Well, here we are, finally: 2012, the year that supposedly ends in apocalypse. It’s the end of the world. Although the Mayans may have started it, the environmentalists are certainly keeping the hype alive.
Well, at least they were, for a while. Nowadays, worrying about global warming just doesn’t seem to be cool anymore.
Climate change used to be all we could talk about, as recently as only a few years ago. In May 2008, Prince Charles stated that, “We have 18 months to stop climate change disaster.” Activists warned that, if appropriate measures were not taken quickly, the world itself was going to end. Floods would cover coastal cities nationwide as the sea levels rose; expanding deserts would lead to mass starvation — we were all going to die. Lots of people worldwide wholeheartedly believed in the cause, and there was lots of scientific proof to back it up. Companies may as well have pledged allegiance to Satan if they didn’t try to “go green” in some way, and if you didn’t at least try to recycle once in a while, you were a monster.
Not many other people I met supported the Green Movement as intensely as I did. I’d spend hours debating with my grandfather about whether global warming was caused by humans and, if so, whether we were doing enough to stop it. An avid Discovery Channel viewer, my seventh-grade self knew everything the average citizen could have possibly known about global warming.
I was also vigilant: If someone left a light on in a room, that person would never hear the end of it. I would tell my 6-year-old sister that by leaving the TV on, she was personally responsible for the deaths of seven penguins.
I believed I had to try to single-handedly save the world from global warming. I was going to dedicate my entire life to the environmentalist cause. Though I still deeply care about the environment, and the threats are still very real, for me, as soon as the question of “Do you believe in global warming?” was replaced by “How are we going to fix the economy?,” my interests shifted from environmental engineering to economics.
Human beings can change their minds very quickly with regards to the things that once meant something to them. For short periods of time, we seem so capable of being passionate about an issue, and then — as soon as other people stop talking about it — it’s as if everything goes back to normal; out of sight, out of mind. But is that homeostasis really such a bad thing?
Recently, I stumbled across a quote from atmospheric scientist Monika Kopacz that said although climate change is “subject to opinion,” the problem is “only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ — and readers’ — attention.”
Sensational exaggeration? Everything I was willing to fight for was sensational exaggeration?
As the hype continues to die down, I can’t help but notice that all the “end of the world” stuff that I myself had been preaching does actually sound pretty crazy.
Conspiracy or not, Gordon J. Fulks, who holds a doctorate in physics from the University of Chicago, explains that “We certainly don’t know everything there is to know about climate, but we do know that Orwellian pronouncements about a catastrophe are dangerous propaganda disguised as science.”
No matter how smart and free-thinking we feel we are, I wouldn’t say I’m so sure. Advertisements help us choose what we want, news stories sculpt how we view the world around us, issues politicians debate are the ones that we care about. We’re constantly told what to think, even by everyone around us. When issues are important enough to us, our opinions are set in stone. We can find evidence to back it up, too; anyone who tries to argue against us is utterly wrong. Occasionally, we don’t simply see opposing arguments as incorrect — they go as far as being selfish, closed-minded or even evil. And that’s really scary.
There are two sides to every story. Maybe that homeostasis, that balance we naturally seem to return to, is actually a good thing. You shouldn’t be so sure of something that you’re unable to see any other options. Extremism in anything, from religion to politics to saving the world, is dangerous.
Life is all about questions — when you look for answers, you only seem to ever get more questions. It’s about not knowing and hoping to someday find out. Yet we always seem to jump to conclusions far too quickly. Before we find ourselves willing to give our lives for a cause that we fully, completely, undoubtedly believe in, we should take a step back to see the bigger picture and make sure we really know what we’re talking about.
We should really try to be careful, especially with things that mean a lot to us, things we believe in. Our absolute inability to tolerate the possibility of being wrong is, in my eyes, much more terrifying than the Mayan calendar’s apocalyptic warning — our willingness to do anything to be right may eventually bring us to something much more ruinous than anything we could have ever previously imagined.
Comment Policy
Comments should remain on topic, concerning the article or blog post to which they are connected. Brevity is encouraged. Posting under a pseudonym is discouraged, but permitted. The Daily Cal encourages readers to voice their opinions respectfully in regard to the readers, writers and contributors of The Daily Californian. Comments are not pre-moderated, but may be removed if deemed to be in violation of this policy. Click here to read the full comment policy.
Clearly, people just care more about issues like why good girls like bad boys.
Mia is a wonderful writer, and I hope she comes back to write for us soon
Great writing!
Very good writing, you took a topic, addressed all the issues and explored all sides of the problem with both personal and professional sources of information; in the end you brought it all together with your own diagnosis, a diagnosis of what I believe is the true culprit in this “end of the world” situation. I would have liked more exploration of other types of “end of the world” theories but regardless of what I think : A+ great job
Anything for ratings, huh?
Science provocateur…
So you’re more worried about wall street 1%ers than your grandchildren – bravo! Romney has a special little volunteer position for you on his campaign. Conviction doesn’t hurt, try it.
