“Clean coal.” “Ethical oil.” How could fossil fuels that produce pollution which sickens, kills, and hospitalizes tens of thousands of Americans each year end up sounding so … desirable?

Jim Hoggan, founder of DeSmog, watched these industry-funded campaigns — and an increasingly toxic public discourse around climate change — unfold in the U.S. and Canada and wondered the same thing. 

As Hoggan told an audience of earth and climate scientists at the American Geophysical Union conference today, “These campaigns are not so much about persuasion as they are about polarization, about dividing us.”

When he first founded DeSmog in 2005, Hoggan thought that the reason people denied the legitimacy of climate science was because they just didn’t have enough information or didn’t have the right information.

But the more he examined this issue, he realized it wasn’t about misinformation. It was primarily about disinformation.

Hoggan has described this process he underwent while writing his book, I’m Right and You’re an Idiot:

“I wanted to find out how misinformation campaigns work, how we came to a time when facts don’t matter and how we can start having real public conversations again. So I began to explore how these tendencies arise, what spurs us to become close-minded, aggressively vitriolic and most importantly, what we can do about it. I also began to analyze how we can become highly effective communicators, deflect over-the-top advocacy and make our arguments more convincing …

I’m Right and You’re an Idiot explains why facts alone don’t lead people to the right decisions; how language is manipulated; how people’s voices are “stolen” or silenced and what that means for democracy. It explains why modern messaging fails, why we are susceptible to misinformation and how trust networks are destroyed.”

He realized that the strategy of those putting out anti-science propaganda is to pollute the public discourse. They accomplish this by arguing that there are no clear facts and no objectivity. 

Instead, they argue that “everyone is just trying to manipulate you for their own interests.”

If you thought climate scientists were trying to manipulate you, why would you listen to their alarming reports about melting sea ice and acidifying oceans? Why would you vote for elected officials who prioritize taking actions to address climate change?

As Hoggan pointed out, the organizations denying the science of climate change — like the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Heartland Institute — don’t have to completely convince the public that climate change isn’t real in order to kill political will on the issue.

They just have to sow the seeds of doubt about climate science, which President-elect Donald Trump has echoed in his false statements that “nobody really knows” if climate change is happening.

Unfortunately, climate science deniers have been fairly successful in introducing that doubt and slowing down progress on addressing the causes and impacts of climate change.

These kinds of divisive tactics move Americans into so-called “tribes” with others like themselves — Republicans, Democrats, urban, rural, people of color, whites. 

Hoggan described how our brains have evolved to form these teams of “us” versus “them” and how that informs the decisions we make about something like the degree to which humans are causing climate change, an issue that is more politically polarized than ever.

Divided as we are, what kind of hope is there that facts and unity, rather than disinformation and division, will prevail?

As social scientists have shown, facts don’t change minds. That means people on every part of the political spectrum need to instead focus on attempting to sincerely listen and understand each other.

“This is about rebuilding trust and learning to talk about these problems in a way that really matters to people,” said Hoggan. 

In the course of researching his book, Hoggan interviewed Zen Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hanh, who left him with a message that reverberates with empathy, a sentiment not often found in the antagonistic public discourse of today. 

“Speak the truth, but not to punish,” said Hanh. 

In other words, once people stop vilifying the “other side,” they leave themselves open to realize that “the other side” is composed of real people who have actual concerns and even shared values.

That is the point, a place of mutual respect and trust, where we can return to real conversations about real issues that affect us all. Like climate change. 

Main image credit: James Hoggan speaks at AGU, by DeSmog

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

This is an excerpt from DeSmog founder Jim Hoggan’s latest book, I’m Right and You’re an Idiot: The Toxic State of Public Discourse, published by New Society Publishers.

I first began reading the works of linguist and cognitive scientist George Lakoff about 15 years ago and I was struck by the Berkeley professor’s now famous ideas about what he calls frames. In public relations our stock in trade is messaging, because our role is to create understanding by combining maximum clarity with supreme brevity. We work in the world of sound bites and elevator pitches that are designed to be short and pithy, and we rarely have the time or budget to delve into frames or deeply moving narratives.

