OPINION: Reflections on how we think about climate change

(by decorahnews.com's Ben Gardner):

In a recent conversation with Jim Martin-Schramm, the director of the Center for Sustainable Communities at Luther College, the subject came up about how people approach and think about the theory of climate change. Jim, who is also a professor of religion at Luther, says he's seen a recent shift in how people think about climate change and the influence they feel they have to mitigate it. More and more, he says, many former climate change deniers are accepting many of the claims made my scientists about climate change patterns.

Many influential members of the Republican Party (President Trump among them) are becoming increasingly receptive to the mounting evidence of climate change on health, weather patterns, and economic systems. Nevertheless, many of these leaders and entrepreneurs say they are reluctant to sacrifice profitability for eco-consciousness. Climate change is happening, they admit, but the private sector shouldn't sacrifice the profit margin for green causes. Along with this reluctance, Jim observes a fatalism among these lawmakers and entrepreneurs about the ability or possibility that humans can mitigate carbon emissions. "It doesn't matter if we change our practices," Jim says, paraphrasing the climate fatalist viewpoint, "it's just a drop in the bucket."

A climate fatalist is, more or less, a person who recognizes the adverse consequences of climate change and doesn't feel like anything done individually can have a global impact on climate change.

Jim has observed this climate fatalism across ideological boundaries, from liberal to conservative, and among students as well as members of the Decorah community. I, too, have been swayed by this way of approaching the overwhelming problem of climate change.

In addition to conservatives, many liberals, recognizing adverse climate change consequences, nevertheless have a self-aggrandizing fatalism about the situation: they've resigned themselves to the consequences of climate change and likewise embraced the idea they can't do anything about it. For as long as the system is operational, they'll work the system to their advantage. Some people are resigned to this fatalist position because they've researched the evidence and come to reasoned conclusions. Others adopt the fatalist position because it allows them to maintain their behavior unchanged. It can be costly—both financially and emotionally—to alter your behavior, and sometimes the status quo can appear to be the more sustainable way to be.

Though this climate fatalism crosses ideological boundaries, the reasons that compel a free market conservative to climate fatalism can be very different than what compels a democratic-socialist. It can make interesting bedfellows: proponents of the private sector paired with eco-liberals. Many in the private sector are resigned to climate fatalism because energy is enormously important to enterprise, and any disruption to energy distribution will subsequently have un-profitable consequences. For the liberal, the lean toward climate fatalism has more to do the smallness of human ingenuity faced with the enormity of environmental protection.

To my mind, both these positions are incomplete. A more nuanced position, in my view, takes serious the fact that: 1) Energy is essential for cultivating agriculture and enterprise, but pollution will always be a byproduct of any energy emission. Energy emissions, in my mind, should be taxed, similar to the "carbon tax" embraced by many lawmakers across ideological boundaries. This legislation would have enormous consequences for reducing emissions as well as changing popular sentiment regarding reducing carbon emissions. Laws are arguably the quickest way to change public sentiment: if you begin taxing carbon emissions, it will fundamentally change the way businesses and individuals think about energy and production. It will spur innovation and collaboration, which will in turn provide concrete change.

2) Collaboration is essential for both agriculture and the private sector, and part of that collaboration (on a macro-scale) requires industrialization and the division of labor. In our polarizing culture, we need to collaborate more than ever. This is especially true when it comes to the fundamental human requirements of energy and agriculture. Within the energy industry and the food industry, there are many different motivations compelling business practices. Some want the most food produced by as little energy as necessary. Others want to dramatically minimize agricultural practices, reverting to smaller, less industrialized practices. Though the motivations may be varied, they aren't contradictory or incompatible and open dialogue between these parties will be essential for tackling environmental protection presently and in the future.

3) The "sacrifices" that many lawmakers and entrepreneurs are reluctant to make are actually opportunities for technological and fiscal growth. The sacrifices many industries need to make, if taken, will spur further growth in technological efficiency and optimization, advancing more and more energy-efficient technological innovations. I'm baffled when I hear proponents of the private sector act as though any change to energy practice will inevitably lead to economic collapse. To my mind, this approach fundamentally misunderstands the dynamics of business, growth, and innovation. The history of business is, in part, the history of growth and innovation, and reducing carbon emissions is a prime opportunity for technological innovation that will have far-reaching consequences beyond the private sector, including improving healthcare, infrastructure, education, and foreign policy, to name a few.

Any business owner will tell you that problem-solving is an integral part of a successful business. In life, too, problem-solving is essential to sustainable well-being. Among the scientific community and the U.S. culture broadly, carbon emissions is being recognized as a local and global problem. Many are understandably overwhelmed with this ecological burden, and perhaps just as many are confused as to what to do about it, if anything.

There's no one thing that one person can do—a magic bullet—to remedy this problem. But I think any solution needs to take into consideration the three points illustrated above: 1) energy is essential and it produces pollution, 2) collaboration is how systematic change happens, 3) and the "problems" associated with reducing carbon emissions are actually part of the natural landscape of business.