Climate Change, Global Warming, et al: What’s missing in the public debate?

As Congress considers the "American Clean Energy and Security Act" this week (the house has narrowly passed their version 219-212 as of this writing), you would think that by now there would be a clear and general consensus on the issue in the USA - its challenges, implications for our future well-being (survival?) and focused actions.  And by now, you would think that Climate Change (or Global Warming if you prefer) would be top of mind in this country.

Well, at least from what I see, there is no consensus, and the issue ranks dead last in the minds of voters.  That’s what happens when an issue has not been made personal and timely.

When I talk to friends about climate change (global warming or any other name you choose), the conversation usually comes around to “How will it affect me”?  For those who are still on the fence about it, the question is always preceded by “If it is real…”

And when I ask them (on either side of the issue) how they think it will affect them, they simply can’t describe that future for themselves, and don’t even try for their children or grandchildren.

So I have been thinking about some things:

1. What’s keeping so many people on the fence about the issue?
2. What’s causing so many people not to feel an imperative for immediate action?
3. What’s preventing people from understanding the issue?

I suddenly realized last week that three things are clouding the ability of people to come to grips with the issue:

1. The issue is huge - so big that most people can’t get their arms around it, much less understand it
2. The issue is still abstract - understanding and dealing with abstract concepts is something people don’t want to do and is very difficult to do when they do
3. The issue is simply not personal yet – and this might just be the biggest reason of all