When I started writing I’m Right and You’re an Idiot I wanted to better understand the difference between messages and frames, so I would know how frames work and be able to explain how to manage them. I wanted to better understand how they relate to the mechanics of public debate, and especially how frames impact facts and scientific evidence in public discourse, or when shaping opinion.

When we met, Lakoff described frames as metaphors and conceptual frameworks that we use to interpret and understand the world. They give meaning to the words we hear more than the other way around, because words don’t have objective meanings independent of these metaphors. Frames are structures of thought that we all use every day to determine meaning in our lives; frames govern how we act. They are ultimately a blend of feelings, values and data related to how we see the world.

We can’t think without frames, Lakoff explained. “Every thought you have, every word is defined in terms of a frame. You can’t say any word that’s meaningful without it activating a frame.” Frames permeate everything we think and say, so the people who control language and set its frames have an inordinate amount of power.

Lakoff stressed that if you do a bad job of framing your story, someone else will likely do it for you and his comments reminded me of something my mentor in the PR business, Mike Sullivan, once said: “If you don’t tell them, someone else will—and it will be bad.” What Mike meant was if you are an unwilling or ineffective communicator, you leave yourself wide open to someone else doing serious damage.

A frame is a way of looking at the world that is value laden, and like a metaphor it conjures up all kinds of thoughts and emotions. Jackie Kennedy used a frame when she referred to her life as Camelot. “Ethical oil” and “tax relief ” are also frames. Such words evoke subconscious images and meanings, as opposed to factual statements such as “10 million scallops are dead,” a headline that appeared in February 2014 in a Vancouver Island newspaper.

What came to be called Climategate was an international campaign to discredit scientists on both sides of the Atlantic just before the 2009 Copenhagen summit on climate change. It took the momentum to set targets out of the conference. I was astonished to see how a group of legitimate climate scientists, with stacks of peer-reviewed evidence on their side, could lose debates to a group of people who had none — all because of a lens created by mischief-makers. Clearly, Climategate was a battle of frames versus facts, and the frames won.

The truth is, facts alone don’t change minds, said Lakoff, who wrote a book called Don’t Think of an Elephant, which explains how to frame political debates in terms of values not facts.

He believes that the progressive community contributes to confusion in the public square because of an outdated understanding of reason and consequent lack of persuasive communication. During our interview, he told me that progressives need a mental model that goes beyond cold, logical messaging that’s directly correlated to reality — a model which should embrace metaphors, a marriage of emotion and logic.

[block:block=110]

Liberals have an unemotional view of reason that dates back to French philosopher Descartes. Lakoff explained that when conservatives want to go into politics they study business, marketing and what makes people tick, whereas progressives study political science, law and public policy. Progressives don’t study cognitive science, neurology or how the brain works. “They learn a false view of reason that goes back to the 1600s…that says reason is conscious, logical and unemotional.”

It wasn’t long ago that risk communications experts, who study the power of facts, also assumed that giving people more information and evidence would ensure they made better decisions. But research shows facts don’t change minds, at least not in the way we think they do.

Lakoff said cognitive and brain science research has shown that reason is not rational without emotion, without an over-lay of values to make sense of facts. Simply put: frames trump facts.

“We have thousands of metaphors structuring our brains,” he told me. “We think in terms of them all the time and they’re not random, they’re not mythical, they’re things that allow us to get around in the world. We have to use them. Words aren’t neutral.”

They are the structure we use to think.

We should all have a commitment to the truth, he continued, but not let an understanding of facts overwhelm our job, which is to change the brains of people out there. “Every time you argue, you change your brain. Every time you tell somebody something else, you’re changing brains, because everything you think is physical; it’s all in the circuitry of your brain.”

But just speaking the truth isn’t enough to convince people of new ideas. If facts are to make sense and be perceived as urgent, they must be framed in terms of deep, deep values.

George Lakoff ’s advice is short and sweet: To be an effective communicator get clear on your values and start using the language of values. Drop the language of policy. “People do not necessarily vote their self-interest. They vote their identity. They vote their values.” He believes so-called inaction and apathy should warn progressives that the conservatives are winning the communications battle between moral imperatives: “It’s time to decide, either we are all in this together or it’s every man for himself.”

