A few weeks ago, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued its long-awaited report prepared by 270 scientists from 67 countries. The report was full of grim reminders of the impact of the world’s foot-dragging in dealing with climate change and warned us, once again, that we must change our use of energy — and our way of life — if we hope to avoid further climate-related disasters in the future. Undoubtedly some prominent political figures and corporate leaders will downplay, undercut and disregard the findings of these scientists regarding climate change. Yet based on debates around the dinner table when I visited my parents in the 1970s and my own reluctance to make the needed changes to my personal lifestyle, I understand why many people are skeptical about the science behind climate change.
I first encountered skepticism about climate science in debates with my father at family gatherings in the 1970s. After earning a mechanical engineering degree and serving briefly in the Navy at the end of World War II, my father was hired by DuPont and worked his way up their corporate ladder. Eventually, he became a national sales manager for one of DuPont’s signature products: Freon, a chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) that was essential for refrigeration and aerosol products.
Around the same time, a team of scientists observed a hole in the ozone layer surrounding the earth, determined that the hole was expanding and linked the cause of the hole and its expansion to the emission of CFCs. These scientists recommended an outright ban of CFCs, and leaders of the nascent environmental movement championed that cause.
In response, corporations like DuPont that manufactured CFCs issued reports contradicting these independent findings of the scientific community. Indeed, DuPont’s board chairman at that time characterized the ozone depletion theory as “a science fiction tale … a load of rubbish … utter nonsense.” My father concurred with that line of thinking and believed any government regulations or limitations on the sale of CFCs were completely unnecessary.
I sided with the climate scientists and environmentalists. After debating the issue on a few family occasions, my father and I eventually agreed to disagree, avoiding discussions on the topic. Ultimately, years after my father retired, scientists and politicians reached a consensus: CFCs did contribute to the depletion of the ozone layer, and governments and corporations across the globe signed agreements to limit their use. By 1993 DuPont stopped the production of Freon entirely.
I think the underlying factor that compelled my father to hold fast to the “company line” was a fear of change. I believe that deep down my father feared that if DuPont abandoned the manufacture of CFCs, he might end up with a new assignment in a different part of the country or be urged to take an early retirement. The DuPont stocks he earned as bonuses over the years might plummet, or his pension or benefits might be compromised. Moreover, if it was true that CFCs had a devastating impact on the climate, my father may have sensed that he might be complicit in the destruction of the ecosystem. Those unarticulated deep-seated fears caused him to reject the science that he would otherwise accept.
I understand my father’s denial because I share the same visceral fear about the consequences of accepting the science surrounding climate change. Given the evidence linking the burning of fossil fuels to the destruction of the planet and my behavior as a consumer, it is clear I need to make some changes in my lifestyle, changes that will make my life less convenient, less comfortable and more costly. My wife and I live in a three-bedroom house in Etna. We burn wood, and we use fossil fuel oil to heat our house and coal to provide electricity. We have a four-wheel drive SUV that gets only 25 mpg but has the space we need for camping, transporting grandchildren and making runs to the dump. Before the pandemic grounded us, we enjoyed annual trips to the Southwest during mud season and occasional extended trips outside of the country.
While we’ve taken many steps to address climate change, there are many changes we are resisting. We are reluctant to seek a smaller, energy efficient home closer to town and we cannot imagine driving a smaller vehicle. After examining solar alternatives for our current home, we found ourselves reluctant to cut down trees and install unsightly and expensive solar panels in our backyard. And while we support a carbon tax for fossil fuel, we are not enthusiastic about the comforts and small pleasures we would need to sacrifice to pay those taxes.
On some level, everyone, including the most rabid environmentalists, realizes that reducing their carbon footprint will require sacrifice, sacrifice that will require uncomfortable change. On some level, I expect that everyone also feels a sense of foreboding about the nature and scope of those changes. And, because these changes are driven by “science” that “proves” humans are contributing to global warming, accepting the “science” is problematic. Like my father before me, I wish we could keep things just the way they are. I only hope that in the coming years the world can come together to address climate change the way they addressed the hole in the ozone. The sacrifices to accomplish that goal are bigger, but so are the consequences if we fail to do so.