Is a healthy questioning of climate change really immoral?

When making an argument, it is important to have solid, factual evidence in order to back up your position. It is not enough to rely only on emotional appeal to convince your audience; sound, logical claims are the basis of an effective argument. While a potential reader’s interest may be grabbed by a headline making a bold (and sometimes over the top) statement, in the end if that claim is not backed up factually

by the author of the article then they have misinformed the reader. In a perfect world, that is the exact opposite of what an author aims to do.

In a recent article by Greg Hardwick on the Australian Eco News Online website entitled “Denying Climate Change: it’s a question of morality” (13 Dec. 2009) he starts by making several bold claims. Now before I begin to pick apart Hardwick’s article, bear in mind that it is written to an audience that has established global warming and climate change as completely concrete facts. For example, Hardwick uses terms like “having buried one’s head in the sand [regarding climate change]” (Hardwick 2009) or being a “climate denier” for those who do not agree with his opinion entirely. Personally, I believe in doing all we can to curb climate change and global warming, but there are still facts that we still do not know. There is still some room for questioning but on the same token, when it comes to the environment, we must not let that get in the way of making a change in our habits. It seems to me that Hardwick is communicating to the reader that if he or she does not agree with his somewhat radical stance with the fervour that he does then they should be smacked with the label of “climate denier”.

Another problem I have with this article is that the author expresses his opinion mainly through other people’s quotes. While quoting someone is often a great tool to use to get your point across, too much of a good thing can definitely be a bad thing. Hardwick quotes and paraphrases 11 different people over the course of the article, composing more than three-quarters of the article’s volume! If it weren’t for the strongly worded title, and the main underlying theme we would hardly know where the author himself stood. There are few, if any, statements that the author makes that are not part of a quote or paraphrase from one of the many people he quotes.

However, Hardwick does quote some people who bring up good points. He states that we, as a population, “clearly refuse to recognize the implications of that knowledge [of climate change]” (Hardwick 2009). While it is true that political, social and personal inaction will lead to grave implications down the road, I find it interesting that Hardwick says nothing about steps that have already been taken and little about a future course of action. This is sort of understandable, given Hardwick’s emphasis on “blame-shifting” throughout the article. He explains blame shifting as “...a form of moral disengagement whereby people disavow their responsibility for the problem or the solution... it is reflected in narratives such as ‘it’s not my fault because my country is small’ and ‘my carbon footprint is smaller than others’ ” (Hardwick 2009). I agree with the author that blame shifting is a major roadblock to real action being taken. It is very difficult for effective climate legislation to be passed, because in most major governments around the world, politicians often make decisions that will ensure they stay in power. You only need to pay a little bit of attention to political news to realize that many policy-makers are skilled at shifting responsibility until their term is up. On the other hand, those who do make meaningful legislation combatting climate change may often have backlash for spending too much taxpayer money (among other reasons) and could have the bills overturned by future governments.

Hardwick brings up an interesting comparison later on in the article. He quotes someone who compares global warming to the financial crisis, but on a larger scale. He states that action will probably not be taken until the (climate change) crisis is fully upon us, at which point we’ll be forced into damage control mode. It is then that we’ll realize, when it’s too late, that we should have taken preventative measures. Hardwick claims that this will come only after denial and aggressive opposition, and that we should instead view climate change as a moral issue rather than a political or economic one. However, after emphasizing the problem and lamenting over it to a degree for nearly the whole article, Hardwick fails to present a concrete solution. Neither does he make a suggestion to the reader as to what he or she can do to effect their part in reducing climate change. Hardwick also does not elaborate that much on why denying, or at least questioning, climate change is a moral issue throughout the article.

Another weakness I find with this article is that as a side-effect of Hardwick quoting so many people, he neglects to offer much scientific evidence. This flies in the face of what he says near he end of the article, “...those who understand and trust the science must unite...for climate change mitigation” (Hardwick 2009). This poses a problem for someone who may not know much about climate change reading the article. Since this hypothetical reader does not have a factual background on climate change he or she may just assume that Hardwick is just appealing to emotion. This may lead to thinking that the factual basis for climate change is weaker than it is due to an emotional appeal without the sufficient facts to back it up.

However, emotional appeal does have a place in an argument when backed up by fact, as a motivator for change. Hardwick constructed a somewhat decent argument, but it was, by no means, very solid either. His constant quoting of others made it so that he could not flesh out a single idea in depth in a convincing way. This was the case with his idea in the attention-grabbing headline about why climate change is an issue of morality. As a reader, the headline definitely got my attention, but I felt the author did not deliver because he focused too much on the denial of climate change and not enough on the morality of the issue. Hardwick brought up a few good points and problems in his article, but did not focus on a workable solution that would help to remedy the climate change problem we all face.

References

Hardwick, Greg. "Denying climate change: it’s a question of morality." Eco online: environmental news, features and opinion from the Sunshine Coast, Queensland, Australia. N.p., 13 Dec. 2009. Web. 10 Nov. 2010.