Progressive morality says citizens act responsibly to provide infrastructure, education, health care, transportation and basic research for one another. Progressives constrain stock markets and protect bank accounts. They believe that private profit depends upon public provision. Conservatism is all about personal responsibility. The importance of public services is minimal when compared with the benefits of private enterprise. Conservatives promote stock markets and regulate banks. They believe that human effort creates wealth.

Of course some people are conservative about some things and progressive about others. Lakoff calls this bi-conceptualism. It means you can have both moral systems operating in your brain at the same time, each inhibiting the other from time to time. The more active one is, the stronger it gets, and that’s where language and communication come in. It’s also why media in influences matter so much, as do the ways we communicate.

In politics and social issues, frames are hierarchically structured and at the top of that hierarchy are the moral frames. So the question often is: Is this a frame where citizens care about each other, act responsibly and where there is a robust sense of what’s good for all? Or is the frame telling us that someone believes they have the freedom to access their own self-interest but need not care about the interests of others?

When it comes to environmental issues, Lakoff explained that these conflicting moralities are tied to two very different ideas of our relationship with nature. For progressives: We are a part of nature and dependent on the environment. Nature has inherent value. For conservatives: We are separate from and dominant over nature. Nature’s value is determined by its direct utility to people. Lakoff was quick to note that this is a simplification because most people aren’t ideologues, and bi-conceptuals are generally open to persuasion in either direction. The moderate has no ideology.

Every word is defined by an individual frame. A frame is a neural circuit. A neural circuit is made up of connections of neurons joined together by synapses. When a circuit is activated the synapses get stronger. If that circuit inhibits another circuit, then that other circuit’s synapses get weaker. When the synapses are stronger, it is easier to activate an idea in someone’s mind and therefore easier for it to spread to other issues. “So, repetition is what strengthens synapses. And it doesn’t matter if it is accurate.”

Suppose you’re a conservative, he said, and you want to create a frame that fits your moral system, but let’s suppose it has nothing to do with truth. You may be saying, for example, that cutting corporate taxes will create jobs. We know that’s false. Corporations are making more profits than ever before, are not hiring people because they’re outsourcing work, reaping the benefits of cheap labor in other countries or using more technology. They’re not “creating jobs.” So this is a false statement. But if conservatives call themselves job creators and repeat it over and over, people will think that cutting corporate taxes will create more jobs. The words are like a recurring jingle, stimulating a synapse and creating a thought pattern. That frame is activated over and over, and every time it is reactivated it grows stronger.

I asked Lakoff if it’s possible to set the record straight. Every time we say, “those are not job creators,” do we step into the job creator frame and imprint it again? By outlining facts, even in a logical statement of contradiction, do we always help reinforce the other side’s point of view?

Yes, he said. You lose the persuasion battle when you consistently step into your opponent’s frame; it reinforces their morality and their argument in the minds of your audience. The way to respond is to not mention the other frame. Only mention yours. Always start with your frame and stay in it. Always be on the offensive; never act defensively.

Framing is a system that has evolved because it works for every-day life, said Lakoff. “Free will is not totally free. It is radically constrained by the frames and metaphors shaping your brain and limiting how you see the world. Those frames and metaphors get there, to a remarkable extent, through repetition in the media.”

Everything you have learned is stored physically in your brain, he stressed. Every frame is in a brain circuit, every metaphor is in a brain circuit, every image is in a brain circuit. Your whole moral system is in your brain. If you hear something that doesn’t fit with what’s in your brain, it will go in one ear and out the other unless you are the type of person who remembers things that don’t quite fit and worries about them. But most people don’t.

Progressives must realize that their old-fashioned view of reason is false — that Descartes and the information injection theory of communication have not panned out.

More information about Jim Hoggan on I’m Right and You’re an Idiot.

Image: George Lakoff/George Lakoff

[block:block=110]

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

“Speak the truth, but not to punish.”

These are the words the famous Zen Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hanh told DeSmogBlog and DeSmog Canada founder, president and contributor James Hoggan one afternoon in a conversation about environmental advocacy and the collapse of productive public discourse.

Over the course of three years James (Jim) Hoggan has engaged the minds of communications specialists, philosophers, leading public intellectuals and spiritual leaders while writing a book designed to address the bewildering question: “why, when we know so much about the global environmental crisis, are we doing so little?”

