Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist (5 page)

We will discuss this fear mongering in more detail in Chapter 18, which focuses on chemicals, but suffice it to say that there is a tidal wave of scary stories about phthalates in activist media releases and in the lifestyle sections of newspapers and magazines. Just search the Internet for “phthalates linked” and you will find they are linked to childhood obesity, autism, asthma, heart disease, and, of course, abnormal genitalia. So far they have not been linked to climate change!

I make this tongue-in-cheek reference to the term
linked
to introduce a discussion of the degree to which we
know
things. If we knew the answer, the above headline would have read, “Phthalates
cause
abnormal genitalia in boys.” This highlights the difference between
causation
and
correlation
, one of the most important distinctions in science.

Causation is fairly straightforward. The moon causes the tides, lack of food causes hunger, and a combination of geography and rainfall causes rivers to run to the sea. Correlation is much more elusive. While correlation is a necessary property of causation, it does not prove causation by itself. For example, shark attacks and ice-cream consumption are highly correlated. In other words when shark attacks are highest, so is ice-cream consumption. And vice versa, when shark attacks are lowest, hardly any ice-cream is eaten. Can one conclude from this that ice-cream consumption
causes
shark attacks? Or that shark attacks
cause
ice-cream consumption? Of course not, they are each caused in part by a common factor, warm weather.

Correlation means two things appear to be related, possibly in a cause and effect relationship, even when they may not be. You walk under a ladder or a black cat crosses your path and then you have a bit of bad luck. That is a correlation, even if it is far-fetched. Correlation lies at the root of superstition and much of popular environmentalism. Some correlations are eventually proven to be causations. When they lack proof of causation, it becomes convenient for activists and journalists to imply that correlation equals causation. When they wish to make such implications, they fall back on the word linked. The use of this word seems to be justified by sparse evidence. Let’s say that a certain chemical causes a statistically higher level of some abnormality in rats when administered at a very high dose rate. Activists and journalists will then imply that the chemical is linked to this same abnormality in humans, even though no human is ever exposed to such high levels of the chemical.

So when you read a headline or an introductory sentence that says one thing is linked to another, put on your thinking cap and question the assumption that one is actually caused by the other. Which brings usto
facts
.

We know facts are true. The earth revolves around the sun, one of the most important facts shown to be true, as demonstrated by Copernicus. Humans evolved from the apes, gravity pulls you toward the earth, sugar triggers the sweet receptors on the tongue, people fall in love: these are all facts. More mundanely, facts are observable phenomena that recur without failure. If, one day, gravity were not to work, its factualness would be in question. I’m not holding my breath.

It is fashionable in the politically correct world of postmodernist deconstructionism to claim objective facts do not exist. I reject this assumption. I agree that many things that were taken as facts in the past were actually cultural biases and had more to do with racial, sexual, and class discrimination than with scientifically verifiable truths. But in the realm of objective science there
are
facts, and I am one of them, as are you.

Then there are the problems of
misinformation
and
disinformation
. The former does not imply dishonest intentions whereas the latter does. Both involve spreading untruths and therefore result in people drawing inaccurate conclusions because they accept the information as the truth. Misinformation includes a statement such as “There is scientific proof that humans are the main cause of climate change.” An example of disinformation might be “That scientist is in the pockets of industry” when there is no evidence that this is true.

And then we come to predictions, such as the following: “Scientists Predict Widespread Extinction by Global Warming.”
[4]
People have been predicting the future since time immemorial. Even though they are not very good at it they keep trying. Some people actually think they know the future, as if they had a crystal ball. But they do not have a crystal ball; it is a mythical thing, found only in fantasy and science fiction. Still, this doesn’t seem to deter them, especially when the prediction involves the end of civilization and the world as we know it.

“The end is nigh” has been cried from street corners for eons. The apocalypse is always just around that corner and people tend to believe this. Optimistic predictions are invariably greeted with disbelief while doom and gloom forecasts makes the news. We are a strange species: having developed the ability to consider the future, we tend to see the dark side even though we would obviously hope for a happy ending.

Of course there are some aspects of the future we can predict accurately: the tides, sunrise, our next birthday, and the movement of theplanets. But most future events and circumstances cannot be predicted with certainty. There are simply too many variables, including the chaotic variable of chance. That’s why people bet on horse races and boxing matches. That’s why the weather report is wrong nearly as often as it is right, especially when it is for more than four or five days in the future. This kind of prediction is more like a wager; your odds of winning are better the more you know the horses, the boxers, and the meteorological conditions. But you will never get it right consistently.

The take-home message here is predictions are not the same as facts. We are constantly bombarded with predictions of future climate change, sealevel rise, floods, droughts, hurricanes, mass exodus of climate refugees, mass species extinction, and the end of civilization. These predictions are based largely on computer models, very complex computer models that purport to tell us what the climate (average weather) will be like in 50 or 100 years from now. The problem is that as complex as they are, the computer models are nowhere near as complex as the earth’s climate system and all the variables involved, some of which we don’t even understand. Frankly I wouldn’t give two bits for these computer-based predictions. I give the modelers A for effort, but I would bet on the stock exchange or the outcome of the World Series long before I would bet on climate change.

