~C4Chaos

As a lay person who’s drowning in conflicting facts and opinions
from “experts” and media sensationalism, I often combine gut feeling
and thinking things through. What does this mean? Well, whether we like
it or not, we all have our bias when it comes to polarizing issues like
religion, politics, morality, etc. These biases are formed overtime by
our first-hand experiences, information we received from others,
beliefs, and even our genetic makeup. We have instinctive (gut feeling)
opinions and reactions as our baseline. A rational approach
on how to deal with our gut feeling is neither to deny it nor ignore
it, but to acknowledge it, and then leave some opening so that we can
change our thinking as necessary. The advantage of such approach is
that we’ll get to know ourselves a little better, while at the same
time, expand our views and look at issues from different perspectives
instead of clinging to our own deeply held gut feeling. This is what I
call open-ended gut thinking.

Case in point: Climate
Change (via Global Warming) is one of the most polarizing (and
ultra-complex) issues of our time. Regardless of what Al Gore says, the
science is still being disputed by “rogue” scientists and thinkers. But
I don’t want to dwell on that, because it’s like debating whether God
exists or not. I know, it’s a crude and inaccurate comparison, but try
watching climate change debates with believers and skeptics and soon
you’ll notice that people go at it like a bunch of fundamentalists and
infidels. The ironic thing is that, the less informed the people are
the harder they argue. Not very cool.

My own approach to this issue is to use open-ended gut thinking. First, I acknowledge my belief and gut feel. That’s why I came up with the 5-point Climate Change belief scale.
My gut feel is that we (humans and our addiction to oil) contribute to
Global Warming. But the impact of Climate Change is most likely
overrated and over-sensationalized based on guesstimates which are
dependent on incomplete models with too many unknowns. But before
someone labels me as a denier, this perspective is also backed up by a member of the IPCC. Here’s what John Christy said:

“It
is my turn to cringe when I hear overstated-confidence from those who
describe the projected evolution of global weather patterns over the
next 100 years, especially when I consider how difficult it is to
accurately predict that system’s behavior over the next five days.”

“Mother Nature simply operates at a level of complexity that is, at
this point, beyond the mastery of mere mortals (such as scientists) and
the tools available to us. As my high-school physics teacher admonished
us in those we-shall-conquer-the-world-with-a-slide-rule days, “Begin
all of your scientific pronouncements with ‘At our present level of
ignorance, we think we know …’”
   
“I haven’t seen that type of
climate humility lately. Rather I see jump-to-conclusions advocates
and, unfortunately, some scientists who see in every weather anomaly
the specter of a global-warming apocalypse. Explaining each successive
phenomenon as a result of human action gives them comfort and an easy
answer.”

Now, I’m not saying that I’m right because
someone from IPCC has the same perspective. All I’m saying is that, my
gut feeling has some merits to it. I’m not simply being stubborn with
my belief on Climate Change. I’ve evaluated my belief by comparing it
with what other experts has to say. But this belief is only a baseline, not a final stance that has to be defended no matter what.

And now comes the thinking part… Most people are not climate science
experts. Most take in information from mainstream media, friends, and
strangers. As of now, the Climate Change proponents seem to have won
the debate. The media has already bought the science and the story of
Climate Change. So I won’t waste time arguing over the science of
Climate Change because I’m not an expert anyway. What do I know? Even
experts disagree. So I might as well move on and look at possible
solutions as if Climate Change is a global problem.

HOWEVER, once we’ve moved on and focus on discussing solutions to
Climate Change, we’ll soon discover that we’re stuck with yet another
layer of ultra-complexity. Take this Freakonomics Quorum on Global Warming
as an example. The Freakonomics team asked a few smart people
(economists, business people, environmentalists) to answer two
questions: What should the U.S. government be doing about global warming, and what should individuals be doing? Check out their answers. By the time you’re done reading them, the issue of Climate Change will no longer be about Cassandras vs Dorothys. Even if we assume that all people in the world are convinced of the impending doom of Climate Change, implementing a solution(s) is as complex as the original problem.