Hoggan recently recounted some of the insights he has gained into this question when he spoke at the Walrus Talks “The Art of Conversation.”

He begins with the basic axiom shared by cognitive scientist Dan Kahan, “just as you can pollute the natural environment, you can pollute public conversations.” From that the logic follows – if we’re serious about resolving our environmental problems, we are going to have to attend equally to the state of our public discourse.

In Canada, says Hoggan, we face particular challenges when it comes to polluted pubic conversations, especially with the heightened tenor of rhetoric regarding environmentalism and energy issues surrounding the oilsands and proposed pipelines.

"The ethical oil, foreign funded radicals campaign," he says, "has made Canadians less able to weigh facts honestly, disagree constructively, and think things through collectively."

You can watch a short video of Hoggan’s talk on The Walrus, or read the transcript below:

Good evening, I’m Jim Hoggan. I wanted to start by saying I’m not speaking here as the chair of the David Suzuki Foundation, but as the author of a book that I’m writing called The Polluted Public Square.

In this book I’m on a personal journey to learn from public intellectuals. I travel from Oxford, to Harvard, to Yale to MIT; I had tea with the expert on public trust in the House of Lords dining room; I spent a week with the Zen Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hanh; I traveled to the Himalayas to interview the Dalai Lama. So I’ve spent three years on this journey. Originally I thought I was writing a book for other people, but I realized as I was going through this that I was actually writing a book for myself.

The book is about this question of public conversations and the state of public discourse. And the specific question I asked all of these people, was “why is it, in spite of all this scientific evidence, from experts in atmospheric, marine and life sciences, are we doing so little to fix these big environmental problems that we’re creating? And why isn’t public discourse on the environment more data driven? Why are we listening to each other shout rather than listening to what the evidence is trying to tell us?"

One of the first interviews I did was with a Yale Law School cognitive scientist named Dr. Dan Kahan. He had part of the answer for me. He said, “just as you can pollute the natural environment, you can pollute public conversations.”

He said that healthy public discourse is a public good that is every bit as important as the natural environment; that we should be willing to protect, consciously protect, the state and the health of public discourse; and that we were in Canada and the United States suffering from he called a ‘social pathology.’

And this kind of healthy public discourse, or healthy attitude to public discourse, is certainly something that we’re not paying much attention to in Canada these days.

In 2012 – let me take you back to something the Conservative government would probably rather we all forgot about – in early 2012 some folks in the oil and gas industry launched a PR campaign with this message: ethical oil is like fair trade coffee. It’s like conflict-free diamonds. It’s morally superior.

In 2012 the oil and gas industry worked closely with the Conservative government to convince Canadians that British Columbians who opposed tankers on the coast of B.C. were extremists working for American business interests.

Now, environmental activists have been polluting the public square for a long time: they’ve called the oilsands heroin, they’ve called it blood oil, they’ve called oil companies environmental criminals engaged in crimes against humanity.

Now who would have thought that this level of rhetoric could be raised any higher? But it was.

Senator Mike Duffy called B.C. charities “un-Canadian.” The minister of environment accused them of money laundering. The PMO called them “foreign funded radicals.” Senator Don Plett said, where would environmentalists draw the line on who they receive money from? Would they take money from Al-Qaeda? The Taliban? Hamas?

So in 2012, as Terry Glavin put it, suddenly we had sleeper cells of Ducks Unlimited popping up across Canada.

Now I’m not suggesting equivalency here. These environmentalists have the evidence of climate change on their side. They’re arguing against the inaction from an industry that’s in a lot of trouble as the world realizes that their product is changing the climate. And they haven’t done a very good job of handing that trouble.

I met a guy in Harlem at a coffee shop. His name is Jason Stanley and he writes for the New York Times and teaches philosophy of language and a class in democracy and propaganda at Yale. And he said that when oil from Fort McMurray is called ‘ethical oil,’ or coal from West Virginia is called ‘clean coal,’ it’s difficult to have a real discussion about the pros and cons. He explained that these kinds of improbable assertions, where words are misappropriated and their meanings twisted, are not so much about making substantial claims, but they’re about silencing.

He called them linguistic strategies for stealing the voices of others.

