You don't normally hear people talk about climate change and Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection in the same sentence, but I'd like to bust that convention. I'm doing that because there actually are some important, and surprising, similarities about these two issues.
The first similarity is that each issue is emblematic of cultural divide. On one hand, those who believe in Darwin's theory tend also to believe in the reality of climate change. Most adherents of the two theories generally think it's pretty much a "slam dunk" case. On the other side, there is skepticism, some times profound doubt, about both theories. Those who believe in both Darwin and climate change are genuinely shocked that others express doubt.
Second, in both cases, those who are shocked by the "doubters" tend to conclude that the "doubters" are just plain stupid; and when this comes up, I'm always reminded of comedian Ron White's famous line, "you can't fix stupid". But in both cases, the source of the doubt is misunderstood. It isn't stupidity, it's a difference in world view. I happen to believe strongly in the reality of climate change, but one of my brother's has strong doubts. He's well educated, including on matters of science, and I can assure you, he isn't stupid. What, then, is the source of his doubt? In his particular case, he's skeptical, in part, because he fears the climate debate is merely a pretext to increase government regulation. That's probably not an unfound fear, as most of the prescriptions for fixing the problem mean much more government regulation, and possibly more intrusion into the lives of ordinary people.
Third, I see a way to apply my "unexpected perspective" approach to resolve the issue. I've heard reports that a number of people who are climate change "deniers" actually are interested in investing in things like wind and solar power. Huh? Doesn't that sound strange? Well, I heard a story of a reporter who visited a ranch in Texas with lots of oil wells pumping, and the owner of the ranch is a climate change skeptic. On the very same ranch the reporter found windmills and solar panels. The reporter pointed the seeming incongruity to the owner, who said, the oil wells, windmills and solar panels are put checks in my mail box each month.
It's hard to argue with that logic. The rancher was still a climate change skeptic, but he'd found a reason to want to do something about it. That's similar to my argument about Christians embracing Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. In both cases, the "skeptic" is embracing something for a different set of reasons than those proffered previously. My argument for Christians to embrace Darwin is that Darwin will reinforce fundamental Christian doctrines related to original sin, the Garden of Eden, and the imperfectability of mankind. Those aren't the reasons an atheist scientist would embrace Darwin, but in my mind, they're really good reasons. Likewise, the climate change skeptic may reject Al Gore's reasoning about the climate, but he'll do something that will put checks in his mail box each month.
Fourth, as in the Darwin debate, there is actually a middle ground that tends to be overlooked. In the case of Darwin and the Big Bang, a significant percentage of Christians actually accept the reality of the two theories. Unfortunately, extremists on both ends (i.e., radical atheists on one side and young earth creationists on the other side) tend to drown out any discussion, leaving one the impression that it is an "either/or" issue: those in the "middle ground" on Darwin are lumped together with young earth creationists by atheists, and are grouped together with atheists by young earth creationists. The same tends to happen with climate change. The "middle ground" in this debate includes people who accept and acknowledge the reality of climate change, but have problems with some of the solutions. I find myself in the "middle ground" on both of the two issues.
So what is the "middle" ground" for people who accept the reality of climate change but reject the proposed solutions? In a word, the "middle ground" is improved technology. The climate change debate is reminiscent of Thomas Malthus's prediction of doom and gloom with respect to population. The intellectual heirs of Malthus made similar arguments. As an example biologist Paul Ehrlich, and a distinguished group called the Club of Rome, issued dire, apocalyptic predictions in the middle of the 20th century about our unsustainable future. The apocalypse forecast by Malthus, Ehrlich, and the Club of Rome has never materialized, principally because of improvements in technology. There is already evidence of the same occurring for alternative energy, and my personal prediction is that the carbon apocalypse is never going to occur, not because I'm denying climate change, but because technology will likely come to the rescue.
This is clearly an "unexpected perspective" about climate change, but it can work. So instead of berating climate change "skeptics", or heaping abuse upon them by referring to them as "deniers" (which sounds awfully much like a reference to those who deny the Holocaust), let me suggest a reframing of the problem. Instead of focusing attention on how governments can reduce "carbon intensity" (i.e., the amount of carbon we throw into the atmosphere as a result of our daily activity), consider the following alternative questions:
- How can people make money by taking carbon out of the atmosphere, or by preventing from getting in the atmosphere in the first place?
- How can government encourage people to make money doing the above?
Simply reframing the problem through better questions actually helps to eliminate a divide. It does so in the case of Darwin and the Big Bang, and it can do so in this case, too.
Looking a little further into the climate change issue, just what could be done? Well, for example, governments can do the following:
- Fund research at universities and other research organizations
Governments routinely fund all kinds of scientific research, and universities routinely spin that research out into new businesses. Some will fail, but others will succeed. One of the key limitations to the expansion of wind and solar power relates to problems with battery storage. If battery technology can be improved, there could be a tremendous expansion. Funding that kind of research could be very helpful.
- Provide tax incentives to encourage activities that reduce carbon footprints
Many governments offer incentives to invest in solar panels and windmills, for example. Massachusetts, for example, this past summer passed a law mandating that the state's utilities buy 1.6 gigawatts of energy from offshore windfarms over the next decade. This will help spur development of such windfarms.
- Encourage investments in infrastructure
A key element that limits the expansion of wind and solar power is inadequate utility infrastructure. Governments can overcome these limits by incentivizing the development of infrastructure.
- Create an alternative energy version of the X Prize
The X Prize provided a $ 10 million award to the first company that could use the same rocket to fly two missions into space with a two week period. At the time the prize was first offered, the dream of such space flight seemed distant. The prize, however, succeeded in spurring the effort, and it was awarded several years ago. The same approach could be employed to help spur alternative energy, or reduce the impact of carbon waste byproducts.
Lots of things can be done to help put more "checks in the mailbox". The key, however, is to reframe the debate, taking it away from, "how do we mobilize government to fight climate change?", to "how do we put more and bigger checks in mailboxes because people did things that reduced carbon intensity?" This re-framing is very much in the same spirit as the one I'm encouraging Christians to take with respect to Darwin and the Big Bang Theory.
