I’m always struck by the mental gymnastics that writers like Kuznicki go to defend inaction.  The modus operandi for the “do nothing” crowd is to dream up new, yet to be answered questions, and press forward with the then unassailable logic that action in the face of these unknowns would be irresponsible.  This intellectual gamesmanship has raised the bar on the global warming discussion to a nearly unattainable burden of proof.  At first, doubts were cast about whether the earth was warming.  Now that there is general agreement on that fact, doubts are raised about whether this warming is man-made.  The consensus on this point continues to grow, so doubts are now raised about whether a warmer planet is cause for concern, or whether anything we try will succeed, or, get this, whether we’ll screw things up even worse (the presumption being that we’ve screwed things up already).  After these questions are answered, advocates for action on climate change will be forced to prove that we will still be able to order 33 flavors of ice cream and that the Super Bowl can still be held on the first weekend in February.

Psychologists would diagnose this behavior in the first 15 minutes of therapy.  The incessant line of questioning is a classic symptom of fear of change or fear of the unknown.  I see it in my children all the time.  I frequently field questions like “How do you know the ride isn’t scary?” or “What does it taste like?” from my daughter.  Her excuse is that she’s only four.  I could also explain this behavior using the prospect theory developed by Kahneman and Tversky, which demonstrates how people overvalue losses relative to potential gains.  The most honest of the anti-action folks unwittingly use prospect theory to frame their opposition.  To these folks, the potential economic costs are too much to bear, which is the equivalent of choosing the short but comfortable life that you know, over a potentially long but unpredictable life.  Less honest inaction advocates, like Kuznicki, insult our intelligence by falling back on the possibility that the science may be wrong without defending against the inverse – the likelihood that the science is correct. 

As I wrote last week, the hysteria over the consequences of action seems to be overtaking the hype over global warming itself.  What is scary about powering our cars with electricity or our homes with solar energy?  Can we not imagine ways to improve on obviously outdated fossil fuel-based technologies? The fearmongers have it wrong; proactive measures to convert the global economy to alternative energy sources will prevent the economic catastrophe of reaching the end of the oil age without a backup plan.  For me, the logic is clear: the economic consequences of doing nothing dramatically outweigh the costs of action.

The status quo in this age of affluence is nice and comfy, but it won’t last if complacency rules.  There will always be cowards who cling to the present, afraid of the uncertainty of tomorrow.  We owe it to ourselves and our children to ignore the obstructionist questions of the “do nothings” and move forward for a better tomorrow.