He said Fox News engages in silencing when it describes itself ‘fair and balanced’ to an audience that is perfectly aware that it is neither. The effect is to suggest that there’s not such thing as fair and balanced. That there’s no possibility of balanced news, only propaganda.

Canada’s public square is polluted with a toxic form of rhetoric that insinuates that there are no facts, there is no objectivity, and that everyone is trying to manipulate you for their own interests. Our belief in sincerity and objectivity itself is under attack. So when everything is mislabeled and you can’t trust anything that anyone says, why bother with the public square?

The American linguist Deborah Tannen puts it this way: when you hear a ruckus outside your house at night, you open the window to see what’s going on. But if there’s a ruckus every night, you close the shutters and ignore it.

The ethical oil, foreign funded radicals campaign has made Canadians less able to weigh facts honestly, disagree constructively, and think things through collectively.

Now how you clean up the public square – my book is 120,000 words – that’s a big question for a seven-minute speech.

But let me say this: “I’m right, your wrong. Let me tell you what you should think” is not a great communications strategy.

Moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt told me that, and also said it doesn’t work because we all think we’re right. Haidt argues that people are divided by politics and religion, not because some people are good and others are evil, but because our minds were designed for ‘groupish righteousness.’ Morality binds and blinds us. Our righteousness minds were developed by evolution to unite us into teams, divide us against other teams, and blind us to the truth. Haidt suggests we step outside the self-righteousness of what he calls our moral matrix, and look to the Dalai Lama to see the power of moral humility and that we take the time to understand the values and worldviews of people we strongly disagree with.

I also interviewed Ted-prize winner Karen Armstrong who developed the charter for compassion. She put it this way: we must speak out against injustice, but not in a way that causes more hatred. She told me, remember what St. Paul said: charity takes no delight in the wrongdoing of others.

So my time’s up, but I just want to say one more thing. Since the 60s I’ve been reading Eastern philosophy and following particularly Zen Buddhism. So a little while ago David Suzuki and I were lucky enough to spend an afternoon with the famous Zen Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hanh. And he kept saying to David, people don’t need to know more about destroying the planet. They already know they’re destroying the planet. You need to deal with the despair. So I kept listening to him and it sounded to me like he was saying we should go meditated.

So I said to him, “in Canada, Canadians expect the David Suzuki Foundation to speak up on behalf of the environment. You’re not saying we shouldn’t be activists?”

It’s hard, I’ve been trying to think of how I could describe the way he looked at me. But it was with this kind of silence and deepness that I can’t remember having anyone look at me like that before. So he looked at me and he said, “speak the truth but not to punish.”

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Recently DeSmogBlog.com and DeSmog.ca founder Jim Hoggan spoke with Pamela McCall on CFAX 1070 about his upcoming participation in an workshop series put on by The Walrus Talks called The Art of Conversation. 

Jim has written extensively about what he calls the "Polluted Public Square," a concept he is refining for his upcoming book of that title. Jim's expertise in the world of public relations puts him at a particular advantage when parsing out just how public conversations are used and abused to shape public perception, especially on controversial topics. But more crucially, he sees the way the public is disengaging from the social fora our democratic institutions rely upon. The answer to the question Jim has been seeking – why when we know so much are we doing so little? – has to do with a widespread case of social mistrust that points back to the fundamental problem of the polluted public square.

Jim had the opportunity to delve a little more into his research and how it all ties into the upcoming event The Art of Conversation in his discussion with Pamela McCall. Listen below or scroll down for a transcript of the interview.

Pamela: “You’re focusing specifically on empathy and what you call the polluted public square. That sounds fascinating.”

Jim: “The polluted public square is a book I’ve been writing for the last three years. And I’ve gone around the world talking to social scientists and public intellectuals. I went to Harvard and MIT and Yale and Columbia, I even went to the Himalayas and spent some time with the Dalai Lama talking about public discourse and the environment.

The question I was asking people is why is it, in spite of all of this evidence that we have of human impact on the climate and oceans and the environment around us and the destructive nature of that impact, are we doing so little about what these scientists are ringing the alarm bells about?

