Cognitive Dissonance – Are We of Two Minds on Climate Change?
The gap between what we know and what we do – and a proposal to empower the younger generations
Several essays posted to this Substack site make the case that we know perfectly well how and why the climate system is changing, and that immediate action is needed to alter our course. Despite this scientific clarity, we are not making the big changes needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This essay explores the disjunction among knowledge, belief and action summarized in the concept of Cognitive Dissonance.
Climate Change Action Delayed
Three diverse reads this week, an Ian McEwan book, A New York Times article, and the new National Geographic magazine, all provided reinforcing perspectives on our approach to climate change. From very different contexts and starting points, all three lead to the same unhappy conclusion: The opportunity to deflect the rapid warming of the climate system that will impact the younger generations so severely is slipping away. Those younger voices need to be heard and this essay concludes with a proposal to empower them.
This it is not accurate to say that nothing is being done. The growth of low carbon sources of energy – the first and most effective line of response – is increasing exponentially. Technologies for moving and storing electricity from distributed and inconstant sources are improving rapidly. Electric vehicles seem to be the wave of the future.
But the only significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions to date happened in 2020 due to the economic impacts of the COVID pandemic. In 2023, those emissions were back to pre-2020 levels.
The long-term trends in the concentration of the three major greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, did not even notice COVID.
The Three Reads
So what of those three sources mentioned at the top of this essay? While so different in origin, the takeaway messages seem much the same. We continue to talk instead of tackling the task, and seem unable to give up on a classic theme of the 21st century - that there is a technological fix waiting to be discovered.
But it is also clear that a real solution is actually out there waiting for us, so these three will not have the final word in this essay. That solution does not require unimagined technological breakthroughs, just a massive amount of determination and investment.
But first, those three sources.
The Conference and Cognitive Dissonance
In the New York Times article, Manuela Andreoni reported on that organization’s annual Climate Forward live event, an international gathering of “policy makers, activists and business leaders.” The Times has published major articles recently documenting the changing climate system, and there is every indication that the experts they assembled understood the nature of the problem.
Still, a lead paragraph in the article presents a succinct and coherent summary of the event, and perhaps of our current collective mindset relative to climate change:
“Resolving the climate crisis is the hardest joint project humanity has ever taken on…But there are still big differences of opinion on how to get the job done. And in the meantime, the cognitive dissonance between hope and despair is enough to make everyone’s head spin.”
Cognitive dissonance describes the “mental disturbance people feel when their beliefs and actions are inconsistent and contradictory” (Wikipedia). At the conference, all seemed to accept that the crisis is at hand, and yet none called for the major steps that need to be taken immediately.
Reported comments included that this is the century (not year or even decade) for a solution, that everyone needs to be involved, and that change will be driven by consumer demand. One said the oil companies are part of the solution, one said they are the heart of the problem. One celebrated that we have created a process, and another suggested hydrogen as the answer.
Perhaps the best summary came from an energy entrepreneur who said, “The future is very bright and every day is a freaking crisis.”
The conversation continues.
[Note: the 2024 Climate Forward Conference concluded just as this essay was being prepared. While the tone of the NY Times article summarizing the event was more dire this year, calls for direct action were few. Our addiction to fossil energy was acknowledged. One attendee felt compelled to say: “We should not think that we are passive victims of forecasts. We actually have agency, we have the tools, and the tools get better every year.” But clearly the application of those tools continues to lag.]
The Article and the Technological Fix
The recent National Geographic story carried the title “The Race to Save the Planet” and asked if technology can help fix the climate crisis by not just limiting carbon dioxide emissions, but actively removing the gas from the atmosphere.
A wide range of potential technologies were covered, many spurred by recent legislation in the U.S. to incentivize innovation. The author interviewed many of those innovators and technological optimists, and their stories are tributes to human creativity.
But the article also included a dramatic graphic. While wood energy, growing micro- or macroalgae, modifying agricultural and forestry practices, carbon storage and capture, and turning carbon dioxide into diamonds or even vodka can all remove this gas, the graphic summary suggested that only two have the potential to make a dent in the atmospheric carbon balance at a reasonable cost. Both involve storing it in the ocean.
