TED Blog: Part I ...

23 February 2006

Part I ...

One of the more poignant points that Al Gore made in last night’s powerful speech about global warming was that a lot of people move directly from a state of denial about this issue to one of despair. People in the first state don’t go out and try to change things because they don’t see a problem. People in the second state are often no more inclined to act because they think the situation is hopeless. The fact that these are the two most stable cognitive states on this issue probably explains why a lot of people do, in fact, remain in denial. It’s human to avoid pain, and therefore perhaps natural to subconsciously choose a state of denial over the daily trauma of despairing for the future of humanity.

The main body of the speech musters a great sense of alarm about a formidable enemy (and by the way, I’ll use the present tense in the discussing the speech from now on because Mr. Gore indicated that it’s an on-going project that he’s presenting in as many forums as possible). To convert that alarm into an energized determination to do something, Mr. Gore needs to be equally persuasive in arguing that the enemy can actually be defeated. In light of this, perhaps the most important part of the speech is the tantalizing glimpse of hope that he offers at the end. But does that glimpse create enough momentum to carry his audience through the state of despair and into one of cautious, but inspired optimism?

In my own case, Gore trampled my few remaining shards of doubt about the immediacy of the issue, and greatly deepened my general state of alarm about it. However the part of the speech that I found most intriguing – that later section in which he argued that it’s not yet too late to do something about deep environmental shifts that have had no precedent in at least 600,000 years – was all too short, and the general sense that I emerged with was one of dread.

This speech will no doubt evolve as Mr. Gore continues with his campaign to move the public to action. As this unfolds, I hope that the cause-for-hope/call-to-action section expands. For instance, the recent improvements in the ozone layer that he cited are an electrifying precedent for anyone moving from despair to action. To me, this brief but bright flash of hope was every bit as motivating as the methodical depiction of our current situation. Back in the 80’s there was a good deal of despair about the ozone matter, and plenty of rumblings that we shouldn’t bother doing anything, because nothing could be done. But then coordinated, aggressive action turned things around. It could be quite inspiring to learn more about this noble and analagous success in the context of what's happening today.

Similarly, the slide in which he pointed to several different intitiatives which could collectively stablize then reverse the build-up of greenhouse gases passed all too quickly. The thought that we've conjured up a great mess for ourselves through decades of largely unwitting collective action is plenty agitating. But people will get really riled up if they believe that we're willfully avoiding a clear, concrete, and achieveable path to recovery. What are the steps on that path? What quantitative facts underlie the argument that they can be effective? Are they as attainable as the reversal in the ozone problem turned out to be? And what self-interested groups are fighting to keep us from taking them? I have the feeling that Mr. Gore has succinct, quantitative, and highly visual answers to these questions, and hope to be in the room someday when he presents them.

Hmm … maybe that’s what he has planned for his follow-up talk on Saturday…?

Posted by CT | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4e5853ef00d834ae2c3c69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Part I ...:

Comments

While there are lots of possible responses, I'm convinced that the theme of successful responses will be to include market forces as part of the solution -- simply put, activities that worsen the situation need to get more expensive than activities that make it better. And that needn't be any more than internalizing some of the costs that are currently hidden - like the cost of supporting a large army to stabilize or defend the middle east to keep oil flowing, or the costs of cleanup after hurricanes, flooding, etc.

Look at the shift in consumer auto buying patterns for this summer when oil prices rose by just a dollar or so; if that were sustained, I imagine it would create dramatic impetus for Detroit to accelerate hybrids, and push forward other appropriate technologies. Rising cost of electricty and heating fuel might stimulate more personal solar power - at least in the sun-belt where its affordable.

But what to do about funding the dislocation for those who don't have the capital to buy the new more economical car, or invest in the solar panels on the roof?

A personal favorite idea is to create a personal investment fund to help homeowners or renters purchase solar cells (in appropriate regions, etc.) and recoup the investment over a 10-20 year period by recapturing part of the savings on electric bills for the consumer. Kind of a mortgage for purchasing solar electric power, with all the homeowner incentives to maintain and utilize the asset effectively, since they will end up owning it. More generally, a similar fund could fund all kinds of home and small business energy efficiency technologies, like insulation, more efficient lighting, windows, etc.

What kind of support would be necessary to facilitate a community lending program, where the well-off can contribute by investing in the fund to pay for the energy efficiency conversions for the less well off? Pooling of risk through aggregation of funds, and minimal governmental or tax support necessary?

Posted by: Neil | 24 February 2006 at 12:20 AM

Too brief a glimmer of hope?

A similar problem occurs in the WorldChanging slideshow put together with Ed Burtynsky (http://www.worldchanging.com/campaign/). Gripping images that inspire despair and overwhelm the intended message of hope that occurs at the end. A couple of people have mentioned this at WC, and it has been acknowledged. If you intend to go to Gore's second speech, I suggest you raise it with him, also.

It's not as if there are no success stories to counter the despair.

Posted by: Tony Fisk | 24 February 2006 at 12:44 AM