Can we take the middle ground in discussing climate change?

Roger Haun | York Daily Record

We see an old cowboy with a guitar. As his electronic voice sings the words “You don’t always die from tobacco,” it hits us: this man has had a laryngectomy. The PSA’s clear target is our belief that smoking will either kill us or do no harm, but we likewise pretend that our next motorcycle accident will be fatal or be just a few scuffs, and so on. Our minds avoid imagining this middle ground of still having life but a much diminished and depressing one.

Climate change “discussions” can be the same. “It is going to kill us all!” “No! It’s a hoax!” But we avoid that ugly middle ground. What if it is very real but does not kill us all?

Maybe climate change will mean more days stuck inside to avoid the heat. Our vacation spot is now closed. April is oddly hot and May is quite cold, so when do I plant a garden? The mosquitoes and ticks are worse. The devastating storms are bigger and more regular – replacing the roof wasn’t cheap. Our house is not under water but tropical islands are, and now their refugees are seeking help in various countries, including the U.S. Weird weather might not kill us, but what if it makes life annoying, less fun, more problematic and uncertain?

If we are aware, we have already noticed some changes. People regularly blurt out, “Weird weather we’re havin’, how ‘bout?” but fail to notice just how often they are saying that.

Awareness of climate change is much like a concerned family discussion about whether the nephew may be bipolar. “Oh, he’s always been moody” say some family members and perhaps they are right. They may also have unconscious reasons for believing that such as “I read it’s over-diagnosed,” or “God wouldn’t let that happen,” or “It can’t be true (because what will that do to our budget?).” Others with some clinical background are more concerned and suggest it be taken very seriously, but the doubters suspect these clinicians just want more business at their healthcare facility.

Similar discussions occur around climate change, don’t they? The weather has always been variable – just like our emotions are variable. But if we are constantly hearing “Weird weather!” (like noticing our nephew’s emotions beginning to rollercoaster), then it is time to listen to the experts. I find it odd that middle-class scientists are accused of pushing climate change for monetary gain, but billion-dollar companies apparently have no bias to sway their clear thinking. It is time to stop accusing the experts and really listen.

My observation is that virtually every letter from persons discounting climate change eventually slides toward the two questions underlying their views: “How will fighting climate change hinder our freedom?” plus concerns about big government, and “How will this affect our money and our livelihoods?” When we have a serious condition, we care about how the disease will affect daily freedoms, our lives, and our wallet. Those are critical and compelling concerns. But they really are completely separate questions from that of “Is the climate changing?” (or “How sick am I?”). Issues of freedom and cost are follow-up questions to dig into after we get the diagnosis. And if “four out of five doctors agree,” it really is time to listen and act.

A temperature rise of two or three degrees does not sound like much – unless we have ever had a fever. Two degrees will not kill you but may kill your joy in being alive. And like a fever, warming in the climate does give us both scorching heat and horrid, unexpected chills – and a wish for it to all go away. The difference is that climate change is a fever that endures, taking away our contented lives on a long-term basis. You don’t always die from climate change – but you might eventually start wishing you did. Listen to the experts. Then we can have discussions about how to fight the disease in ways that avoid lessening our freedoms and draining our wallets. But first things first.

Roger Haun lives in Spring Garden Township.