Shooting Elephants and the Rhetoric of Climate Change

By: Peter Cable

When rhetoric pushes us into action on climate change, we can make the problem drastically worse 

In the 1950's Africa, land degradation was a huge problem. One ecologist, Alan Savory argued that elephants were trampling down the grass and destroying their own environment. His radical claims  led to the killing of 40,000 elephants. Of Course this did not heal the land, and he now calls this one of his "biggest blunders"(Sullivan).

Desertification in the Sahel

Because of the alarm at land degradation, and the urgency of Savory's arguments, the government acted on too little evidence and created a worse situation. Global warming, like desertification is currently a major problem.
The United Nations recently released a report on climate, warning of impending storms and major destruction. The problem is clear, but the solutions have not been studied enough. The fiery rhetoric around climate change leads to quick ineffective policies, instead of long-term solutions like nuclear power.

Rhetoric Surrounds the Issue:

The New York times article on the climate report begins with a bleak picture of a young boy playing with the bones of a dead livestock animal in Australia.

Harry Taylor, 6, played with the bones of
dead livestock in Australia

This is an amazing example of how rhetoric can twist the issue before the article even starts. Clearly a play on pathos, the first response to seeing the boy, dirty, and playing with bones is a deep sadness. It evokes the questions: why did the animal die, why is the boy so unhappy, and how can we stop this? While the link between CO2 and warming is clear and the consensus is vast, the link between this warming, and one specific dead livestock animal in Australia is tenuous at best.The report continues using cause and effect to link the rise in temperature to "inundating coastlines and intensifying droughts and poverty" (Davenport) by the year 2040. This rhetorical tool paints a bleak picture of a disturbing future.  It leaves you with the profound feeling that if you do not act now, there will be nothing left to do.While the research is sound and backed that the climate, the methods that we can use to act now are not as researched.

This is why we need a revival of the 'ad fontes' movement. Politicians that listen to only Fox and Friends, or read only the New York Times, will only ever see the politically spun version of the science. The idea behind 'ad fontes' is that the most correct knowledge lies at the original and primary source. Relying on secondary sources, especially from the internet and talk show hosts can be problematic. As Francis Bacon asserts in his essay on the new scientific method, "the ill and unfit choice of words wonderfully obstructs the understanding" (Bacon). The rhetoric that surrounds global warming can obstruct the science and lead politicians into hasty action which do not have the same scientific backing.

Policies:

One such ineffective policy is the Paris Climate accords.
In the rush to create a solution, global leaders came together to form a coalition of countries, all pledged to reduce their emissions by a self imposed percentage. On the surface, this looks like a magnanimous masterpiece of a plan. Globally, countries can limit their CO2 emissions and we can prevent catastrophe. The problems with the plan lie in its execution. Effective plans have methods of follow-up and consequences. The Paris Accords is not an effective plan. There are no consequences to missing CO2 reduction goals, and no timely followup.

Heads of Delegations at the United Nations Climate Change
conference in Paris, France

The United States: who are leaving the accords, reduced their emissions more than any other country. China, the largest polluter in the accords, who pledged to lower their emissions the most, actually increased their emissions last year. The accords can lull the world leaders into feeling as though they are accomplishing something, when they are simply chasing elephants.

Other consequences of plans to limit emissions include harming developing countries. Energy drastically improves both quality and length of life. By limiting newer economies, you can hurt quality of life now, instead of later. If politicians do not act, the problem persists, but rushing into short sited policy due to rhetoric leads to larger issues than the original problem.

Tried and True:

One possible solution is Nuclear Power.  Unlike many other solutions, nuclear power has been around since the 1950's. This has allowed us to study and publish results on the actual benefits of nuclear as an option.

Nuclear cooling towers releasing steam

Over the course of 70 years, nuclear power has been remarkably reliable. It releases zero CO2, and the fuel is so energy dense that running out is not a concern. When directly compared with other energy sources, nuclear plants are much safer. It is an energy source that both republicans, and democrats can get behind to help push into the future.

Back to Elephants:

I have lived in Seoul Korea. I have breathed smog so thick that you could not see the building next to you. I have watched Koreans run for cover from the acid rain. The problem of CO2 pollution is very real, just like the problem of desertification, but if we rush into solutions we will shoot the elephants. Proposed solutions to climate change are often debated in congress instead of studied and tried by scientists. The shroud of rhetoric pushes us to act before we know how we should. If we continue to throw ourselves headlong into these ideas, we will be known as the generation that created the "Biggest Blunders" of history.


Sources:

Davenport, Coral. “Major Climate Report Describes a Strong Risk of Crisis as Early as 2040.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 8 Oct. 2018

Sullivan, Colin. “Can Livestock Grazing Stop Desertification?” Scientific American, Scientific American, 5 Mar. 2013

Bacon, Francis, and Fulton Henry. Anderson. New Organon: and Related Writings. Bobbs-Merrill, 1960.

Photo Credits:

Sahel food crisis 2012: drought response in Mauritania: Pablo Tosco, Flickr, liscenced under CC BY 2.0

Conferencia de la ONU sobre Cambio Climático COP21: published by Presidencia de al Republica Mexicana. liscenced under CC BY 2.0

Harry Taylor, 6, played with the bones of dead livestock in Australia. Brook Mitchell/Getty Images. Used in a New York Times Article.

Chooz Nuclear Power Plant. Raimond Spekking ,CC BY-SA 4.0. via wikimedia commons