I looked at public discourse and public conversations and I’m puzzled that public conversations aren’t more data driven. It’s more about shouting and arguing and I think most people kind of turn away from the public square these days because of that. They look at the people who are involved in these issues, especially environmental issues, and they see people in the end zones and nobody’s near the 50 yard line where there’s any possibility of some kind of solution. And so they turn away. So we have very high levels of disinterest and mistrust in public thinking and in public conversations in Canada today."

Pamela: “Why do the people who are shouting and arguing take precedence over those on the sidelines?”

Jim: “Well they’re engaged. You have civil society, you have government, you have business and they have to protect their interests and they have to move interests forward. In the case of government and business you typically have groups of people trying to preserve the status quo. With civil society you have people who are trying to change it. So people get frustrated, they don’t know how to deal with some of these issues – they’re so tough – and so you have business and industry pumping the public square full of a kind of propaganda pollution, I would call it.

If you look at last year some of the stuff we were hearing about ‘foreign funded radicals’ so people who were opposed to pipelines and tankers on the coast were demonized by government and by the oil and gas industry as foreign funded radicals. We have this ‘ethical oil’ campaign, that is such a goofy idea, that has basically dominated the airwaves over the last couple of years with this idea that "ethical oil" from the oilsands is like fair trade coffee.

And then on the other side of things you have some environmentalists demonizing the oil and gas industry and calling the oilsands heroine or suggesting that people who are working for these companies are environmental criminals. And so when you have these very high levels of rhetoric the public looks at this and says, “geesh, you know, it doesn’t look like there’s much of a solution there!” And they turn away and it’s very serious.

I think that just as you can pollute the natural environment you can pollute public conversations. And public conversations and democracies are something that many people – you know, grandfathers and great great grandfathers – fought to protect. And what was it they were fighting to protect? I think it was in part our ability to be able to solve problems together, to have honest conversations, to be able to disagree constructively, work things out with people you don’t agree with. So when we pollute the public square we’re polluting a good that a lot of people have worked hard to created.

We tend to think the worst environmental problem is climate change or whatever but I think this is a bigger environmental problem – that we’re polluting public discourse to the point that it doesn’t work.”

Pamela: “Is it not incumbent upon those on the outside to find the middle ground?”

Jim: “Well I don’t think the there’s a middle ground.”

Pamela: “But is there not room for one?”

Jim: “I think there are solutions. But I don’t think it’s just well you’re a little bit right, you’re a little bit wrong, and so are you a little bit right and I’m a little bit wrong. Some of these things that we’re doing with industry and government are just unsustainable and so they do need to change. So what we need is ways to figure out how we move people forward as opposed to just the constant fighting.

There’s this amazing woman from the United States, a social scientist named Deborah Tannen who wrote a book called The Argument Culture and she said that if you hear a ruckus outside your house you naturally open the window to see what’s going on but if there’s a ruckus outside your house every night you just close the windows and sort of batten down the hatches and you ignore it. Now that is not a good way to run a democracy.

Another way of thinking about it, there’s a guy named Jonathan Haidt who I talked to, a moral psychologist, and he said, ‘I’m right, you’re wrong, let me tell you what you should think’ is not a good communication strategy. And the reason it’s not is because we all think we’re right. And so I think when you’re contstantly in the fighting mode things don’t move towards solutions.”

Pamela: “I’m interested in much of what you’re saying and how did you get an audience with the Dalai Lama and what did he say about it?”

Jim: “Well at first they said no. I’m on the board for the Dalai Lama Centre for Peace and Education and so I’ve got a bit of an in, but at first they said no and eventually I persisted and they said yes. And he was very interesting. He said – and I was talking to him about climate change and the impact of climate change in Tibet that he’s very worried about – and he said that – apparently in wikileaks it came out that he said – he’s more worried about the impact of climate change on Tibet than he was about the relationship between Tibet and Beijing. And I was quite surprised about that and so I asked him if he said it and he said yes.

So then I went on to ask him about this problem of how do we find solutions? How do we move forward on these big problems like climate change? I think he said for 39 years he’s been talking to people about compassion, just over and over again the same thing, and he only feels that just now people are starting to listen. I think what he was saying is there’s a need for patience and persistence, and that in Tibet he said they have a saying that goes, “fail once, try again. Fail again? Again try. Nine times fail, nine times try again.”

