On Tuesday night I went to the Harvard Political Union’s discussion on climate change, which was centered around the question of what steps the University should be taking to be greener and on the issue of global warming in general. As part of what seemed to be a minority of non-affiliated observers at the event — i.e. not being part of REP (Resource Efficiency Program), the Republican of Democratic clubs, a Salient staffer or general climate junkie — there is only one real conclusion to take away from the event. And that is that Harvard, like everywhere else in the world, suffers from ‘Triple C’ — Climate Change Craziness. From whichever position you come from, the subject of global warming makes you go mad (I would readily admit to suffering from a dose of Triple C myself). Roughly 10 minutes into the meeting, after REP’s initial presentation on what they had done to make Harvard greener while saving money (a nifty combination, by the way), things descended into a heated, emotional and largely-hostile argument with shouting derisory laughter being the order of the day.
You could argue that the anger felt by both sides of the debate is legitimate given their beliefs on the issue. If you are a passionate believer in the man-made causes of global warming, then you’re convinced that we’re walking headlong into disaster without really wanting to do anything about it. The world as we know it is literally going to come to an end, but it seems like a lot of people don’t care. That’s pretty bad. If, on the other hand, you are skeptical about aspects of climate change, then you think that you’re parents’ hard-earned tuition fees are going towards a cause which you don’t agree with. It’s the same story with adults who don’t want their tax dollars going towards cap-and-trade and renewable energy. It seems like a logical thing to get angry about, so maybe there’s nothing weird or dangerous about having Triple C.
You could also argue that the extremes to which people take their views on the subject ends up doing their cause more harm than good. The IPCC is a good example of this. Having for years grounded their doomsday scenario is statistics such as how the Himalayas’ glaciers will melt in 35 years, they have now been forced to retract that claim. Most glaciologists think that will take at least 300 years at the current rate. In another case, the U.N’s climate change panel claimed that global warming would cause North African crop production to fall by 50% over the next ten years. It’s this kind of evidence that prompted the a delegate from Sudan at Copenhagen to compare the effects of Western emissions on Africans to the Holocaust. This, too, the IPCC has admitted is baseless. Moreover, it’s this kind of alarmism and blatant exaggeration of facts that today leads only 36% of Americans and 31% of Britons (where the scandal of scientists faking data first erupted) to believe that climate change is definitely happening, and that man is to blame.
Similarly, the Sarah Palins of the world aren’t helping themselves by denouncing evidence supporting anthropogenic global warming as a “bunch of snake oil science” designed to “shut down a lot of our development”. In his book The Real Global Warming Disaster, Christopher Booker comes close to jeopardizing some good points (I know, hate me for it) by tying the E.U.’s enthusiastic early support for green initiatives to its underlying ambition of creating a socialist superstate. There is no doubt that ‘climate denial’ appeals to the conservative instinct, in that it inherently advocates against government intrusion and any effort to penalize big business. Why liberals tend to align so vehemently in the opposite direction is a little harder to pin down. It’s just a great big shame that what should be a genuine scientific debate is so often hijacked by the standard left-right divide in politics.
In the end, the arguments used by both climate change fanatics and deniers have legitimate points, while overall some form of climate change clearly is happening, with the role being played by pollution hard to ignore. The trouble is that the inflamed discourse we’re seeing right now isn’t helping anyone, especially global warming advocates. The sooner we take tempers down a notch, and stop raving that the world will end tomorrow if we don’t take action — as if humans are capable of controlling sea-levels and global temperature down to a tee anyway– , the sooner this debate can move forward.
© 2024 Harvard Political Review. All rights reserved.