Within the Western tradition, most people would likely agree that challenges such as those posed by man-made climate change are best addressed with pure reason. [emphasis, links added]
Risks would be assessed conservatively and objectively and handled using unbiased, pragmatic, effective, and efficient control measures that could treat our “climate condition” without causing untoward side effects such as economic destruction, political discord, social discord, and so on.
Instead, much of the discourse surrounding climate change seems intended to sow political and social discord more than to rationally understand and manage the risks of man-made climate change.
This discourse takes the form of narratives—often false—that evoke emotions more than reason and subjectivity more than objectivity.
They are false narratives that do not cohere with reality.
In this study, we examine four such climate narratives circulating in public discourse regarding climate change:
Fallacy 1: Climate Change Is Caused by Capitalism
As we will observe, this is backward: the more capitalist a country is, the more effective it is at protecting its environment and combating climate change.
Fallacy 2: Even Small-Emitting Countries Can Do Their Part to Fight Climate Change
Again, in reality, even a casual inspection of the emission trends and projections of large-emitting countries such as China would reveal that for small-emitting countries like Canada, even driving their greenhouse gas emissions to zero would have no measurable impact in reducing climate risk.
Fallacy 3: Vehicle Electrification Will Reduce Climate Risk and Clean the Air
When looking beyond the hype, it becomes evident that vehicle electrification presents an array of climate and environmental benefits and harms that extend beyond climate change.
Fallacy 4: Carbon Capture and Storage Is a Viable Strategy to Combat Climate Change
This fallacy, most popular with those in the fossil fuel industry and those of a more market-oriented and politically conservative bent, is no more realistic than the previous three.
An examination of the history, effectiveness, and efficiency of carbon capture and storage suggests that it is a far more limited approach to regulating greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere than proponents suggest.
As we examine the validity of these fallacies, we should be reminded of a quote variously attributed to Mark Twain, Will Rogers, and Ronald Reagan: “What gets us into trouble is not what we don’t know, but what we know that isn’t so.”
I nominate those who came up with this load of Poppycock/Balderdash for Four Pinocchio’s do I have a 2nd Vote?