|
|
 Earlier this summer, I had the great pleasure of meeting friends of my wife's family visiting from Australia. This friendship reaches back over 66 years through three generations, starting when my wife's father, then an officer in the Navy during World War II, was briefly stationed in Australia and made a lifelong friend with whom he stayed in contact until his death nearly six years ago. The visitors to Baltimore this year were the daughter and 24 year old grandson of the acquaintance made in 1943. Everything about the visit was a delight: the charm of the Australian eager friendliness mixed with our own style of civic pride and southern hospitality. We learned about their life in Australia, including a riveting account of the devastating fires around Melbourne, some of which moved so quickly that people trying to escape by car perished as the fires overtook them. We learned of the politics of water distribution, their backyard wildlife and the Australian anxiety over economic collapse. I enjoyed their startled marvel at seeing fireflies for first time. They learned about Baltimore and its history, including a first-hand look at inner city stress. (They arrived by bus from New York, which dropped them at the Cherry Hill Light Rail Station, a neighborhood that presents a slightly less inviting venue than BWI Airport). However, there was a slight bump in the road. In the course of our several days of close contact and cross-cultural bonding, a subject came up on which our opinions are as distant as our native countries. For one of our guests proclaimed with certainty and righteous enthusiasm that global warming is a complete lie and all this foolishness with the "greenies" is a total waste of time. My hosting instincts counseled restraint. My intellectual instincts signaled curiosity. I can understand why some politicians caught in the orbit of a constituency whose profitability may be challenged by an attitudinal sea change in energy use would blubber incoherently about the evidence being ambiguous. Indeed, that has brought about a subtle change in public debate. Walking on eggshells around the deniers has shifted the terminology from "global warming" to "climate change," a phrase that does not itself commit to whether the change is good or bad and leaves out the question as to whether human agency has anything do to with it. I was civil and polite. I used my rope-a-dope debating skills. "Of course," I conceded, "I am not a scientist and cannot claim to have undertaken any empirical studies so as to decide for myself what the evidence says." In taking this tack, I was able to get my guest to make a similar concession as to lack of first-hand skills. All we really can claim to know on this subject is based on what we read. On that we agreed. Then I moved on. In judging the merit of what I read, I look at two things: (a) Does the author appear to have sufficient qualifications, whether academic or other experience, to satisfy me that their knowledge is justly earned and (b) does the author appear to have a bias? In everything on the subject I have read, I explained, it appears that there are many, many proponents of climate change as a threat to human life who possess strong qualifications and no apparent bias. On the other hand, many of the climate change deniers seem to be either unqualified to know of what they speak or have a secondary agenda that deflects from the path of truth. So while I am not qualified to make dispositive direct personal observations on climate change, I can make observations on those who are so qualified (or claim to be). I was exquisitely articulate, compellingly logical, undeniably persuasive and yet totally unable to make the slightest impression. The experience reminded me of Michael Shermer's book "Why People Believe Weird Things" and the utter futility of having a conversation based on logic with one whose very precepts of belief start with the abandonment of logic. People who deny the Holocaust or the Apollo 11 moon landing have found a comfort zone in their consciousness that is steadfastly self-righteous and untroubled by contradiction. The whole climate change thing resonates with some as a topic on which to form a belief that refuses debate. But I was not entirely unsuccessful. I offered the Pascal's wager analysis. The 17th century mathematician and philosopher, Blaise Pascal, came up with an argument on why one should believe in God based on betting odds and the value of a payoff. I will buy a $1 lottery ticket on the chance of winning $50 million because the investment is insignificant and the payoff magnificent. Pascal argued that if belief in God results in an eternity of bliss in the afterlife, the ratio between the investment and the payoff presents a compelling case for making the investment, especially when you consider the downside: if there is no God, then (like the $1 lottery ticket) nothing is really lost if you are wrong. Or worse, if God exists and you deny God's existence, you risk an eternity of damnation and suffering. So, I suggested, let's suppose that all the "greenies" are indeed deluded fools. If we nonetheless apply principles of green in our lives, energy efficiency and resource conservation, wouldn't we all be better off? On that I scored a grudging concession. But as to the rest of it, I remained, in the eyes of my new friend from Down Under, hopeless. John P. (Jack) Machen is a real estate attorney in the Baltimore office of DLA Piper LLP (US), a global law firm with over 3,500 lawyers in 28 countries. In addition to his law practice, Mr. Machen is certified by the U.S. Green Building Council as a LEED Accredited Professional and provides advice to his firm and to clients on green building, green building codes, sustainability and resource conservation. |
|
 |
Greenwashing (March 2010) Offshore Wind Turbines (November 2009) Shopping Bag Art (September 2009) Global Warming Denied (August 2009) Telecommuting and Waxman-Markey (July 2009) Cap & Trade (June 2009) The Energy Audit (June 2009) Workplace Compliance (May 2009) Learning Green (May 2009) |
|