Read this story in Spanish
The Precautionary Principle
At this point in life, you always put on your seatbelt, don’t you? This is called the precautionary principle. Precaution to reduce harm if you crash, or precaution to avoid getting fined. The precautionary principle applies to all areas of life, whether personal, governmental, or corporate. For example, fishing quotas are always set below the estimated fish volume in a fishing ground, just in case we fish too much and run out of catches for years to come. In the laboratory, I constantly remind technicians about the availability of decontamination sprays for chemical spills, just in case. Other examples of the precautionary principle include getting insurance or getting vaccinated. The trade-off of exercising the precautionary principle can be an inconvenience (the seatbelt is tight), an economic cost (insurance), reduced profit (the fishing company that can catch less fish), or embarrassment (lab technicians might think I’m a annoying).
Where else could we apply the precautionary principle? I suppose such an effort depends on the benefit on the other side. It’s hard to think that someone would apply it to something they don’t think is worthwhile or don’t believe exists. What if we talk about applying it to climate change?
If you deny climate change, you might say:
-I’ll pass, I don’t need to apply the precautionary principle, because there’s no benefit on the other side of something that doesn’t exist.
That’s fair. Now, let me divide people who deny climate change into two subgroups: those who are fully convinced and those who aren’t entirely sure but still deny it. Next, I’m going to present these two subgroups with two concepts: the falsifiability of theories and cognitive biases.
Climate change is not the string theory
String theory proposes that subatomic particles are just extremely small strings, each vibrating in its own way. There are very well developed mathematical frameworks supporting this theory, but no experimental proof. Today, particle accelerators don’t have enough power to conduct experiments that prove or disprove this theory. The ability to falsify a theory is essential in science, necessary to accept or reject theories and to maintain or change an existing paradigm.
But climate change is falsifiable. Measurements can be made that reveal whether the increase in sea temperature and the frequency of floods and droughts are not due to greenhouse gases emitted by humans, but to something else. Despite many people show graphs and scattered data to refute published articles, there is no scientific article that solidly proposes a different cause for climate change. So, if you have any ideas, put your money on them. We’d be delighted to read and discuss those new results.
Meanwhile, for those who deny but have that small doubt inside, I’d like to explore together the reasons why our brain can deny the science that explains climate change, but accepts the science that explains the mobile phone in your hands.
A good conspiracy theory is the best medicine for my guilt
Yes, I know, it’s better to feel like a victim than a participant. But if we analyse why our brain pushes us to deny climate change, we might be able to stop paying attention to conspiracy theories, banish our immobilism, and act. One of the causes of climate denialism is present bias: it’s mentally difficult and costly for us to worry about things that are far in the future. Another is the reluctance to feel cognitive dissonance, or the attempt to avoid thoughts of guilt for doing something we know is wrong (like taking the car to buy bread at the corner store). In this way, if we deny the problem, the guilt goes with it. Another one is confirmation bias, whereby once you’ve decided that climate change isn’t real, you only seek out and pay attention to information that supports that view (cherry picking). This leads me to tribal identity, which pressures you to stay with those who think like you, rather than change your view and “come out of the closet in front of your group members.” Another one is the feeling of powerlessness, which leads you to disconnect. And finally, the preference for simplicity, as it is easier to embrace a conspiracy theory than the effort of trying to understand the complexity of the data and interactions of this type of phenomenon.
Holden, the protagonist of The Catcher in the Rye, feels lost and disoriented when he’s expelled from the school where he studies, and, ashamed, dedicates himself to wandering around New York instead of returning home to his parents for winter vacation. Holden asks several people about where the ducks in Central Park go when the lake freezes in winter. This question is a reflection of his anxiety about change, the loss of innocence, and where things (and people) go when circumstances become difficult.
Then, what do we do?
Well, I propose two things. First, apply the precautionary principle. There are a few costs for this, but also benefits. Next, I propose actions where many small efforts united make a very large one. These are participating in (peaceful) demonstrations and voting. This should help reduce our cognitive dissonance: We acknowledge we’re still driving a gas-fueled car, but we’re also actively telling politicians what we want for our future. We would be performing a bottom-up change, which would subsequently convert into a top-down change.
Holden’s vulnerability and disorientation in the face of the unknown perfectly reflects how many of us feel when confronted with climate uncertainty. But he becomes paralyzed, and I propose here action for those who deny climate change and dare to make the leap through the precautionary principle, for the common good and for their own.
-Hey, Horwitz -I said-. You ever pass by the lagoon in Central Park? Down by Central Park South?
-The what?
-The lagoon. That little lake, like, there. Where the ducks are. You know.
-Yeah, what about it?
-Well, you know the ducks that swim around in it? In the springtime and all? Do you happen to know where they go in the wintertime, by any chance?’
Holden Caulfield, The Catcher in the Rye. J. D. Salinger
