ABC News recently had a special called “Earth 2100,” which was part fictional, animated documentary of the future, part interviews with climate change experts. The majority of the special focused on the real effects that could occur if humanity does not work together to save its future.
To enhance the horrors of an uncoordinated global effort, “Earth 2100” used dramatic sound effects and a story to gain sympathy from the audience, but the piece was not all doom and gloom. The last five minutes showcased the beautiful, almost utopian future that would arise due to a coordinated, intergovernmental effort and increased personal responsibility for the environment.
Special news reports such as this only serve to widen the distance between the two groups they are actually trying to unite.
“Earth 2100” presented a worst-case scenario, one where human civilization breaks down as rivers dry up, plagues ravage the earth and food runs out, resulting in a dramatic decrease in population for humans.
The motivator chosen was fear — fear that in the next few years, society will begin to break down exponentially. Although fear is a great short-term motivator, it fails in the long-term. The special had the same effect on me as a “Save the Children” commercial at 4 a.m. I felt bad for a while but quickly got over it.
On the opposite end of fear-mongering are those who use broken logic to deny that humans are having any significant effect on world climates.
Although it is true that the earth has gone through significant changes in climate, the bigger issue to be discussed is the rate of change. The spike of greenhouse gas emissions from the Industrial Revolution to present day has been linked to climate change.
The most unfortunate thing about the anti-manmade side of climate change is its politics. President Barack Obama faced resistance from some in his own party who have constituents with interests in coal energy. These politicians, logically, fought to protect these interests because in a recession, choosing to lose jobs would be seen as terrible by most, if not all constituencies.
A problem with climate change is that it is happening too slowly. This might seem odd, but from a public policy perspective, we are more likely to deal with threats that are immediate rather than further off if the further threat is significantly more dangerous. One potential solution to get significant changes to occur would be to advertise the imminent threats of global warming.
The larger problem with this whole debate is the framing of the initial question: Does humankind have a significant impact on the rate at which climate change occurs?
As I have explained above, this question leads to fear-mongering on one side and broken logic on the other. Instead, I propose a new question.
“Do we want to trade a known for an unknown?”
We know a significant amount about the way the world’s climates work. With this information, we can predict weather patterns and seasonal changes to our advantage. It is the human assumption that weather patterns will be constant that allowed humanity to prosper in the first place.
Perhaps the Al Gore, Prius-driving liberals are correct and the environmental apocalypse will occur before 2050.
Or maybe the conservative, energy company-funded opposition is correct, and the earth is simply going through its natural cycles of hot and cold. Maybe if we just hang on long enough, we’ll outlast it.
Although it is unlikely the doomsday scenario posed by “Earth 2100” will come to pass in all its fear-mongering glory, I would rather be caught over-prepared than completely unprepared. Worst case scenario: We simply reduce the intensity of climate change so its effects will be gradual.
In the words of CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric, if we don’t take bold action, and take it soon, we will find ourselves on very thin ice.
Very thin ice.
Justin Covington is a State News guest columnist and a political science and journalism junior. Reach him at coving27@msu.edu.
Support student media!
Please consider donating to The State News and help fund the future of journalism.
Discussion
Share and discuss “Climate debate bias stalls progress” on social media.