Here’s an excerpt from Ben Ho’s (former energy and transportation
economist for the White House Council of Economic Advisers) reply on
the Freakonomics Quorum:

“Two crucial points are regularly overlooked in the debate about climate change:

1. Not all responses are equally cost effective.

2. Only a global response has any chance of stabilizing carbon in the atmosphere.

“It
should be obvious that for any problem, some solutions are more
effective than others. Despite what some fearmongers may have you
believe, it is not the case that anything we do to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions is worth the cost. We could, for example, ban all oil and
coal use worldwide. That would halt emissions, but few would believe
the resulting economic fallout in terms of poverty and starvation to be
justified. Economists have estimated that any policy intervention that
costs more than about one penny per pound of carbon dioxide saved is
probably not cost effective. (As a point of comparison, burning a
gallon of gasoline emits about 20 lbs. of carbon dioxide.) If saving a
gallon of gasoline will cost you more than 20 cents in time or effort,
there are better uses of your time that would do more to combat global
warming. Policy makers should heed the same guideline.

“Another
crucial point on which most experts will agree is that the U.S. will
account for only a tiny fraction of emissions in 2050. Chinese
greenhouse gas emissions have already surpassed those of the U.S.
Recent E.P.A. estimates suggest that in order for global carbon dioxide
emissions to stabilize, three quarters of future reductions would have
to come from developing countries like China and India. Many advocates
argue that a carbon tax or carbon cap in the U.S. would lend the U.S.
the moral authority to persuade the rest of the world to follow.
However, history has shown that moral authority alone is insufficient
to cause countries like China to act against their own interests.”

Read more answers.

To sum it up:
There are no runaway solutions on how to approach Climate Change (or
Global Warming). Some argue that we need to implement a successor to the Kyoto
Protocol. Some say that we need to find alternative energy sources and
do away with fossil fuels for good. Some say that the problem will take
care of itself. Some say we’re damned if we do, damned if we don’t. Some say that it’s too expensive to fix the problem
and it’s our moral imperative to face the problems that we have today
(like poverty) rather than fixing a future problem based on
guesstimates. Some say that if we do our own part then we can have an
impact.

It feels good to think that we, as individuals,
could do something about the problem by changing our light bulbs,
driving hybrids and buying green things. But according to many experts
who see the problem from a much higher perspective, our individual
actions are negligible. So what are we to do? I have no idea. Do you?

At the individual level, it looks like we can’t do much about it. So if
you believe the impending doom of Climate Change then it would seem
that we’re all like frogs in this Kosmic jacuzzi, slowly boiling,
cooking us crispy. But there’s an alternative and healthier belief.

Here’s what my open-ended gut thinking tells me:

1) It doesn’t matter whether our individual actions would have an impact on Global Warming or not. It’s the intention
that counts! So I’ll ignore what the experts say. I’ll do what I think
is best: Buy green things. Minimize driving. Conserve energy. Recycle.
All these things I ought to be doing anyway, with or without the threat
of Global Warming. So I might as well feel good while I’m at it rather
than be immobilized by fear.

2) Continue to inform myself
about ongoing debates about Climate Change policies. I may not have any
impact on these debates but it would inform my actions, decisions, and
help me to re-evaluate my perspective.

3) Avoid lemon-eating
debates on Climate Change and Global Warming. Chances are, the people
I’ll be debating is no more informed than me and it wouldn’t matter
whether I win or lose the debate. ‘Nuff said.

4) Eschew the
impending doom perpetrated by media and “experts.” I prefer my action
to come from a position of strength and awareness, rather than fear. It
has always been my opinion that we don’t need the fear of Climate
Change to get our acts together to take care of our environment. But if
it takes the fear of Climate Change to change our ways as fast as
possible, then so be it.

(NOTE: Although my perspective is similar to
Pascal’s Wager on the issue of God (see Jack Welch on Global Warming),
there is a slight difference. Pascal’s Wager is based on fear (i.e.
hell, or eternal damnation). The action I’m talking about is coming
from a position of power, instead of fear. It’s like choosing to do
good things not because I’m afraid of hell, but because I (gut) feel that
it’s the right and moral thing to do.)

How about you? What does your open-ended gut thinking tell you?