The problem of climate change denialism and vested interests

It is one of the great public debates of our time: Is climate change happening or not? If it is, is humanity partly responsible? Either way, is it problematic and, if so, should we act?

To the first question there can only be one answer, and it shouldn’t be contentious.

Climate change is happening, as it always has. The second question is harder to answer definitively, but we’d be unwise to conclude that human activity is not playing a part.

There are sound scientific reasons to believe that our releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has trapped insolation and helped produce warming, from which many changes have flowed.

Most of these changes are at least potentially problematic for the future of human and other life on Earth. If that is the case, we most certainly should be looking at what can be done to mitigate the changes or adapt to them.

Yet, many people are in denial about these questions, and their denialism is deep-seated.

Climate change is too slow for us to perceive, not to mention inconvenient to acknowledge. It is difficult and costly to arrest or reverse too, and there is no short-term consequence at the individual level for failure to do so.

These things make climate change difficult to deal with – there is little pressure coming from the grassroots of societies in Western countries (which have so far produced most of the problem) to force the hands of politicians. Powerful vested interests, especially in the fossil fuel industries, oppose action.

China and India, of course, are catching up in the production of greenhouse gas emissions. But all nations produce them and all should own the need to deal with what might turn out to be very serious problems.

It is useful to examine the positions of the deniers and to seek an understanding of their motives.

Some have a vested interest in the processes that produce warming, and some produce justifications for their stances from little evidence. Some speak from an inbuilt prejudice against science.

Donald Trump and the fossil-fuel lobbyists are examples of those who are invested in the way things have been done in recent times:

Trump is wedded to industrial processes that have produced great wealth in his country (and others). He does not wish to see those processes discarded.

He is also, like Barnaby Joyce and Tony Abbott in Australia, doctrinaire and anti-science. All three defend wealth and the wealthy.

Joyce’s case is built upon the fact that Australian energy prices have remained stubbornly high despite the gradual replacement of fossil fuels by renewables. He rails against electricity prices and cites the many cases of countries that are doing little to stop climate change.

Cover photo:  Cimate change deniers focus on the problems of replacing fossil-fuels with renewables. They largely ignore the future global effects. Photo: TND/AAP