In
his book, Risk Society, Ulrich Beck
noted that “in earlier periods, the word ‘risk’ had a note of bravery and
adventure, not the threat of self-destruction of all life on Earth” (Beck 21).
Later, he defined the risk society “as a systematic way of dealing with hazards
and insecurities induced and introduced by modernization” (Beck 21). As a
result of these hazards and risks that have permeated society and that humans
have produced on the one hand but do not know about their final effects on the
other, a risk society has emerged because of public goods like DDT, chemicals
from atomic fallout, pollutants, and human-made, natural catastrophes. The risks
of chemicals were unknown to the public during World War II and the Cold War. People
could not see these risks in visible form. Consequently, risks can only become
visible to the public through effective communication from scientific experts,
and the ways in which scientists explain these risks to the public affect
public perception of future risks.
Similarly, climate change is an
invisible risk to the public eye. Because the risks are only visible to
scientists through scientific and technological instruments and advancements, climate
change has become a scientific issue complicated by the strained relationship
between scientific experts and average citizens in the public sphere. By
reducing the issue of climate change to complex scientific matters, scientists
dominate the conversations about risk, and as a result, they eliminate the
public from democratic discussion. On the one hand, as seen with atomic fallout
and DDT, science and technology cannot foresee the consequences of climate change
risks, but on the other hand, citizens
have started to come together as a risk society to try to mitigate future risks,
especially with new risks being introduced by technological options like
geo-engineering. According to James Hansen et al. in his article, “Perception
of climate change,” the chance of people coming together to alleviate risk is
becoming less likely because humans have loaded the “climate dice.” In other
words, extreme climate-related events are not just natural events anymore but
also human-induced ones. (Hansen 2418). However, in a risk society, people work
together because they share a common fate. Thus, with potential scientific and
technological advancements like geo-engineering on the rise, the complex nature
of climate change has influenced scientists’ responsibility (to their fellow
citizens) to overcome barriers in the public sphere, to better communicate the
perceived risks to the public, and to engage in discussion with citizens about
what should be done next; but at the same time, because humans have loaded the
climate dice and have made some people more vulnerable to risks than others,
the risk society has influenced citizens’ responsibilities to each other to
mitigate vulnerabilities, even though the public trust in scientists, in
government, and in the risk society to rise to the challenge to overcome risks
for the common good has diminished (thesis statement).
Scientific and technological
barriers to open discussion between the scientific community and the public have
negatively affected the public trust in scientists who on the one hand, have
responded to the global issue of climate change with scientific advancements,
but on the other hand, they have failed to communicate the risks of climate
change and technology to the public. Scientists have failed to take into
consideration the unknown consequences of science and technology, and they have
shown little effort to engage in democratic conversation with citizens about
what to do next. As a result, “new antagonisms open up between those who
produce risk definitions [scientists] and those who consume them [the public]”
(Beck 46). To avoid these antagonisms, scientists should have a major
responsibility to the citizens; risk definitions should be co-produced, which
means that scientists are responsible foremost to investigating the risks of
climate change that their citizens consider most important. James Hansen, in Storms of My Children, reiterates this critical
responsibility of scientific experts and political elites when he said that
“the experts, including those at many nonprofit organizations, have been in
Washington too long…” They are “asking only for what is ‘politically realistic’
rather than what is in the best interests of the public” (Hansen 241). This is
an important point because scientists have excluded citizens from the public
sphere about a complex issue that is far from certain and solved. Because of scientists’
and politicians’ own self-interests, they are trying to predict the
consequences of future risks with distorted facts, illegitimate policies, and
exaggerated evidence. To put this in perspective, the book, Storms of My Grandchildren, itself is
actually an example of how someone (James Hansen) with a scientific background
is taking the issue of climate change, distorting the facts, and exaggerating
the evidence with a 10-page science-fiction-like, unrealistic scenario in the
year 2525 that ultimately insults the intelligence of any nonscientific citizen
(Hansen 260). Because of the uncertainty of an issue that is far too complex
for the scientific elite to deal with by themselves, it is the responsibility
of the scientists to welcome the realistic skepticism and the truthful uncertainty
of the public into the public sphere.
The complex issue with climate
change is that a variety of different types of scientists, such as
climatologists, oceanographers, and volcanologists, are concerned with reducing
greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere. Taking action to reduce greenhouse
gases is a legitimate concern in the scientific community, but as James Hansen
argues in his article, “Perception of climate change,” “actions to stem
emissions of the gases that cause global warming are unlikely to approach what
is needed until the public recognizes that human-made climate change is
underway and perceives that it will have unacceptable consequences if effective
actions are not taken” (Hansen E2415). As a result, scientists have an
increased responsibility to their citizens because open discussions about
climate change can greatly influence the public’s perception in positive ways.
