Is that even really a question for an environmental science teacher? For me, a Geoscience faculty member at Pasadena City College, climate change is a hot topic. “Hot” here does not refer to the rising temperatures around the world but rather to the “heat,” as in “more heat than light.”
“More heat than light” describes opinions or ideas that are primarily based on emotions rather than facts; discussions that generate more anger, passion, or argument than useful insights or clarity.
It’s not a quote directly attributed to Bertrand Russell, but it’s a phrase that aligns with some of his philosophical views and critiques of certain types of rhetoric or arguments:
“The degree of one’s emotion varies inversely with one’s knowledge of the facts – the less you know, the hotter you get.”
Portuguese-born neuroscientist Antonio Damasio, currently the David Dornsife Chair in Neuroscience, as well as Professor of Psychology, Philosophy, and Neurology, at the University of Southern California, has shown through his experiments that decisions are made in the emotional part of the brain, thus explaining why information makes little difference in our behavior. “More heat than light,” in fact, applies not just to ideas but to our actions as well.
For some semesters, I didn’t teach climate change in the environmental science class I taught. There are three main reasons why.
First of all, we are in deep waters with or without climate change; the global degradation of soil, depletion of groundwater around the world, forever chemicals in all spheres of the environment, and an ever-growing accumulation of waste with nowhere to go are just a few of the major environmental issues threatening an impending global collapse.
Secondly, debating and arguing over a highly emotional topic like climate change has actually diverted our attention from what urgently needs to be done. The fact is, when creating solutions to major environmental issues, we will essentially be addressing climate change, whether the causes of climate change are anthropogenic or not.
Take, for example, soil degradation. One form of degradation is known as desertification, which is defined as a greater than 10% decrease in soil productivity. According to The World Counts, desertification has already affected one-third of the Earth’s land surface. Over 4 million square kilometers of land are being degraded each year, and around 120,000 square kilometers are fully converted into a desert environment.
This is an important issue that gets little attention. This also means there is little “heat” involved in this issue. Soil is a living organism and takes up to hundreds of years to develop, depending on the climate. It takes little imagination to recognize the impact of desertification and the need for immediate action. A major cause of desertification is industrial farming – an alternative to this harmful practice is regenerative farming. Regenerative farming not only provides more nutritious food for the world’s growing population but also helps to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. It will also reduce our reliance on fossil fuels since regenerative farming requires far less of them. It is win, win, and win all around in the long run.
Lastly, the heart of the climate change controversy is not whether the climate is changing but whether the changes are due to human activities. Contrary to popular belief, the foundation of science is uncertainty.
We can never truly know anything with absolute certainty. Science progressed over time not because we knew the absolute truth but because we were able to discover greater truths and were willing to acknowledge older versions of the “truth” were limited and, at times, even wrong. The concept of a Flat Earth comes to mind as an example.
The fact that we have not been able to say with absolute certainty what caused climate change has been the excuse for not acting on the issue itself. The result is a society that is poorly prepared for imminent catastrophes, such as the recent Pacific Palisades and Eaton Fires, which have only further underscored the need for universal environmental science education.
We need to know that the basis of scientific progress is uncertainty. The lack of certainty is NOT the same as a lack of overwhelming evidence. The climate has clearly been changing, whether we know how to explain it or not, and we are moving into a realm of climatic unpredictability. We are facing many environmental challenges, which will become more damaging with the changing climate.
The devastation from the fires could be a blessing in disguise. The emotional impact could just be what we need in connecting the decision-making emotional part of the brain with the neocortex, with facts of a changing climate.
