"Small Price for a Large Benefit"

Small Price for a Large Benefit, by Robert H. Frank

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/21/business/economy/21view.html?scp=6&sq=global%20warming%20&st=cse

Robert Frank begins this piece by highlighting some interesting numbers behind climate change (for example, studies done by M.I.T. suggest there is a 10% chance our average temperate may rise 12.4 degrees and a 100% chance that it will rise 3.6 degrees by the end of the century). Frank notes that even a rise of 3.6 degrees would result in a widespread loss of life and biodiversity.

Frank then goes on to argue that by investing in climate change prevention now, we have very little to lose and everything to gain. Furthermore, the cost of decreasing our carbon footprint would actually be quite small. For example, if a tax were placed on an item with large carbon footprint (i.e. gas), then “a family could trade in its Ford Explorer, getting 15 miles per gallon, for a 32-m.p.g. Ford Focus wagon, thereby escaping the effect of higher gasoline prices.” Worst case scenario: we overestimated the effects of climate change, but even then the actions we took would result in less pollution, lower pollution-related health issues, etc. Thus, we put much more on the line by not taking any action at all.

So why are we moving so slowly to tackle climate change and why aren’t we outraged by the threat it represents? Frank points out that the reasons are simple: we don’t understand it, it isn’t an emotionally charged topic, and we have been seduced by the possibility that the science that supports it isn’t sound.

I think it’s necessary to point out that when we see year-to-year changes, we’re not seeing long-term global changes, we’re seeing weather. So when the politicians use extreme yearly climates as “evidence” that global warming is false, they are simply ignoring the science and using America’s general lack of scientific knowledge to push their agenda. Given that the general public lacks a great deal of knowledge concerning the science this debate revolves around, they are very susceptible to lies that the energy industry releases. Climate change skeptics are constantly calling into question the science behind climate change; this lessens the public’s fear and thus no one is willing to put their money/time on the line for climate change. We can easily relate this back to the Dillon piece that discusses the ways in which institutions can use fear to either mobilize or de-mobilize the public. Global warming, as Frank points out, is not something we as humans inherently fear.