At the end of the interview we were standing up and he reached over with his finger and touched my forehead. He said “we sometimes think that the Western mind is more sophisticated, but I think the Tibetan heart might be stronger. Maybe if the Tibetan heart, or the Eastern heart, and the Western mind work together we could solve these problems.”

I think there’s something there, that respecting other people, bringing more empathy into public discourse would go a long way to moving us towards the tables that may build the solutions to some very tough problems that we’re facing.”

Pamela: “Jim how do we turn things around when the shouting and the arguing, as you postulate, has usurped reason?”

Jim: “One of the things I’ve learned is that talking to all these people, is that I would be the last person you’d want to be a know-it-all about this. The way that I see them, these are very complicated problems. Peter Senge just said something to me a couple of weeks ago, I was at a course with him and he’s an MIT Business prof, and he said the success of any intervention, the most important determinant of the success of any intervention, is the inner state of the intervener. And I think that’s right.

It’s taking the board out of your own eyeball before you work on the sliver in somebody else’s. I think it starts there. And I think that we bring a lot of baggage to the public square, that self-awareness and a sort of deeper thinking about our own intentions and our own baggage is probably the first step.

And then I think remembering that you could be wrong. The idea is to realize that we all have this tendency to slip into self-righteousness and it’s much easier for us to see the wrong doing in others than in ourselves. Going back to some of those basic lessons that we learned from our Mom and Dad and the church and the synagogue, those are really important human lessons about how to interact with each other.

I don’t think that pointing your finger, pointing in someone’s chest, and then trying to tell them what they should be thinking about – which sounds funny but if you really look at the kind of stuff that you hear people saying, it’s kind of like that – that doesn’t help, I don’t think. We are not going to solve these problems on our own and we’re going to have to work with people and try to figure out how to have more constructive relationships with people, not that we just disagree with, but that we just don’t like. And we need to figure it out.

People like the Dalai Lama have been working it a long time and I think there’s wisdom there, in empathy.”

Pamela: “I find also it underscores the apathy, the kind of research you’re doing. It explains why people will stand on the sidelines and be overwhelmed.”

Jim: “That’s right, but I would caution about thinking about it as apathy because the research shows that people aren’t as apathetic as they are disinterested and mistrustful and believing they can’t make a difference.”

Pamela: “Does that not lead to apathy though?”

Jim: “Well I think apathy means people don’t care. I think people do care, it’s just that they think they can’t do anything and it’s reinforced by what you just said, that the people in the end zones have no intention of trying to compromise, of reaching some kind of arrangement. So they turn away. They know they’re could maybe go and do something but the guy across the street may cancel out whatever they could do. They go and but a Prius and the guy across the street goes and buys a Hummer and if he doesn’t, somebody in Beijing will. So the problems are just so big that when they look around they don’t see any intention on the part of leaders to really do something.”

——

The Art of Conversation is taking place in Victoria at the Belfry Theatre on September 16th. 

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Ronald Wright, the award-winning author of A Short History of Progress, says North Americans are the greatest “villains” when it comes to climate change. While Europe has put forward some serious money and strategies to try to combat it, Canada and the U.S. are dragging their heels.

Wright’s comments are particularly noteworthy after Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver’s recent visit to Europe, where he tried to sell Canada’s approach to oil sands to a skeptical audience. Europe is considering imposing a tax on Canadian bitumen because of its emissions.

I sat down with Wright on Salt Spring Island, B.C. to talk about why society can’t seem to change its way of thinking. He blames what he calls, “The Progress Trap.”

This is the first of two parts of my conversation with Wright. Read Part 2 here. 

Jim Hoggan: Why, despite mounting evidence and calls for urgent action from experts in the atmospheric, marine and life sciences, are we doing so little to address environmental problems like climate change, the declining health of our oceans and mass species extinctions?

Ronald Wright: I think we in North America are among the greatest villains in coming to grips with these issues. The Europeans have put forward some very serious money and serious proposals. They are working towards a 20 per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2020 (from the original benchmark back in the 1990s) and propose spending $90 billion euros a year – the kind of money the Iraq war cost the USA each year.

