
We can succeed, but we must be thoughtful in our approach to climate change and overcome the fact that the major opponents to environmental legislation happen to be six of the largest corporations in the world.
In spite of the enormity of our obstacles, the university has been a supportive breeding ground for climate activism and awareness. Today the Office of Undergraduate Studies is hosting Mike Tidwell, author of The Ravaging Tide. Whether you agree with him or (sadly) think global warming is a hoax, get in on the discussion this afternoon in the Hoff at 4 p.m.
Benjamin Johnson is a senior physics major. He can be reached at katsuo@umd.edu.
