Bjorn Lomborg on Who the Environmentalists Forgot

When the headlines told us that the global warming debate was over, it seemed like we environmentalists could breathe a collective sigh of relief. The United States elected a cap-and-trade-sympathetic administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency says it is going to exert some of the "P" in its acronym after it formally labeled carbon dioxide a pollutant last month. So now that the debate is over, has the discussion ended?

Much of what I assumed to be climate consensus has been turned on its head since I moved to the Midwest from New York. Meaning, there a lot of people here in the Middle who care about environmental issues but are not convinced climate change is related to human activities and/or is as dire as predicted. I believe it is. . .and I also believe that in order to get buy-in from such diverse constituents, it's imperative that we engage in dialog with those who hold differing opinions.

That inspired me to reach out to
Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist and Cool It, who argued last week in a piece the Wall Street Journal that we are becoming victims of the "climate-industrial complex" because businesses that will profit from carbon cutting are saddling up to politicians and are demanding regulations that we've been told are coming. Some environmentalists have dismissed Lomborg's assertions and refused to engage with him but should we kick "other" viewpoints out of the conversation about climate change? Who is the arbiter of what's valid and what isn't?

"Of course, we do need to have a discussion," Lomborg said in our interview. "What I find problematic is the reluctance or even a lack of interest in having a discussion about what are the policy measures that we should adopt."

We think we've won the green war, but perhaps the battle is just starting. Although many of us living in liberal or green-minded cities may balk at the idea of climate skepticism, the number of people who feel confused and threatened by climate science are real--and people like Dr. Lomborg have their ear. Their concerns need to be honored and addressed, which can only happen when we actually take the time to engage with them. Perhaps our fire-and-brimstone message may actually be scaring people away, instead of inspiring them to act.

"A large part of the reason why you're seeing so many people skeptical of all of the green stuff is exactly an outcome of the way that green is presented--in only one way and often in a very polarizing way," Lomborg said. "That doesn't help. It turns people off."

I am writing a book about how the environmental movement needs to employ different tactics to reach diverse constituents. Strangely enough, the people who have been the most receptive to me in writing this book are not my most visible allies. They are people on the "other" side of the conversation.

Mainstream media (I use this term here even though I know how nuanced and diverse media are), previously perceived as the enemies of the environmentalists, used to include "both" sides in every climate change story. To what extent has that "fair and balanced" approach led to recent poll numbers indicating the majority of Americans think climate change is a serious problem but fewer people think it's caused by human activity? And where does the media stand now?

If we know that global warming is real, should we be open to more feedback on how to solve the problem? Or as Lomborg says: "We accept that the world is round, but that doesn't necessitate what kind of policy you then choose for then going around the globe?"

I am not telling you. . .I am asking. What do you think?
You can hear the interview in its entirety here:

This post was written by Simran Sethi and Lauren Keith. Thanks to the University of Kansas School of Journalism and to Bjorn Lomborg for the image.

Comments

[solargroupies]

I agree completely that the GW movement is polarizing and that a large part of our country is still unconvinced it is a human-impact problem that has serious consequences. Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth was a sharp stick in the eye to republicans as well as a call to action. Why wouldn't conservatives be skeptical about GW with him as the poster child? I get a fair amount of push back on my blog posts on climate change and usually it comes down to Al Gore... We are going to need a lot more "Governators" to convince conservatives that this is a real problem that humans need to act on.

[ccpo]

I have to completely disagree with the contention that the problem with the AGW activists is their shrillness. This comes of a denialist campaign that intentionally paints it that way. The truth is, ice melt around the globe is self-evident. We even have melt in Antarctica. These effects are decades, in some cases centuries, ahead of what scientists were generally expecting.

Methane concentrations are rising and studies show increased melt in the Arctic permafrost, and perhaps in the sea floor clathrates. Is any of this alarmist? It's all frighteningly real.

The fact is, the Global Climate Coalition's activities, the George C. Marshall Institute's ideologically warped agenda (see: Oreskes' The American Denial of Global Warming), ExxonMobile's appropriation of the tobacco industry's tactics to fight global warming science are both drowning out and distorting the message. That many have allowed themselves to stay in their ideological safety blanket by this constant drumbeat of falsification is not a surprise, but don't blame the people who are informing and educating.

There has been enough false equivalency. There is no legitimate debate. There is scientific data still to be determined, but that is like saying we know to actually know the exact number of people in the country to make or set any policy at any given moment in time. It's an absurd standard that shows a total ignorance of scientific endeavor to pretend we don't know enough with enough certainty to take action.

Time is short. The science doesn't support their skepticism.

Cheers

[judycross4]

Thanks for interviewing Lomborg.
It is really really about time HuffPo had a real dialogue on the changing climate. There is so much more going on than how much CO2 we put into the air....fro­m undersea volcanoes warming the ocean wherever tectonic plate meet, and what is going on with the sun.
Since the warming stopped in 1998, I think we can take our time figuring out how to deal with a changing climate.