However, this scientific concern of reducing emissions does not align with the
public concern for more important issues. For example, Bjorn Lomborg, an environmental
writer (non-scientist), states in his article, “Cool It,” that in the eyes of
the average citizen, “many other issues are much more important than global
warming. We [the public] need to get our perspective back. There are many more
pressing problems in the world, such as hunger, poverty, and disease” (Lomborg
8). This is an important point made by a nonscientist because the current
approach of scientists communicating to the public is not effective. Lomborg
argues that scientists’ responsibility of getting the public involved in the
climate change discussion through exaggerated fears and unrealistic solutions
is not the answer; it only leads to the decision-making of the elite for policies
and new technologies that may (or may not) help turn around the problem of
climate change. Future generations will not change their behaviors and
attitudes towards this issue by simply welcoming new technological
advancements, like geo-engineering, into their lives that they have no say in. Americans
cannot take the mindset of scientists and politicians by saying, “we can pretty
much afford the luxury of doing whatever we want” because these closed-off
technological decisions never address the problems of humanity in first and
third world countries (Levitt & Dubner 199).
Many politicians are more concerned
about the health of the economy than the health of their people. The media
produce exaggerated risk definitions that make the public worry about the wrong
issues. Plus, there are “experts” like Steven Levitt (economist) in SuperFreakonomics, who produce potential
technological solutions, but Levitt and others do not consider all the facts. The
nonscientists of the world have developed mistrust for science because
“experts” have pointed the way towards technological solutions (like a “chimney
to the sky”), but these ideas are not necessarily solutions realistic for the
human risk society (Levitt & Dubner 201). This brings up a crucial point because
scientists may fantasize about a quick technological fix to deal with climate,
but right now, the public needs scientists to truthfully communicate to them
that, in reality, there is no quick fix. For example, Elizabeth Kolbert, an
American journalist (nonscientist), argued in her article, “Hosed,” that “given
their emphasis on cold, hard numbers, it’s noteworthy that Levitt and Dubner
ignore, by now, whole libraries’ worth of data on global warming…” (Kolbert 3).
As a matter of fact, Lomborg, a fellow nonscientist, states that because of the
biased sources of information from a variety of sources, “we [the public] hear
vastly exaggerated and emotional claims that are simply not supported by data”
(Lomborg 6). Yes, complex facts are important, but scientists’ main concern
right now should not be towards their own self-interests to find technological
solutions that may or may not be supported by complex facts, facts in which the
public can misinterpret. For example, Al Gore’s documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, grabs the
public’s attention with exaggerated claims and facts that are designed to make
citizens “focus on the wrong solutions,” solutions of the scientific elite
(Lomborg 7). Average citizens have the responsibility to themselves and to
others to speak up and tell people like Al Gore that climate change is not the
most important, worrisome conversation in the global public sphere. Thus,
scientists’ responsibility to their fellow citizens lies in gaining the
public’s trust, which means engaging citizens in the discussions that are
happening because it is the citizens (nonscientists), not the scientists, who
are keeping the complexity of climate change in perspective.
Not only has the complexity of
climate change influenced the responsibility scientists have to their citizens,
the risk society has influenced citizens’ responsibilities to each other
because, as seen with Hurricane Katrina, individuals do not have the capacities
to alleviate future risks that are both natural and human-made. Going
from a society of materialism to a society of anxiety, risk is no longer
individualized and personal. A risk society means that everyone, despite people
being more vulnerable to risks than others, is in the risk society for the long
haul. “A risk society is a catastrophic society” (Beck 24). Human and natural
catastrophes are becoming the new normal where climate change is an issue too
big for any one person to solve. Because humans have loaded the climate dice,
natural disasters have become more uncertain, more common, and have led to more
human-made disasters. Thus, because citizens have made some groups of people
more vulnerable to risks than others, it is the responsibility citizens to come
together in solidarity to try to mitigate these vulnerabilities. However, the
extent to which American citizens are up to the challenge of the risk society
has been negatively affected by the mistrust in scientists who have excluded the
public from the public sphere for far too long.
