Update 1/18:This was probably one of the dumber posts I’ve written. I’ve been regretting it ever since I hit “publish,” but I’m going to leave it up anyway in order to take one more crack at explaining what I was trying to do. Here goes:
Climate change has dire consequences. It affects humans, ecosystems and economies in alarming ways. But there are some ways of describing the problem that simply don’t sound scary. One example of that is “trees are blooming earlier”—it sounds nice. I was trying to suggest that if you have a choice between talking about wearing sandals more often or about unhealthful heatwaves, maybe you should go with the heatwaves. I didn’t do a very good job of getting that across.
In any case, to go beyond my post, a huge amount of opinion research shows that talking about the consequences of climate change is ineffective. It paralyzes and overwhelms people. Instead, it’s better to talk about solutions.
***
Says a leading presidential candidate:*
As a result of climate change, glaciers are melting faster; the polar ice caps are shrinking; trees are blooming earlier; more people are dying in heat waves; species are migrating, and eventually many will become extinct. [my emphasis]
The trees are blooming earlier? Panic!
I mean, I spend most of my waking hours thinking about climate policy, but “the trees are blooming earlier” sounds about as alarming as Christmas being held twice a year, or bunnies getting fuzzier.
Whatever we do, we must stop the trees from blooming earlier!
And look, before you jump all over me, I get the point: like many ecological systems, pollinators are being thrown off by climate change.The consequences are hugely important. But it also struck me as sort of unintentionally hilarious—and maybe not the canniest framing I’ve ever seen.
Am I wrong? Is this just further evidence that I should stick to research and keep my nose out of communications?
* I’m not saying who it is—you can figure it out easily enough—because I like much of this person’s policy substance. Anyway, I still have no idea who I’m voting for and we never endorse candidates.
kayell
Perhaps if you like eating peaches, apples, plums, pecans and other early spring blooming fruit and nut trees, this should be of interest. Earlier blooming trees were very much an issue in the spring of 2007, when a very warm winter and early spring were followed by a hard freeze in early April, severely cutting the harvests last summer in many Southeastern US states.It may be that most Americans (other than the farmers) didn’t notice, since supplies were shipped in from elsewhere, and with most costs of food in this country going to shipping and advertising etc., it didn’t hit them in the pocket where they might notice.In many countries, more dependent on local food sources, it certainly would be noticed and worth paying attention to abnormal temperatures and their effects on agriculture.
kayell
I’m trying hard not to burst into flame here, but honestly, you REALLY need to spend a bit of time researching the agricultural end of the global warming issue. It is one of the better reasons to Panic!
Eric de Place
kayell,I get it, I really do. It has dire consequences for agriculture and thousands of species. My point here is not that it isn’t worthy of panic—it is—but that it doesn’t SOUND worthy of panic. Unless you know a lot about climate change, it sounds kinda nice. Instead of saying “trees are blooming earlier” why not say, “harvests could be destroyed” or something similar.
kayell
Well, you don’t totally get it, but I do have some agreement with you. 1. The pollinators had nothing (in this case) to do with the crop loss. Simply, the trees bloomed early, and the blossoms and tiny fruit were killed by a hard freeze, when they normally wouldn’t have been in flower or fruit by that date. Global warming doesn’t just make the weather milder, it also make it a more erratic.2. It’s apparent that the way the trees comment was phrased made it obscure to a lot of people. (This is very sad; it shows just how out of touch with the natural world people are in the US)On the other hand, it was probably understood thoroughly by a lot of rural people who normally wouldn’t be so willing to think about global warming. This ties it right into their livelihood, and their stomachs. So I can see that the “trees are blooming earlier” quote could have come from someone like me who can’t fathom not knowing the importance, or from someone trying to appeal to segments of the population who might not care about the polar bears, but will care very much about the peach harvest.
candree.ups
Regardless of the cause of the SE US’ springs crop failure, there’s no doubt that Eric’s post was getting at a few dire issues, thanks Eric. Further strain on pollinators domestically and abroad, temperature variation and more unpredictable weather. I sure as hell hope these are highlighted in campaigns as much as polar bears have been. Kayell good point about the tree comment: the appeal to generally rural and peachy constituencies is quite timely in SC primary season.
morrison_jay
Climate change is happening and we really won’t be able to turn back the tide. All we can do is try to minimize the ultimate effects. There is no way to get all of the released CO2 back underground.So if various regions are getting warmer earlier, then gradually the crops will have to shift a bit northward. Supposedly Canada and Russia are going to benefit greatly from longer growing seasons and more variety of crops that will work in their regions. This is not meant to minimize the impact of global warming. But we do need to recognize that this is going to happen and adapt to it.We have to understand that this genie is already out of the bottle.Development at sea level should be restricted in the Pacific Northwest. For example, I would not put any light rail lines in the lower areas of Seattle. 🙂 Everything should be at least 30 feet or more above current sea level, just in case some major ice sheets collapse in Greenland or Antartica.I heard an interview from one of the major climate scientists. I forget the name. He mentioned that all of the current models are based on gradual melting over decades. But sudden icesheet collapse can happen and they have observed it on smaller scales.
Sungsu
Eric, you really shouldn’t regret the post. You qualified it enough—“Am I wrong?”—and it offered readers the opportunity to educate you and me and others about the real significance of the statement.
Jeff Ingram
Look on the bright side: We may get to grow a really good tomato crop!And then there are the pineapple, mangoes, and papayas that will soon have those irritating little stickers on them saying “grown in Oregon.”