…?
Mia, I would challenge your assumption that the dogma around global warming has not reach a “stasis” but has really only been replaced by a dogma about the economy and how to fix that.
You seem to put up no rhetorical challenge to notions that shifts in public discourse towards economic dogma (e.g Euro Crisis, Banking Crisis, etc) does not change the underlying reality that global warming is real and happening. If you ask me, the answer to our economic challenge and climate challenge can be complimentary if we use this opportunity to restructure our economic thinking towards a model that encompasses environmental services.
I agree that rejecting dogma and questioning everything is important, however without principled mooring your boat will drift into whatever sea the powerful winds of the day are blowing towards…and right now that’s against taking any action to mitigate climate change.
Climate change will not “kill us all”, but it will disproportionately impact the poor and Global South exacerbating disease, famine, and drought and making it MUCH more difficult to live on planet earth for our civilizations. This is not a dogma like Armageddon, its a process happening all around us and we’re choosing not to see it. We are the generation that’s positioned to do something about this and we can’t let the short term economic woes of this decade overshadow our children’s’ opportunity.
I don’t think you understood Mia’s point. She said she once was sure mankind caused global warming. She was indoctrinated by well-meaning teachers and sensational mass media sources, and she became an AGW evangelist. However, as her own proselytizing died down, as intelligent scientists began to question the underhanded tactics of East Anglia AGW high priests, and as the dire predictions of global calamity prove to be unfounded, she grew up and decided to re-examine her preconceptions. Mia still cares for the environment and is not dismissing AGW, just the sensationalism surrounding it. The point of college is not to “moor your boat” to a certain point of view but to investigate other points of view, and sometimes you find new interests and move on. Good for her!
Since nature hasn’t changed much by itself in the past few hundred years, and the changes we are seeing in the climate record are occurring more quickly than at any other period in geologic history (with one or two exceptions in our millions of years of records), we can either assume that 1) the climate is changing as rapidly as it has ever done with no apparent natural cause or 2) we are the ones responsible.
Ultimately, whether it’s our fault is irrelevant. As is pointed out by Elliot, the effects of global warming are going to adversely affect third world populations disproportionately, leading to crippling droughts and starvation — both of which are increasing along with mean global temperatures. If we can curb or blunt the anthropogenic emissions of the greenhouse gasses that exacerbate the problem, we should. In this case, being an innocent bystander (who happens to be exacerbating the problem)…doesn’t cut it.
All of this is kind of moot; we know that gasses like CH4 and CO2 will cause global warming due to experimental data. We also know that human emissions are sufficient to be the cause for those gasses’ observed increasing concentrations in Earth’s atmosphere.
The only debatable subject is, as Mia points out, whether this sort of thing will lead to something more dangerous like a global ice age or runaway greenhouse effect. And the answer to that question is simple — we just don’t know. What we do know from looking at the geologic record is that the levels of greenhouse gasses currently present in Earth’s atmosphere haven’t been seen since the Eocene Thermal Maximum, and that that event corresponded to a mass extinction and drastic global climate change, the likes of which today would kill billions of people. The trouble is that people act more quickly than geology typically does — the changes that we’re seeing are occurring over even shorter timescales.
So, ultimately, we don’t know. But isn’t that just as bad? If you knew the world was going to end tomorrow, you’d probably live today differently. If you knew it had a 50/50 chance of ending tomorrow…you might act differently, I suppose. If it were within my power, I’d probably try to do what was necessary to keep the end from coming, though.
If you wouldn’t, I suppose that’s up to you.
What Mia says is that she has moved on to other interests since she is not convinced by current AGW evidence. What you say is that since no one knows if AGW is preventable, what’s the harm in trying? No one objects to a person reducing CO2 and CH4 on his own. However, what disturbs skeptics like myself is that we all might be forced to pay taxes or buy an electric plug-in car to support an unproven scientific remedy. I might even go along with the taxes if I were sure everyone on Earth has to pay the same taxes. However, we know countries like China and India would not go along with taxes or reductions in fossil fuels. So our efforts are already doomed even if we don’t burn another hydrocarbon molecule. Why should we cripple our industries so that China can take over while burning fossil fuels and leading Earth into a global meltdown anyways?
And what if abstaining from fossil fuels is not enough? Maybe we should build massive shields in orbit or generate high-altitude smoke to block sunlight? Maybe we should create massive ocean blooms to absorb CO2? Maybe cars can use compressed gas to store energy? If the climate scientists had not faked their data and threatened dissenters, more people would believe in AGW and agree to drastic measures. However, skeptics like myself believe we have more time to prove AGW and investigate all remedies without crippling our economy for nothing.
Mia, you’re wise beyond your years. In life? Ignore all idiots.
And there are many idiots.
Translation: I feel bad about looking like a fool.
