Global Climate Change
Global Climate Change: Science,
Technology, and Society
• Is the Earth warming at an overly alarming rate?
• To what extent do human social systems affect the
rate of global warming?
• Are rapid changes necessary to avoid
catastrophic geological conditions?
By addressing these questions, which seemingly are
unrelated to social problems, we can learn how
sociology becomes involved in the intersection of
science, technology, and human systems.
Global Climate Change: Science,
Technology, and Society
Recall our definition of a social problem:
• the cause is social,
• the problem seriously harms a large number of
persons in the society,
• the problem threatens the well-being of society,
• the problem is wrong and must be changed.
Global Climate Change: Science,
Technology, and Society
What if there is considerable disagreement within a
society about the extent to which any of these
conditions is true?
If strong disagreements exist regarding any of these
four criteria of a social problem, then society might
suffer a more macro-level social problem:
1. society might be too slow in bringing about
needed changes,
2. the quality of discourse about the problem might
in itself create social problems.
Global Climate Change: Science,
Technology, and Society
Therefore, sociology becomes intrinsically involved in
addressing the intersection of science, technology,
and society to the extent that it seeks to:
• reduce the amount of time involved in gaining
adoption of mainly beneficial new technologies
(i.e., a huge debate in itself: See SOC 415),
• improve the quality of public discourse regarding
the definition of social problems.
Global Climate Change: Science,
Technology, and Society
This lecture addresses primarily the second
question—regarding the quality of public discourse
about a potential social problem.
A previous lecture provided a brief summary of
sociological work on gaining the adoption of new
technologies (i.e., Adoption and Diffusion).
Global Climate Change: Science,
Technology, and Society
We will discuss the quality of public discourse about
potential social problems within the context of
debates about global climate change.
Consider the following points of debate regarding
global climate change.
Global Warming
Global Warming: Myths and Facts
Source: Environmental Defense
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/page.cfm?tagID=1011
Global Warming
MYTH: The science of global warming is too uncertain to act
on.
FACT: There is no debate among scientists about the basic
facts of global warming.
The most respected scientific bodies have stated
unequivocally that global warming is occurring, and people
are causing it by burning fossil fuels (like coal, oil and natural
gas) and cutting down forests.
Global Warming
MYTH: Even if global warming is a problem, addressing it will
hurt American industry and workers.
FACT: A well designed trading program will harness American
ingenuity to decrease heat-trapping pollution cost-effectively,
jumpstarting a new carbon economy.
Claims that fighting global warming will cripple the economy
and cost hundreds of thousands of jobs are unfounded. In
fact, companies that are already reducing their heat-trapping
emissions have discovered that cutting pollution can save
money.
Global Warming
MYTH: Water vapor is the most important, abundant
greenhouse gas. So if we’re going to control a greenhouse
gas, why don’t we control it instead of carbon dioxide (CO2)?
FACT: Although water vapor traps more heat than CO2,
because of the relationships among CO2, water vapor and
climate, to fight global warming nations must focus on
controlling CO2.
Atmospheric levels of CO2 are determined by how much coal,
natural gas and oil we burn and how many trees we cut down,
as well as by natural processes like plant growth.
Atmospheric levels of water vapor, on the other hand, cannot
be directly controlled by people; rather, they are determined
by temperatures.
Global Warming
MYTH: Global warming and extra CO2 will actually be
beneficial — they reduce cold-related deaths and stimulate
crop growth.
FACT: Any beneficial effects will be far outweighed by
damage and disruption.
Even a warming in just the middle range of scientific
projections would have devastating impacts on many sectors
of the economy. Rising seas would inundate coastal
communities, contaminate water supplies with salt and
increase.
Global Warming
MYTH: Global warming is just part of a natural cycle. The
Arctic has warmed up in the past.
FACT: The global warming we are experiencing is not natural.
People are causing it.
People are causing global warming by burning fossil fuels
(like oil, coal and natural gas) and cutting down forests.
Scientists have shown that these activities are pumping far
more CO2 into the atmosphere than was ever released in
hundreds of thousands of years. This buildup of CO2 is the
biggest cause of global warming.
Global Warming
MYTH: We can adapt to climate change — civilization has
survived droughts and temperature shifts before.
FACT: Although humans as a whole have survived the
vagaries of drought, stretches of warmth and cold and more,
entire societies have collapsed from dramatic climatic shifts.
The current warming of our climate will bring major hardships
and economic dislocations — untold human suffering,
especially for our children and grandchildren. We are already
seeing significant costs from today's global warming which
is caused by greenhouse gas pollution.
Climate has changed in the past and human societies have
survived, but today six billion people depend on
interconnected ecosystems and complex technological
infrastructure.
Global Warming
MYTH: Global warming can’t be happening because some
glaciers and ice sheets are growing, not shrinking.
FACT: In most parts of the world, the retreat of glaciers has
been dramatic. The best available scientific data indicate that
Greenland's massive ice sheet is shrinking.
Between 1961 and 1997, the world’s glaciers lost 890 cubic
miles of ice. The consensus among scientists is that rising air
temperatures are the most important factor behind the retreat
of glaciers on a global scale over long time periods.
