Peak Oil Denial: Looking Left and Right (Pt 4)

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion draws all things else to support and agree with it. And though there be a greater number and weight of instances to be found on the other side, yet these it either neglects and despises, or else-by some distinction sets aside and rejects, in order that by this great and pernicious predetermination the authority of its former conclusion may remain inviolate
– Francis Bacon [courtesy of David McRaney]

As I observed in that first post of this Looking Left and Right series:

We all act much the same way, ideologies notwithstanding. Human nature, I suppose. The more important questions: might we benefit from a bit of introspection before doing more of the same?…We obviously wouldn’t be making use of these psychological tricks of the trade if they didn’t provide us with benefits and gratifications. So is that it? Shrug our shoulders, admit that we are all guilty from time to time and then … nothing?
Might we consider the possibility of being ‘better’ than that? If we choose to solve what might appear at first blush to be overwhelming and even insoluble problems, we need more. We need more from our systems, more from our leaders, and more from ourselves.
There is a great deal at stake for all us, and we might all be better served understanding not just what we do in asserting and defending our beliefs, policies, and opinions, but why. Appreciating that might make a world of difference … literally!]

Facts don’t necessarily have the power to change our minds. In fact, quite the opposite. In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger. [1]

It is societies such as ours, badly divided and obsessed with the present, that most need communal ties. But they are the least likely to produce them. Obama’s speeches have gestured at this problem but haven’t solved it. Indeed, in these circumstances, only a steady appeal to common sense and common decency has any hope of sustainably convincing American citizens to act in what Tocqueville called their self-interest, rightly understood. But it’s still an open question whether our leaders have the fortitude to make, and our citizens the disposition to hear, such an appeal. [2]

What’s the alternative if we don’t “hear such an appeal?” At some point, reality will intrude on the comfortable beliefs of those who deny that our planet is warming—dangerously so—and that the fossil fuel supply which powered us to this point in history with remarkable technological prowess will soon enough no longer be available to all of us as it has.

What kind of a nation do we choose to be?

Will we collectively make choices to adapt to the changes geology and Mother Nature are going to be impose on all of us—Left and Right—or are we going to resist change, preserve ideology at all costs, and then be forced to adapt? The end result will be the same. Do we make the choice to have a say, or is last-minute, unprepared panic the preference? Denying that there will be any significant changes at all is at this point delusional, dangerous, and several stages beyond foolish. How much and how “bad” remains to be seen, but none of us can afford to blithely pretend that all will continue to just fine and dandy in the years and decades to come.

There’s no solace in recognizing that the harsher consequences are probably still several years away. The process has already begun….

At the heart of resilience thinking is a very simple notion — things change — and to ignore or resist this change is to increase our vulnerability and forego emerging opportunities. In so doing, we limit our options. [3]

Who’s prepared to explain to our children that we chose to avoid and deny … at their expense, because we were … well, it was too uncomfortable or painful for us, and we just preferred to hope and pray instead. Plates were full; we were sure someone would do something somehow to fix it so we could continue to ignore it all; costs were too high; too much sacrifice … the excuses won’t be worth the paper they’re printed on, and as a result, problems several orders of magnitude beyond what we’ll most likely have to contend with as it is will be what’s left. Nice, huh?

Why would people who are politically conservative be more likely to deny the evidence about climate change? Well, conservatives are generally what Cultural Cognition theory calls Hierarchists. They like clear and fixed hierarchies of class and race and social structure, a rigid predictable ‘that’s the way it’s always been done’ status quo. They don’t like government butting in trying to change things, and leveling the playing field, and taking from the haves who have earned it and giving to the have-nots who haven’t. Well, the solutions to climate change [and Peak Oil – my comment] are going to take all kinds of government ‘butting in’, all sorts of adjustments to the economic status quo, interventions that will mean new winners and losers, changes to who’s where on the economic and power ladder, and to a hierarchist (i.e. conservative), that means somebody else’s sort of society – the society of ‘Egalitarians’ who want things flexible and fair, not rigid and bound by class and hierarchy – is going to prevail. [4]

The challenge for those who choose to deny for whatever reasons* is to recognize—much sooner than they’re currently prepared to—that business as usual is not a viable option for the long-term. All the well-rehearsed ideological principles they’ve relied upon, the cherry-picked facts and assorted misrepresentations the well-oiled denial machine has cranked out**, the refusal to deal with facts … not a single one of those efforts, nor all combined, will prevent the consequences of a warming planet and diminished energy supplies from reaching those who have evaded the truths.

