Will You Two Cut It Out?

So it was a remarkably hot weekend here in the Seattle area, with temperature records being kicked to the curb for three straight days. Technically, the excessive heat continued into today, but 92° (33°C) is pretty low-key when compared to 108° (42°C). The weekend saw the highest temperatures recorded in the Seattle area, and literally doubled the number of days that the region hit high temperatures above 100° over the past 125 years.

Predictably, there is a chorus of voices holding this event out as incontrovertible proof of anthropogenic climate change. Which is unfortunate.

Not that there's anything to be done about it. People will hold out this or that even as either validation or refutation of anthropogenic climate change as it suits them and aligns with their viewpoints and interests. So I expect the next dumping of snow that lands on the area will inspire a counterargument based on that single event. (Although proponents of anthropogenic climate change will likely also point to it as proof of their own viewpoint.)

The bickering over which side is right misses the point. Mainly because it boils down to pitting the interests of different groups against one another in what basically becomes a zero-sum game (albeit one where both sides could lose). While policymakers and experts often speak of things in terms of their impacts on the aggregate, people live their lives as individuals. Promises of more and better new energy or fossil-fuel jobs aren't draws for people who don't see themselves as every qualifying for them, at least, not if they're going to earn the salaries that they're accustomed to. And given the United States track record of leaving people out in the cold when their primary skills are not (or are no longer) of use, it's understandable that people would place their individual livelihoods above more abstract concerns.

Accordingly, the best path to a solution likely doesn't lie in one side browbeating the other into submission. A solution that is designed to best meet the needs of all parties involved will likely be more useful. Of course, this is easier said than done, especially in an environment where the opposed parties feel that the other is acting in deliberate bad faith. But even where that is not the case, seeking compromise where questions of justice are involved is always a difficult task. But, in this case, the expected benefit would be the removal of an incentive to deny or otherwise dismiss the problem being solved.

Given that a runaway greenhouse effect, one that would turn the Earth into something akin to Venus, is unlikely, anthropogenic climate change is unlikely to be an extinction-level problem. At least, not for humans. Rather, it will simply become expensive to remediate. Whereupon there will be a new argument over who will pay the bill. Which is unfortunate, but a common facet of human nature.