Open-ended Gut Thinking on Global Warming

(Crossposted from www.c4chaos.com)

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?