Some glaciers in western Norway, Iceland and New Zealand
have been expanding during the past few decades. That
expansion is a result of regional increases in storm frequency
and snowfall rather than colder temperatures — not at all
incompatible with a global warming trend.
Global Warming
MYTH: Accurate weather predictions a few days in advance
are hard to come by. Why on earth should we have
confidence in climate projections decades from now?
FACT: Climate prediction is fundamentally different from
weather prediction, just as climate is different from weather.
Today’s climate models can now reproduce the observed
global average climates over the past century and beyond.
Such findings have reinforced scientist’s confidence in the
capacity of models to produce reliable projections of future
climate.
Global Warming
MYTH: As the ozone hole shrinks, global warming will no
longer be a problem.
FACT: Global warming and the ozone hole are two different
problems.
The ozone hole is a thinning of the stratosphere's ozone layer,
which is roughly 9 to 31 miles above the earth's surface. The
depletion of the ozone is due to man-made chemicals like
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). A thinner ozone layer lets more
harmful ultraviolet (UV) radiation to reach the earth's surface.
Global warming, on the other hand, is the increase in the
earth's average temperature due to the buildup of CO2 and
other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from human
activities.
Global Climate Change: Science,
Technology, and Society
The preceding slides presented some points of view
as “myths” and other points of view as “facts.”
Obviously, sociology cannot weigh in on this debate.
The veracity of “myths” and “facts” about global
climate change must be addressed with the physical
sciences.
Sociologists can, however, address the debate itself.
Global Climate Change: Science,
Technology, and Society
First, sociologists must address the need for
societies to change in response to changing
environmental conditions.
If the perspective of Environmental Defense is
correct, then society needs to move rapidly to
institute corrective measures. We addressed this
issue in a previous lecture.
Global Climate Change: Science,
Technology, and Society
Second, sociologists must address the quality of
public discourse regarding potential social problems.
• Abrasive and disrespectful public discourse can
create problems in itself.
• Poor quality discourse can affect the ability of
society to make rational decisions.
We will address the topic of science communication
and the quality of public discourse.
Global Climate Change: Science,
Technology, and Society
What happens when scientists want to convey
complex and potentially controversial information to
the public?
The “paradox of science” is that if scientists say
nothing, then the public wants to know more. If
scientists seek to explain their findings, then they are
blamed for being biased.
Global Climate Change: Science,
Technology, and Society
Also, because all science if flawed, and because all
technology is flawed, then when scientists report
findings they are required to report “limitations” or
flaws.
Then, because negative information always carries
disproportionate weight in influencing initial opinions,
then science communication unavoidably creates
public controversy!
Global Climate Change: Science,
Technology, and Society
Given this dilemma, scientists can pursue one of
seven approaches to communicating with the public:
1. Say nothing (“just get the numbers right”).
2. Tell them the numbers (no explanation).
3. Explain the numbers.
4. Explain negligible risk.
5. Cost-Benefit analysis.
6. Listen to concerns, but rely upon expert opinion.
7. Partner with the public.
Global Climate Change: Science,
Technology, and Society
The rationality of public decision making.
Formal rationality (means to an end).
Thick rational choice (utilitarian goal).
Thin rational choice (social goal).
Bounded rationality (lack of complete knowledge).
Substantive rationality (expression of values in
themselves).
Global Climate Change: Science,
Technology, and Society
Question:
To the extent that the public relies upon substantive
rationality, to what extent should democratic
governments rely upon public opinion in forming
technology-related policies?
The precautionary principle (i.e., risk no harm) and
public policy.
Global Climate Change: Science,
Technology, and Society
Studies in anthropology and political science
conducted originally under the title “Cultural Theory”
and more recently within the “Culture Cognition
Project” have identified two key dimensions of
people’s affiliation with society: grid and group.
Global Climate Change: Science,
Technology, and Society
Grid refers to the way in which people associate
social and environmental harms to transgressions of
societal norms. “We are in trouble because we have
not followed the rules.”
Group refers the way in which people associate
social and environmental harms with inefficiencies in
societal norms. “We are in trouble because we have
the wrong rules.”
Global Climate Change: Science,
Technology, and Society
The extent to which a person conforms with grid and
group help define their approach to addressing social
problems.
• High grid, high group: hierarchy/traditionalism.
• “We have the right rules and all we need to
do is follow them.”
• High grid, low group: fatalism.
• “We have the right rules, but we cannot or
will not follow them.”
Global Climate Change: Science,
Technology, and Society
The extent to which a person conforms with grid and
group help define their approach to addressing social
problems.
• Low grid, high group: collectivism/egalitarianism.
• “We need to improve the rules and follow
them.”
• Low grid, low group: individualism.
• “We do not need a lot of rules and it is best
to encourage individual freedoms.”
Global Climate Change: Science,
Technology, and Society
Culture theory can help policy experts identify
sources of conflict (i.e., “culture wars”) and potential
solutions to conflict.
Potential solutions rely upon the ability of policy
experts to “bridge” conflicting value-orientations.
Examples:
• Global pollution controls.
• Agricultural production priorities.