Happy 2010
So last night I went to a pre-new year's eve party. It was the usual bunch of friends, mostly in their 30's to 60's, no kids, buffet for the middle and upper middle class. Dentists, lawyers, a bohemian, an international civil servant, two high school language teachers, a professional classical musician, a few others and yours truly. The conversation started out innocently enough. What do you do? Do you like oysters? Oh you're a vegan? Gosh, that Christmas tree is just so pretty! Where did you get that shirt, it looks lovely on you. But, as with all dinner parties, ultimately someone tries to show some intellectual muscle and the conversation veers towards something serious. In our case it was climate change. Great, I thought, we can have a constructive conversation on what needs to be done at the policy level. What each person there thinks is necessary at the citizen level. We might, of course, challenge a couple of the consequences. But challenge the fundamental argument? Challenge the reality of climate change? Still? Now?
I am concerned about 2010 becoming the year of the skeptics. Skeptical about climate change, about chronic disease becoming the number one killer, about how wealth disparity is bigger now than it was in the feudal ages (okay, maybe I'm stretching a little there but I just have this conviction that most people simply do not realize how bad disparity has become). Anyway, so back to my dinner: it became a battle of the skeptics vs. the believers. The problem is that — I admit that I may digress into a pinch of arrogance — the skeptics had no arguments. They used the usual 'this is a cycle' argument. I would not have been concerned, or not too concerned anyway, if the skeptic camp was limited to a single voice, maybe two. But instead, the skeptic camp was broad. Even the believers were not 100% convinced. I spoke of arctic ice, of 18% of climate change being attributable to meat, of the carbon curve… nope, sorry, Al Gore, Rajendra Pachauri, they don't own the science. What? How can people still think that climate change is a political attempt at shifting society left? How can they think that because lakes are icing over, as never before, in Scotland, that the change is not upon us?
As a communicator, my thoughts quickly drifted to 'argument'. How can I argue my point? How can I get these otherwise charming dinner guests to realize that the table full of salami, fish eggs and imported beers were reason enough to care? Are our policy makers making the argument clearly enough? Obviously not. Obviously, despite Copenhagen, too many people still don't get it. Our message therefore needs to change. Telling people about Tuvalu sinking or Greenland melting is obviously not enough. And my point is that I don't want to wait until Marseille or Tokyo residents have three pairs of waders in the closet. I want the message to get out now. But how?
Oh, sorry, yes, best wishes for 2010! May this year be filled with love, happiness, health and the 2,357 other things we need to do to make our planet stable and safe. Meanwhile, I have a real new year's eve party tonight; better hone my debating skills!
Comments
Log in or create a user account to comment.