Those two are increasing biological uptake through ocean fertilization and enhancing chemical reactions that convert carbon dioxide to mineral forms that can sink to the ocean floor or at least remain inert.
The other process with a high potential to sink significant amounts of carbon dioxide is carbon capture and storage, but the graphic suggests this has a much higher probable cost.
The barriers to other technologies often include price, net energy balance, and scalability.
The Novel That Depicts Cultural Resistance
A novel by Ian McEwan might seem an improbable source for an insightful presentation on climate change, but the title of the book in question, Solar, provides a clue. Published in 2010, McEwan puts the ardent passion about climate change, and the potential for solar energy to answer the challenge, into the mouth of a young “ponytail” post-doctoral scientist.
Set in the year 2000, with the Gore-Bush election as background, the main character, a Nobel-laureate physicist, moves from climate skeptic to leading researcher and proponent of solar energy and its necessity. The focus on artificial photosynthesis is a distraction, but the arguments encountered by both the ponytail and the Nobel laureate ring true. They find that few believe climate change is an important issue, that major economic powers are arrayed against addressing the issue, and that those who want to back the photosynthesis scheme are only interested in the financial windfall it might generate.
While the true believer (the ponytail) does not convince many, and the Nobel-laureate self-destructs, it was at least interesting to read a description of the forces arrayed against climate change as an issue, and the idea that solar energy is the solution, presented so forcefully in a popular novel by a world-renowned author.
We Know Where We Are Headed
There is nothing new about this conversation. The basic facts about greenhouse gases, climate change and solar energy have been understood for many decades.
As briefly summarized in the first essay in this set of five: We have known about the greenhouse gas properties of carbon dioxide and methane since the 1850s. A fairly accurate description of the impact of increased carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere on global temperature (and many other aspects of carbon cycling and climate) was presented by Svante Arrhenius in 1896 and 1908. The late Charles Keeling and colleagues have documented the continuous increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere since the 1950s. James Hansen accurately told congress in 1988 that we were changing the climate. NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) continues to record the on-going increase in global temperatures. The 30-year process driven by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) laboriously documented how the climate is changing and why.
And There Is A Solution
In light of all of this negativity, let’s end this essay with some positives: Describing where we can get the energy we need.
First and foremost, as the “ponytail” said, we are awash in solar energy. Even after accounting for atmospheric absorption and reflection, limiting solar farms to ice-free land surfaces only and assuming a moderate efficiency of energy collection, that resource is still 300 times total global energy demand. If that sounds absurd, stay tuned. The third set of essays in this new format will provide the details.
The limitations of inconstant production and distance from sources (e.g. remote deserts) to users (e.g. urban areas) are real but existing techniques for distributing and storing electricity can overcome these limitations. All it takes is commitment.
Can We Overcome Cognitive Dissonance?
So the problem is not a lack of energy – it is the lack of collective will to make the monumental investments that are needed to harness that energy.
Perhaps one factor that underlies this lack of will is that climate change is happening slowly, at least from the perspective of the 24-hour news cycle. Those who run the world now will not really be much affected during their lifetimes. It’s the millennials and Gens Z and Alpha that will bear the brunt and who are, not surprisingly, most motivated on the topic. It is their future that is at stake.
A Proposal
So, perhaps the next international panel empowered to address climate change should include only those under the age of 40. Putting planning and decision-making in the hands of the ones who will be most strongly affected might be the best solution to our cognitive dissonance.
Sources:
Here are stories about two reports stating we have already missed the 1.5C increase in global temperature set as a target by earlier policy panels:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/30/climate/carbon-budget-paris-agreement.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/02/climate/james-hansen-global-warming-report.html
Sources for trends in greenhouse gas emissions and concentrations include:
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/11/global-co2-emissions-fossil-fuels-hit-record-2022/
https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/greenhouse-gases-continued-to-increase-rapidly-in-2022
The article on the 2023 NYTimes conference is here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/21/climate/the-fault-lines-at-climate-week.html
And on the 2024 conference is here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/25/climate/climate-change-environment-planet.html
The National Geographic story is in the November 2023 issue
The Ian McEwan book is:
McEwan, I. 2010. Solar. Nan A. Talese Publisher. 304pp.