They have also said that if other countries get on board they will go to a 30-per-cent cut and even more funding. This hasn’t happened because of a lack of will from other countries, including Canada and the U.S. There’s a denial amongst many of our leaders, an absolute inability to face up to the fact that there are limits to the human impact. It goes against the cultural grain of North Americans who are used to the idea that the future is always going to be bigger and better and wealthier, and that they are going to have more stuff than in the past. Those days are over.

JH: Why do we resist change like this?

RW: There are two things: First, there’s a cynical propaganda campaign extremely well funded by the people who have a vested interest in hydrocarbons. Second, there is a very willing audience among people who don’t care, don’t know the facts, or can’t be bothered to look at them. People want to believe that they can just go on expecting the high consumption North American lifestyle forever, because that’s kind of American – and Canadian – dream they were promised.

Of course there are those who realize there is a problem, but enough people have been stampeded by the propaganda that climate change is a “hoax,” or a socialist conspiracy to constrain the high consumption lifestyle of North Americans, or a problem that’s so far down the road we needn’t worry about it.

JH: Winston Churchill said, “Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Is that what we’re facing here? Are we not paying attention to the lessons of history when it comes to the impact of overstressing the planet?

RW: In A Short History of Progress I looked at the pattern of civilizations’ rise and fall throughout history. Many civilizations who thrived and achieved brilliant things, such as the Sumerians or the Maya, eventually fell victim to their own success. This is what I call a “Progress Trap,” which happens when technological innovations create conditions or problems that society is unable to foresee – or unwilling to solve.

An example is irrigation systems. This was a terrific idea for the Sumerians, allowing them to grow food in the desert. However, as time went on, irrigation led to a build up of salt in the land. Eventually, over a few centuries, the Sumerian fields began to turn white from salt. After about a thousand years, their crop yields fell to only a quarter of what was possible in the fields they started with. Large parts of southern Iraq had to be abandoned, and still haven’t recovered.

That is one example, but I think we can be sympathetic in the Sumerians’ case because they couldn’t have foreseen the consequences before it was too late. But in our case, we do know what’s going to happen to the planet as the climate warms and destabilizes. We have an overwhelming consensus of scientific opinion and computer modeling that shows it. We don’t have the excuse of ignorance or lack of technology.

Where I see the similarity today with these ancient civilizations is in the behaviour and denial of the elites – the political leaders – people who should be the decision-makers just hoping the problem will go away.

The ancients tended to respond by saying “the gods are angry so we need to build bigger temples.” In other words, magical thinking. Our version of this is the widespread belief that the problems caused by rampant growth and technology will be solved by more of the same.

JH: How do people respond to A Short History of Progress – this idea of too much progress? Is it a difficult concept for people to accept?

RW: It is. The success of Western society has been based upon developing new inventions quickly, harnessing them and producing wealth. Yet, we ignore the fact that not all progress is good. In fact, some kinds of progress are very dangerous. Nuclear and germ weapons, for example. Or efforts to make patented GM crops with a “terminator” gene – an invention that could wreck the food chain.

Even if things merely keep going as they are a few more decades, there’s no way that nine billion people, which is the latest population projection by mid-century, are going to be able to live like Canadians or Europeans do now – simply because the by-products of our industrial activities are overwhelming natural systems. We are trashing the planet, stealing from our children’s future. The idea that growth is infinite is the Big Lie of our times. Yet we still believe it because we find it extremely hard to shed the idea that progress is an inherent good.

I saw my role, when I wrote A Short History of Progress, as being the person who says, “The building is on fire.” I don’t necessarily know how to put the fire out, I’m not a fireman, but I smell fire. That book was really a way of saying, “Look, this is the pattern of the rise and fall of civilizations through history; if they don’t deal with their problems, if they over expand, if they wear out their welcome from nature, they end badly.”

We’re now in this situation where we are running beyond the capacity of nature to sustain us, and, for the first time in history, we’re doing it everywhere at once. Not only are we drawing down resources, but we’re damaging natural systems and polluting every corner of the world. Too many of us are taking too much. But I don’t believe our problems are hopeless, yet. It’s very late but not too late. We still have one last chance to get the future right.

**In Part 2 of the conversation, Wright talks about the false argument that people can only support the environment or the economy, and not both. He also explains why he hasn’t given up hope that society can change to stop runaway climate change.

This interview has been edited and condensed.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.