Suppose for a moment that climate change is real; that all the science that has borne out this truth is neither lie, nor miscalculation, nor bleeding-heart leftist propaganda — just fact (suspend disbelief if you must). Suppose those respected individuals, climatologists, activists, members of the scientific community at large, are all correct in their evidence-backed beliefs and the same thinkers are devoid of ulterior motive. Take for granted that, not only do human actions affect the temperature of the Earth, but that these changes acutely affect our current environment as well as the future well-being of our planet to the direst degree.

What are you doing to change that reality? Are you doing everything you possibly can?

I do believe the science, and I am certainly not doing everything I could to change the current course of the human effect on climate shifts. In fact, I do next to nothing. It would really cut into my Netflix time

Now consider the person who denies these facts, which we now, at least for the sake of argument, supposed to be true. As political inclinations overtake environmental debate, one can easily see polarizing discourse placing many on either one side or the other of a strictly held party line. Unlike scientific fact which can be demonstrated through method, strongly held beliefs, especially with regard to topics of global or cosmic scale (challenging to distill to the layperson, educated or not), are bred from specific, near epigenetic teachings and prove difficult to expunge. Having been taught to cling to such beliefs in lieu of facts (which again, we are assuming for now), one might argue that this individual is ignorant to a particular reality.

So you have Johnny P. Winter (JPW) who believes the science, and Factory VonSkeptic (FVS) who does not. Both do not recycle, both do not drive electric cars, and both use high HFC hairspray, without considering the environment.

Who is morally or ethically worse?

FVS does nothing, but, despite being wrong, doesn’t believe there is reason to act. He is ignorant. Maybe stupid, but at least ignorant.

JPW does nothing even though he knows there is reason. Intellectually, the environment is of great concern to him. So much so that he reads on the topic, watches every documentary on the subject, and happily takes part in discourse on the matter. Actively though, he does nothing of consequence. His actions imply he doesn’t care about the changing environment. He doesn’t care about the millions of current citizens of the world experiencing tornados, earthquakes, rising tides, tsunamis, monsoons, blizzards, and superstorms with increasing frequency and intensity. He doesn’t care about the future generations forced to live in a post-apocolyptic world akin to Mad Max, Waterworld, or other seminal works of premonition.

I am JPW. I am disgusted by FVS’s ignorance, but perhaps I should look inward toward what may be my own moral repugnance. I sit and wonder if staunch, outspoken supporters of climate change policy, like Bill Nye, allot maximal effort to green living and live with the least possible carbon footprint or, otherwise, live with some personally acceptable degree of hypocrisy. Perhaps it would be reasonable for someone like The Science Guy to put a single foot in the good fight by lightly recycling and driving a hybrid until there is more buy-in from the world; enough buy-in to make a difference. The thinking being, for example, “If the world is going to burn, why should I waste time sorting garbage? But if I see change, I’d be willing to increase my efforts.” Unfortunately, the attitude disintegrates to a climate change catch 22, a Mexican standoff.

I do have two juicy rationalizations that partially relieve my moral angst:

1. I support legislation and politicians that can and do affect climate in more meaningful and global ways than I could ever hope to through my own small actions. If you are like me, but you don’t vote, how do you rationalize the ocean between your intellectual feelings on climate change and your lack of action?

2. I debate FVS every chance I get in the hopes that someday he will support these policy-makers. Again, having an indirect, but more global, effect.

What do you think?

Is this a form of moral relativism (regionally decided morality in this case; e.g. if nobody in America recycles, it is okay not to, but everyone in Sweden recycles, so there, it’s wrong not to) or an excuse? Is ignorance worse than inaction? Does indirect support of action excuse inaction to any extent?

Addendum: Thinking about this at length has led me to the conclusion that I need to start recycling. I’m going to put one foot in, at least for now…

*******************************************************************

Joshua J. Goldman, MD is a PGY-6 Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Resident at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas School of Medicine and is Microsurgery Fellowship-bound. His professional interests outside PRS include healthcare advocacy, device innovation, digital marketing, ethics, medical education, and physician wellness. You can follow him on instagram at@GoldStandardPlasticSurgery. Thanks for reading!

The above represent my experience and viewpoints alone. They are not representative of my institution, program, or hospital. I have no conflicts of interest to disclose.