In feudal times, kings often kept clowns or jesters in their courts. It says something about democracy in the U.S. that today the roles of king and clown are filled by the same actor: President Donald Trump.
In the recently concluded G20 meeting in Argentina, with right royal disdain, Mr. Trump refused to sign the joint statement on climate change. As befits a king, he was the only leader to opt out, refusing to heed even the wishes of most Americans. Then he came up with a clownish explanation: “One of the problems that a lot of people like myself, we have very high levels of intelligence, but we’re not necessarily such believers.”
Apart from the defective syntax of that sentence, which is surely due to a high level of intelligence, it was a statement that left many laughing bitterly or in bewilderment all around the globe. More so, as it was followed by opinions like this one: “You look at our air and our water and it’s right now at a record clean.”
Evidence of climate change
People who worry about climate change went on record, for the millionth time, highlighting that there is about 99% scientific consensus that climate change is a fact and that it is significantly due to human activities. They noted, among other things, that the 1,600-page National Climate Assessment, issued by the Trump administration itself, details major economic impacts on U.S. citizens if drastic action is not taken to address climate change right now. Top scientists from 13 federal agencies in the U.S. say that climate change, primarily caused by human activity, might cut the U.S.’s GDP by as much as 10% by the end of this century. The list of scientific evidence and qualified opinion is long, but it does not matter: the king-clown has spoken.
And, as is the case with clowns in William Shakespeare’s plays, there is a grain of hidden truth in Mr. Trump’s misleading statements. No, the truth is not that climate change is not happening or that human activities do not play a significant role in it. The truth is more complex and indirect. Or rather, I would say, there are two complementary truths.
The truth is that there is too much invested in denying climate change. Mr. Trump stands that argument on its head: he claims that scientists have too much vested in championing climate change. This is a bit like saying that doctors have too much vested in diagnosing diseases: even though there can be an iota of truth in it in some cases, the fact remains that doctors have a scientific system to check whether or not a body is healthy and this system mostly works. That is why even people who make a lot of noise about faith cures and similar matters finally go to a qualified doctor when it really starts hurting.
The earth has been hurting for decades now, but leaders like Mr. Trump do not want us to listen to qualified and scientific opinion. Instead, they will have us influenced by people who want to make money — and quick money, in most cases — from everything and every being that exists on the earth, the consequences be damned! That is what is ‘invested’ in denying climate change. Capital.
Talk about concrete changes
The other truth relates to the failures of climate activists. Instead of talking about immediate issues such as overuse of resources, pollution and falling water levels, they often talk of large and epochal matters, of climate change across centuries. This weakens their case in two major ways. First, it makes it possible for climate change deniers to poke holes in the general argument — for instance, by pointing out that temperatures have fluctuated in different geologic time scales. After all, we are talking of an earth that is about five billion years old and has experienced, among other things, various ice ages.
Climate change is, alas, not a laboratory experiment, and change deniers use that ‘limitation’ to sway opinion. Their argument is defective (for not everything can be reduced to laboratory experiments), but it seems plausible to some people. Because, and this is the second point, you cannot expect ordinary people to comprehend complex scientific ideas. If you want them to understand quantum physics or even the principles of electricity, you have set yourself an impossible task in most cases. But if you give them a practical chore or gadget which uses, say, electricity, they will have no difficulty mastering it. This is so because most of us do not have the time and training to think about abstract ideas, but all of us have the intelligence to take good decisions. Apocalyptical warnings also do not work, as the mythical Noah knew, because people are too busy with mundane matters of existence to worry about very large issues.
Instead of talking about an apocalypse, global warming and such large matters, climate activists have to focus on immediate effects: bad air, less water, pollution, congestion, illnesses, deprived children, denuded local heritage, etc. I once heard a farmer in Bihar explain why plastic is bad in these words: “We can only eat what we can digest. And the earth cannot digest plastic.” The clown-kings of climate change denial can be thwarted with such answers more than with obscure scientific facts or warnings of an apocalypse.
