Kolbert and Henson Reading Response
Prior to this reading assignment, I considered myself to be fairly well-informed about climate change, carbon emissions, and things like that. I also felt that I was doing an ok job of minimizing my footprint. But these opinions have changed based on what I’ve read.
By far more challenging to me personally were the excerpts from Kolbert’s “Field Notes on a Catastrophe,” which gave me a plethora of new information. While I knew that climate change had been an issue for longer than the world had been paying attention to it (obviously, as it became an issue with the discovery of fire, and then perhaps more explosively so with the Industrial Revolution), but I had no idea the scientific community had been paying attention to it since the 1850s. This really startled me. Obviously the scientific community is aware of things that we, as laypeople, aren’t, and scientists dislike to claim anything without extensive support from multiple parties, but this seems a bit of a stretch of an excuse.
I was also shocked to see how much energy Americans use on average, enough so that while reading the article, I got up and turned my overhead lights off, switching instead to my single bulb desk lamp. I had an extreme reaction, perhaps, but it is one that demonstrates that as long as education continues, eventually the problem could possibly correct itself.
This is an idea that Henson would probably disagree with, as he referenced Hardin’s “Tragedy of the Commons” dilemma. I found Henson’s description to be slightly vague, so I checked in my records to see if I still had a copy of Hardin’s original, which I did (kudos to electronic storage for allowing me to be a document pack-rat, without killing more trees than absolutely necessary.) I think Hardin did a much better job of explaining the tragedy.
“As a rational human being, each herdsman seeks to maximize his gain. Explicitly or implicitly, more or less consciously, he asks, “What is the utility to me of adding one more animal to my herd?” This utility has one negative and one positive component.
I) The positive component is a function of the increment of one animal. Since the herdsman receives all the proceeds from the sale of the additional animal, the positive utility is nearly +I.
2) The negative component is a function of the additional overgrazing created by one more animal. Since, however, the effects of overgrazing are shared by all the herdsmen, the negative utility for any particular decisionnnaking herdsman is only a fraction of -1.”
Basically, what Hardin is saying is that human nature won’t change unless the costs to the individual outweigh the benefits to the individual, which they rarely do when what they are damaging is common property, shared by all. This makes it difficult to motivate people, leading to what Henson calls “wide but shallow” support. Not only are the negatives not large enough to call people to action, but their positives would be being taken away. Not exactly an ideal situation for motivating people.
Henson also spends a great deal of time discussing the skeptic’s opinions. I personally feel that many of these “skeptical” opinions could have come from the conclusions of scientist’s journal articles or other such publications that would in fact be calling out against global warming in the general text but end with a statement like “we can’t prove global warming.” Like Dr. Schulz said while we were touring the Horticulture building, scientists aren’t good at communicating. While the majority of their research may point in one direction, they will still probably make a statement like “but we can’t be sure” because the repercussions to incorrect information are so bad. This leads to the community looking at the scientists and thinking “they don’t even believe in it, and they study it all the time” whether or not that is the case.
I felt that these were some of the most stimulating readings that we’ve done all semester, and they really challenged how we live and the lifestyle we’re accustomed to.
Questions for Discussion:
1) If the situation of the “tragedy of the commons” is indeed true, how can we get people to take action against climate change?
2) Why does society feel that the term “climate change” is acceptable, while it has essentially gotten rid of the term “global warming.”
3) To what extent should the economy be sacrificed to “solve” climate change?