New Orleans is an example of what
Beck would call a risk society that has influenced not only the citizens’ of
New Orleans responsibilities to each other but also the responsibility
Americans have to each other in times of crises. On the one hand, the natural
and human-made risks of New Orleans have made the city more vulnerable to
future catastrophes, but on the other hand, these vulnerabilities have made the
city more resilient. Because people have lost their faith in science, it is
important to look to historians and academic scholars (nonscientists) who give
citizens truth about the present and future by examining the past. Thus,
Historian Ari Kelman (a nonscientist), from the University of California,
Davis, in her article, “Boundary Issues: Clarifying New Orleans’s Murky Edges,”
makes the important distinction between
the situation of New Orleans and its site to illustrate how the city is
vulnerable to natural and human-made risks. On the one hand, New Orleans has a
good situation because it is significant economically as a gateway to the Gulf
of Mexico. However, it is a bad site because “the city was built on sediment,
the long ramp of the Mississippi’s levee…” (Kelman 696-697). This nonscientific
perspective of American history is important to take into consideration because
the natural risks are also human-made risks. Ever since the 1800s, people have
chosen to settle in the “flood-backed swamps” of the Lower Ninth Ward despite
being vulnerable to not only natural risks but also human risks such as
governmental neglect (Landphair 838-839). Governmental neglect is significant
to take note of because despite having to face obstacles alone and with minimal
help, people continue to inhabit New Orleans, more specifically the forgotten
Lower Ninth Ward, because they have a responsibility to each other as citizens
of the world to take care of one another. The people of the Lower Ninth Ward and
of surrounding areas chose not to evacuate before and after Hurricane Katrina
because they had a responsibility to keep up the community. They continued to
live in this section of the city despite disease, poverty, and neglect.
Juliette Landphair (another nonscientist) in her article, “The Forgotten People
of New Orleans,” informs Americans about the human-made risks in New Orleans,
to illustrate an important lesson in American history: the extent to which
Americans are up to the challenge of risk society does not depend on the
individual, but rather, it depends on the capabilities of “anxiety-producing
communities of danger” (Beck 49). The vulnerabilities
of New Orleans have shown that Americans are up to the challenge of climate
change because “from the Ninth Ward’s very start, vulnerable terrain combined
with municipal neglect to secure its reputation as distant and uncivilized,”
but at the same time, “the Ninth Ward’s isolation encouraged the growth of a
self-sufficient communal culture” (Landphair 839). New Orleans will face future
vulnerabilities. But, the vulnerabilities of communities like the Lowe Ninth
Ward have influenced American citizens, who are responsible for protecting the
people who cannot protect themselves, to form close-knit communities. These
communities, created by climate change, will keep New Orleans and other places
resilient going forward.
The failure of scientists to communicate
with the public and the government’s inability to unite America in a time of
crisis has taught Americans a valuable lesson about its past so that history
will not repeat in the future. Average citizens cannot heavily rely on the elite
to make decisions. It is not only the responsibility of scientists to include
the public in the conversations of climate change, but also, it is the
responsibility of the citizens to become actively involved in the public
sphere. Individual actions are not good enough in an issue so complex. Science
and technology cannot save humans from their own risks that they have created.
Citizens have the tools like the Internet, Facebook, and Twitter to become an informed citizenry
and an engaged public. The extent to which Americans are up to the challenge of
the risk society depends on the public trust of the scientific community; this
crucial trust that breaks down the barriers in the public sphere is the one
truth that must stand strong in the midst of uncertainty.
Works
Cited
Beck, Ulrich. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. Thousand
Oaks, California: Sage
Publications,
1992. Print.
Hansen, James,
Makiko Sato, and Reto Ruedy. “Perception of climate change.” Proceedings of
the National
Academy of Scieces. National
Academy of Sciences, 6 August 2012. Web. 30 November 2012.
Hansen, James. Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth About
the Coming Climate Catastrophe
and Our Last Chance to Save
Humanity. New
York: Bloomsbury USA, 2009. Print.
Kelman, Ari.
“Boundary Issues: Clarifying New Orleans’s Murky Edges.” Journal of American
History December 2007: 695-703. Print.
Kolber, Elizabeth.
“Hosed: Is there a quick fix for the climate?” The New Yorker. Conde Nast, 16
November
2009. Web. 3 December 2012.
Landphair,
Juliette. “The Forgotten People of New Orleans: Community, Vulnerability, and
the
Lower
Ninth Ward.” Journal of American History December
2007: 837-845. Print.
Levitt, Steven D.
and Stephen J. Dubner. SuperFreakonomics:
Global Cooling, Patriotic
Prostitutes, and
Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance. New York: HarperCollins, 2009.
Print.
Lomborg, Bjorn. Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s
Guide to Global Warming. New
York:
Random House, 2007. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment