Deliverer of Gloom and Doom

Dale Jamieson, a professor at NYU, visited Miami University
as part of the Anthropocene Lecture Series.

"Climate change is the most difficult problem that humanity has ever faced,” Dale Jamieson solemnly informed the audience at his Anthropocene lecture “Why the Struggle to Stop Climate Change Failed and What it Means for Our Future” hosted at Miami University.

Indeed, most of Jamieson’s lecture was solemn; it was laundry list of past human failures in regards to our changing planet. I felt a furious humiliation as I read the 1970s headlines that Jamieson displayed: “Scientists Fear Climate Change” or “’Wait & See’ May Be Too Late.” There was a sick understanding in the audience that these past examples mirror the headlines of today—almost forty years later.

The shameful evidence mounted, as Jamieson described the establishment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the claims of the first 1990 report, and how each subsequent report firmly repeated these claims. All IPCC reports released after the first simply “colored in the claims with greater detail and more confidence.” More confidence.

One thing I have often heard in climate change debates is that not all scientists agree that this global transition is occurring, not even all climate scientists. But Jamieson revealed that only 3% of climate scientists dispute climate change!

The deniers, then, are not scientists. During a 1995 court case, climate deniers had to disclose, under oath, their payments from Western Fuels. These organizations do not care about the truth; they only care about suspending regulation in their favor. Not surprisingly, corporation industries are still funding climate deniers today.

Acid mine drainage can visibly turn our stream bright orange.
What if our skies were bright green from carbon dioxide? 

Beyond the climate-deniers, why climate change is the most difficult problem that humanity has faced? I had to laugh when Jamieson described carbon dioxide as a “tasteless, odorless, invisible gas.” He asked the audience to imagine if carbon dioxide was noxious, foul-smelling, and opaque green. What would people think about carbon dioxide then?

And he’s right, of course! If carbon dioxide—or climate change, for that matter—had any direct negative impacts to health or even to our lifestyles (e.g. aesthetic values), then people would take greater effort to reduce emissions.

Put more scientifically, climate change is so difficult to grasp because it is an issue of “cognitive, affective failures.” It’s a long-term issue with multiple causes and indirect effects. Jamieson concedes that there will never be a headline that reads: “So-and-So Died From Climate Change.”

To add to the complexity, innocent acts contribute to climate change. Meat-based diets are the norm in the United States, but it’s a very energy intensive diet that substantially contributes to greenhouse gas emissions.

Unfortunately, Jamieson spent little time on the solutions of climate change or climate change doubt. It was a solemn topic, and it remained that way to the end. Controlling the behaviors of the richest 500 million people on Earth is one lofty suggestion that Jamieson offered to reduce in carbon emissions. But how realistic is it that the richest people and richest corporations will “control their behaviors?”

It may be true and necessary, but it feels impossible.