As a first-year science major at the University of British Columbia I was lucky enough to enroll in a course offered by the English faculty, aimed at teaching critical thinking to science students. We took a copy of
Time
magazine and deconstructed it from cover to cover. The lesson I remember best is, never believe an article that has the words
may
or
might
in the first sentence. If you see a sentence with
may
in it, read it again but add
or may not
as in, “Chemical X may or may not cause cancer.”

So whenever a statement is made by a politician, an activist, a journalist, or by me that purports to be a fact, take a closer look. Is it really a proven fact? Or is it a correlation masquerading as a causal relationship? Is it a proven causal relationship, such as “Light from the sun makes plants grow?” Or is it just a prediction of something to which we don’t know the answer? Adopting this analytical approach will give you the power of critical thinking and make you a much more sensible environmentalist.

Philosophy, Religion, Politics, Dogma, Propaganda, and Science

You might think only a fool would attempt to discuss all the above terms in a few pages. I will leave you to be the judge.

Literally translated from Greek, philosophy means the love of knowledge and wisdom. In the strictest sense, then, there is no place for dishonesty or misinformation in one’s philosophy of life. It is the pure expression of truth. But in the realm of ideas and opinions there are many shades of gray between black and white. The use of loaded words, their inflection and context, and the confusion of belief with proven fact create a minefield that is difficult to navigate. Add large doses of self-righteousness, fanaticism, and a willingness to use force and you have the turmoil of history as individuals, tribes, and nations come into conflict over control of people and resources. Leaders of all sides claim to speak for god or gods, higher principles of human nature, and superior genetic makeup as a justification for the raw furtherance of their interests.

Religion is largely based on beliefs that cannot be proven in the scientific sense. To justify these beliefs adherents often describe them as “self-evident,” as if anyone could see it if only they would open their eyes. I grew up in a family of agnostics and my village had no church. My mother and father were very well read and kept up with current affairs. The views of my parents and my grandparents reflected a healthy mix of socialism and capitalism. This led to lively debate around the kitchen table and in the living room. I was fortunate to be exposed to a wide range of philosophies and political orientations at an early age. I rejected religion as superstition and embraced empiricism and science. At age eight I was writing illustrated essays about the planets and their orbital peculiarities.

The only exception to my secular family was my father’s mother, Bernadette. She was a French-Canadian Catholic, who came from northern Ontario. She had converted to Christian Science after a traumatic childhood and had spent a lot of time pondering the mysteries of the spiritual side of life. I spent time with her in my early years and she explained to me the distinction between the world of the flesh and the world of the spirit. She found great comfort in the belief that there was a place with no pain. Although I retained my agnostic views, her influence gave me a feeling of something deeper. Perhaps it was okay to simply accept that the universe is in many ways unfathomable, that we are all very small in the contemplation of infinite space and time.

In my view, politics is the debate about what should happen next, and who’s to blame for what happened before. There is always politics in religion but some cultures have decided, with mixed results, that there should be no religion in politics. The separation of church and state was apparently an English invention but soon spread to surrounding lands. But the Taliban and other sorts of radical Islam have not taken to this notion and thus has emerged one of the great divides in the world today. The rights of women, men, and children; the future of democracy; perhaps the prospect of peace in this world, all seem hinged on this divergence in philosophy and religion.

Politics largely adheres to left and right principles. The political left is primarily concerned with the needs of society as a whole, the common good, and the equality of individuals. The political right champions the rights of the individual, freedom, and private enterprise. On the far left lies communism, in which the state controls virtually everything, including industry, the media, and property. Modern socialism is center-left, allowing a large degree of individual freedom and private property but tending toward central control over redistribution of income, railroads, electrical generation, health care, and many other industries. Capitalism, on the right-center, favors private enterprise as the most efficient system to deliver goods and services and looks to individual competition as the driver of innovation and progress. On the far right, fascism is in many ways similar to communism. Both are forms of dictatorship. Communism concentrates power in a committee, and fascism puts it in the hands of a single fanatic. Some wags say communism and fascism meet behind your back, a metaphor that points to how you can stretch your left and right arms back until they touch, so that you can’t see how they may be plotting against you. Anarchism is the opposite of both communism and fascism in that it supports individual rights in nearly all aspects of political life. It is a bit fanciful in that it does not really recognize a role for government. Libertarianism is a more realistic form of anarchism in so far as it accepts sufficient central government to ensure peace and security but otherwise champions the free will of the individual.

I strongly believe that environmentalists should be centrist in their approach to politics. It is a great shame that the political left managed to hijack much of the environmental movement as it gained strength in the 1980s, casting the political right as “anti-environmental.” Clearly there are examples of good environmental policies from both left and right perspectives. The left tends to support a regulatory approach while the right generally supports market-based policies. Both these approaches have merit and a combination of the two can often prove more effective than either approach alone. The task of a sensible environmentalist is to maintain a centrist position, taking the best ideas from both the right and left sides of the political spectrum. Let partisans on the left and right debate the issues from their perspectives: environmentalists must work to remain independent of party politics. Of course we all have our political orientations and that is natural. And politics is about much more than the environment. But we should try hard to prevent socialist or capitalist ideology from determining our positions on the environmental issues of the day. Common sense and pragmatism should prevail.