Josh Fox Doesn’t Get It
Josh Fox, of Gasland fame is a good filmmaker with a commendable understanding of fossil fuels, particularly the many downsides of fracking. But that doesn’t make him a scientist with an adequate understanding of either the scientific process or of complex systems. In a May 1 interview on The Hill’s Rising about the film, Planet of the Humans, that’s what his hard-line opposition to the Michael Moore/Jeff Gibbs film demonstrated. There were several instances, when Mr. Fox told us, “that’s a fact” in referring to the redemptive characteristics of alternative energies and the current iteration of the Green New Deal. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTYJCAxlOgs
No Josh, this is all hypothesis, educated guess. These days, there’s certainly lots of data available to climate scientists. But data doesn’t automatically lead to the more conclusive facts about climate solutions to which you allude. There are also several climate models. These aren’t facts either. That’s why we call them hypothetical models. We also hear that they’re “competing” models, which implies that debate among them is essential.
So condemning the film outright demonstrates ignorance on several levels. First, we’re confronting a complex adaptive system of systems (CASoS), in the case of planetary ecology, complexity unlike any other we know of, other than maybe quantum theory or astrophysics. Unfortunately, when our species deals with such complexity, we’ve become infatuated with both Occam’s razor explanations and simplistic solutions. Like: “please doc, give me a drug to fix me”; preferably in one easy step with no side-effects.
But realistically, simplicity isn’t characteristic of either human physiology or planetary ecology. Consider how readily the following dismissive analogy flows from our lips: “it’s not rocket science.” From a knowledgeable climate- or bio-scientist, such a comparison might draw forth the response: “rocket science is child’s play compared with understanding how the densely interconnected feedbacks in ecosystems or in climate bio-geo-chemistry might reinforce or counteract any proposed technological intervention.” To claim we know “the facts” about any CASoS is ludicrously irresponsible — whether it’s how the electrochemistry of brain neuron populations ultimately manifests in the elaboration of self-awareness or how the plethora of bio-geo-chemical feedbacks in the climate system manifests in that system’s observed macroscopic behavior.
Perhaps most telling about the interview is how Mr. Fox mostly avoided the topic of consumption, even when pressed by the show’s hosts. Considering the range of scientific opinion about whether and when we may have exceeded one planet’s worth of carrying capacity (as early as the mid-1970s), consumption must be at the center of any climate debate. And beyond the consumptive potential of eight billion humans, that discussion raises other issues, such as that of clean water and the inordinate amount of it consumed by animal agriculture (over 50% by some estimates). Fox’s avoidance says a lot about the questionable value of his condemnatory discourse.
Moreover, the major question that should trouble us all is also indirectly addressed by the Moore/Gibbs film. But not by Mr. Fox. Can we expect the technologies that got us into this quandary to also be the agencies that will find the solutions to extricate us from it? And no, I’m not ignoring ongoing improvements in technology. But what we’ve still got is a system of corporate market economics from which this newer more-advanced tech is supposed to emerge. Motivation is key here. It’s more than fair to ask whether a system so driven by corporate and financial-sector greed— and so demonstrably corrupt — can be trusted to come up with the best solutions. With such an economy there’s always the risk of the corner-cutting that has characterized the profusion of short-lived mediocre crap produced by our so-called innovators. “Entrepreneurship will save us” is possibly as overly simplistic as “it’s not rocket science.”
It’s not Michael Moore and his associates who are being irresponsible by presenting this film. Rather it’s individuals like Mr. Fox who, for whatever reasons, feel free to condemn instead of productively debating the different hypotheses. Such debates are a major driver of scientific inquiry. To quash them is to contribute to our own detriment.
For a more global and deeply thoughtful look at these issues, I highly recommend Kristine Mattis’ post, Climate Crisis: https://medium.com/@k_mattis/climate-crisis-940755bcdd2d