Well, you sorta should, but stop beating around the bush. You are right that uninformed conclusions are unproductive and betray
you. So? All it means is you should think twice before you spout
generalizations. You’re never going to always be right anyways, so why
make yourself look like a fool?
Global climate change is merely the compounding phenomenon caused by increased CO2 emissions. The matter of whether it exists is academic, not a question of belief. How did you even conjure this nonsense of apocalyptic destruction? Sounds to me like you never even did your research, even when there is a wealth of studies available that range in viewpoints. You’re a Berkeley student; you should realize how to separate fact from opinion and make rational conclusions based on the available evidence.
From what I’m hearing, you just feel embarrassed by your chaotic unintelligent posturing and have decided to create a dichotomy of global climate change versus economy to feel better about your choices. The fact is you were wrong. That happens to everyone. The solution is not to go to decry the argument but to find the balance.
I think your passion about her example caused you to miss the actual point she was making, and for an incoming freshman, the point she was making was very mature, and I could only wish that all Berkeley students recognized it. I wish I could say that I have just seen several years of hyperbole from students about what is happening in the world, but more often than not it is just immaturity and a failure to learn the facts.
Learn the facts or ignore the facts? Make up your mind!
Very nice. Finally, a somewhat coherent comment from anon. I never said to ignore the facts. I said that the OP missed the point of the article.
You should learn a thing or two from the freshman columnist by remaining open minded and doing some research yourself. In 7th grade Mia already knew everything you mentioned above but clearly she did a little more research than you did. You seem sure that global climate change is caused solely by increased CO2 emissions. Do you even know the true science behind your allegations? CO2 comprises just 0.038% of the Earth’s atmosphere. How can such a tiny percentage of our atmosphere trap so much heat? You’ve also ignored the role of methane and water vapor, and didn’t even mention El Niño and La Niña, which have existed long before the Industrial Age. Ultimately you could be right, and no one is saying AGW is a big hoax. However, to Mia it seems a bit hyped right now, so she is concentrating on economics. The social ramifications of the Euro imploding, BRIC economies slowing, and North America weaning itself off Middle East oil are far more real to her than the exaggerations of the IPCC chief scientist.
Are you retarded?
The question of whether global warming is anthropogenic is the dumbest question that can be asked about it. The only question that matters is : what do we do about it?
…….. no comment. It’s best just not to say anything about how dumb you are.
No, I’m sorry, I can’t let it go.
If it isn’t anthropogenic, then is there really anything we can do about it? If the earth is warming or cooling beyond any manmade reason, shouldn’t we factor that into how we approach the problem? …
Isn’t what system, natural or human, we should seek to change somewhat of an important thing to know before we try to “take action”?
Either way, we should try to mitigate its effects instead of exacerbating them with increasing emissions. What you’ve essentially said is — “It’s not our fault so we shouldn’t do anything about it because we can’t undo it by not doing something.”
This is our world. Our planet. We have only one. Even if we’re not causing global warming (and nearly all current science points towards us as the cause), standing idly by is…fatalistic, if nothing else. Let’s just watch the world burn, eh? It would be the easiest thing to do, I agree. That’s usually not the best course of action, though.
Doesn’t it make more sense that we find out what’s causing it to determine what we do about it?
Another terrific essay. Mia would make a great scientist. I also hope she makes it onto the Haas faculty some day and teach students how to think for themselves.
The Mayan calendar’s apocalyptic warning is even a little bit terrifying? Really?
I liked this one! :)
This is very insightful writing for a recent high school graduate. Bravo!
This is very insightful for the writing of a recent high school graduate. Bravo!
Mia, I think your writing is moving, powerful, and very wise. Ignore people who label you or pretend to understand things they know nothing about. You’ll go far.
great. another know-everything know-nothing. take a trip to the 3rd floor of barrows. they’ll tell you everything you need to know.
I’d like to see you out doing what this 18-year-old kid is doing. Anonymous nobodies dismissing her viewpoint online strikes me as sad.
No Vivien, we’re condemning her viewpoint.
“We”? Who is “we”? It’s literally just you trolling this column, even after everyone else left, posting discombobulated comments here and there like a sad lunatic. Shut the hell up, please find a life to live and good God, go live it.
God… zilla?
You and Rocio have been on fire this summer with your articles.
“2 sides to every story” – guess we should just scrap our judicial and scientific systems, huh? Another future CNN employee. Just relax and go get another frapachino :)
Isn’t that really the thought behind our judicial and scientific systems? In any court case, we listen to the two sides until we understand which side is correct. In science, we experiment and theorize until we get to the answer. They both use the idea of “two sides to every story.” I don’t believe Mia was saying that no one is right or wrong.
What does that even mean?
Go ask one of your smart friends…
You spelled “frappuccino” wrong, dumbass.
You didn’t understand her at all. She is upholding the scientific system’s integrity by remaining open minded.
Maybe, if she was ‘first on the scene’ of the issue. But even immediately after, she should be forming conclusions. Open minded=airhead? CNN awaits…
You have a lot of problems
Right.