Can humanity cope with climate change without believing in it? History says maybe

Strange as it may seem, early germ theorists may have a lot to tell us about people’s attitudes towards climate change today.

When I was doing research for a new book History of emerging infectious diseasesI noticed many similarities between the early debate about the existence of microbes and the current debate about the existence of global warming.

Both debates highlight the difficulty of recognizing invisible threats. Both highlight the influence of economic interests that profit from the status quo. But most importantly, both highlight how people with different beliefs and interests can agree on important policies and practices to address global problems.

What you can’t see can hurt you

Seeing is believing, but until the mid-19th century, it was extremely difficult to observe the tiny microorganisms that cause so-called “fever” illnesses.

Despite the compelling indirect evidence, many people remained skeptical of “animalculous” (as they were once called). Microscopes were well developedEven then, Acceptance was gradualThe once-dominant idea of ​​disease-causing gases called miasms persisted for decades before most people accepted that fevers had a living cause.

Climate change poses a similar problem of visibility: everyone can see and feel the weather, but it’s often hard to observe how it changes. Bigger patterns and longer trends Without the aid of technical charts.

Even if people were to recognize the bigger picture, claims of human responsibility Carbon Emissions The pollutants that come from our engines are invisible to the naked eye, just like bacterial infections in the body: when the evidence of human causes is invisible, it is difficult to achieve a human solution.

Economics become more important than evidence

In addition to these challenges, economic interests often confound scientific recommendations.

In the case of the germ theory, early recommendations for preventing the spread of infection included: Resumption of quarantine This will disrupt the flow of international trade at ports and border crossings.

In the case of climate theory, recommendations for slowing global warming include: Reduce carbon fuel consumptionThis would reduce the amount of oil spilled. Such strategies could threaten not only profits but also livelihoods, so Labor unions divided over environmental efforts Energy industry executives Climate science misinformation.

Beliefs and interests do not necessarily have to coincide

But people’s beliefs and interests do not have to coincide, so long as everyone sees some benefit in the recommendation.

This happened in the last decades of the 19th century, when germ-denying surgeons were nonetheless Joseph Lister’s Disinfection Techniques.

They did so primarily for practical reasons, because the new treatments were making patients better. But if an explanation was needed, many of these staunch skeptics would have been surprised to learn that Lister’s treatments Spread of the miasma Not a living thing.

In response to these allegations, Lister said:

“If anyone chooses to assume that putrefactive matter is not of a living nature, but is a so-called chemical ferment devoid of vital forces, such an idea, which I believe is unjustified by scientific evidence, is from a practical point of view equivalent to the germ theory, since it would inculcate exactly the same methods of embalming control.”

Lister was more interested in saving lives than in winning arguments. As long as surgeons adopted his methods, he didn’t care much about their legitimacy. When it came to preventing infection, actions, not beliefs, mattered.

Changing behavior through complementary interests

The same is true about global warming: changing behavior is more important than changing beliefs.

As an example, the growing Evangelical Christian Environmental MovementOrganizations such as Green Faith and the Creative Care Task Force Cite Bible verses to promote environmental stewardship as a sacred duty.

Many of these groups acknowledge anthropogenic climate change, but Some of their core beliefs are in conflict with evolution. As scientists, my colleagues and I use that. But we don’t need to agree on fossil fuels to wean the world off them.

The same is true of priorities and economic interests.

Recent National Pew Survey A majority of Americans support the development and use of renewable energy, including a majority of Republicans. Their motivations tend to be different than the Democratic Party’s.

The Republican Party Prioritizing economic interests They are more interested in renewable energy than Democrats, who are more likely to cite global warming as their main concern.

Economic interests may explain why. Republican states produce the lion’s share of America’s wind energy And it’s why three of these states are in the top five for solar power production in the country. Solar adoption correlates with the geography of wind and solar belts, where farmers expect lucrative returns on electricity generation and a steady income stream that buffers against weather-dependent crop price fluctuations. Livelihoods are a powerful motivator.

Finding common ground can change the world

None of these examples cover all aspects of climate change, and even Democrats and Republicans are divided on how fast and how far it will go. The transition to renewable energy go.

But there’s another hopeful lesson from the 19th century: Even though people didn’t agree on all the ways to prevent disease, they still found enough common ground to achieve their goals. The biggest fall in mortality rates on record.

Ron Barrett is Professor of Anthropology at Macalester College. This article is reprinted from conversation Under Creative Commons License. read Original work.