What happens then?

[W]hen faced with an ambiguous situation, conservatives would tend to process the information initially with a strong emotional response. This would make them less likely to lean towards change, and more likely to prefer stability. Stability means more predictability, which means more expected outcomes, and less of a trigger for anxiety. [5]

Perfectly understandable! But will it help?

“Expected outcomes” aren’t in the cards in the years to come, so the ideology/strategy is doomed to eventual failure. A risk worth taking, given what’s at stake?

How do we not accept change in all its variations? Where would we be if this nation made a collective decision in 1846 or 1903 or 1949 that we’re done: “We’ve gone as far as we care to go, we’re not going to do anything drastic; we’re just going to sit tight and make do with what we’ve got and where we are, because, quite frankly, imagining something different might be a bad thing, and we just can’t go there…?”

There’s nothing joyful or gratifying in discussing the consequences and impact of Peak Oil (and climate change). Being wrong would be fabulous! On purely selfish terms, my being wrong about all of this means my pleasant suburban life complete with a summer beach home and assorted gadgets and nice cars, etc., etc. could continue merrily along without interruption. I’m sure I would find something else to devote my efforts to, and I’m also certain I wouldn’t carry the weighty concerns which this endeavor burdens me with on a daily basis. There is little enjoyment in collecting facts on the subject of Peak Oil—recognizing what its impact means to and for all of us. But like my peers on this side of the discussion, denial is not an option. The message is too important.

Accepting the consequences is one thing. Accepting that we made no effort to inform when we knew is quite another. So onward and upward we go….

We often speak of ‘change’–as a potent political slogan, as a permanent feature of life, as a ‘good thing’–but we rarely speak of the often-wrenching process of change. I think the reason is self-evident: change often involves loss.
This is why Kubler-Ross’s five stages of grief –denial, anger, bargaining, resignation and acceptance–have become an increasingly mainstream model of the process of coming to terms with the losses of declining asset valuations, a devolving economy and a lower standard of living…..
That the Status Quo–dependent on ever-rising debt and asset values, on cheap, abundant energy, food and other resources–is unsustainable, is self-evident to all not firmly lodged in the cocoon of self-deception and magical thinking known as denial. It follows that the Status Quo will devolve or implode within the next 10-15 years, and be replaced by some other arrangement….
Just like the ancient Romans, we cling to magical thinking, as if a glorious past will magically repeat itself without any effort or sacrifice on our part; rather than confidence about the future, our primary emotion is fear, and our primary defense is denial….
[W]e fear the process that will make us whole and bring us a grounded well-being because at the start of the process, the end result is unknown. The leap requires self-confidence and faith. The person–and the society–grounded in realistic appraisals and self-knowledge is not afraid of transformation or the stiff challenges of the future….
One of the key stages in the process of change is to accept responsibility for where we are right now, and fashion a realistic response. [6]

We still have choices. The steps we take individually and collectively matter … a lot. Making wise choices unencumbered by ideologies or “safe” tactics is an option worth considering.

* Sen. James Inhofe was kind enough to explain one of the real reasons for the Right’s denial of climate change in an unguarded moment when he wandered onto the dark side of truth, facts, and reality: “I was actually on your side of this issue when I was chairing that committee and I first heard about this. I thought it must be true until I found out what it cost. [my emphasis]”

** [See this—the first link—to a four-part account of how that effort has manufactured doubt.]

Peak Oil Matters