Getting past the divisiveness on climate change

We need to develop more, diverse, renewable ways to meet our growing energy needs. Even the most adamant of tree-huggers and climate-change deniers could agree on that. The question is the extent to which fossil fuels continue to be a source of that energy.  

There's a surprising number of folks out there who don't accept that human activity is causing global warming. 49 US Senators, for instance. And 40% of all Americans, according to a 2014 Gallup poll. Some don't believe global warming is occurring at all. Why are we so divided on this issue? How can we get past the divisiveness, and align on some positive action to take? 

As I continue reading and thinking about this, I realize there’s more than one way to frame the issue. And how it's framed might impact the possibilities for agreement and action.

Here's the "Climate Change Classic" frame:

Climate change and carbon dioxide emissions:

• We get fossil fuels out of the ground. We burn them, which releases carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide traps heat in the atmosphere. When humans release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere faster than natural processes can absorb it, average global air and ocean temperatures increase. These increases are causing changes to our weather, oceans, land, water and creatures that can impact our health, safety, food and water, economies, political stability, and quality of life.
• We’re going to need to get our energy from sources less harmful than fossil fuels to maintain a livable planet.

Here's another frame:

Population and energy:

• Over the course of human existence, we discovered we could get energy from ourselves (and slaves), fire, the sun (growing food), wood, dung, charcoal, domesticated animals, wind (sails, then windmills), water (waterwheels), then steam, coal, fossil fuels, electricity, and nuclear power. As we developed more ways to get energy, our lives got better. Much better. 
  
• But lots of people need more energy to thrive. In 2013, 1.2 billion people still didn’t have electricity, and 2.8 billion relied on burning wood and biomass to heat their homes. As the world’s population grows, more and more energy is needed to feed, house, educate, transport, care for, employ, and generally improve the lives of all these people.
• We’re going to need a lot more energy, from more diverse, less limited, cheaper sources, to meet the needs of our ever-growing population.
  

It seems safe to make a couple of assumptions at this point:

1. The Earth’s population will continue to grow. Faster and faster. Unless China rules the world and imposes a one-child policy on everyone. (Note to self: plot for dystopian thriller)
2. The growing population means increasing energy consumption. We're doing an ok job at finding new ways to be more energy-efficient. I doubt many people will make radical changes in the way they live to reduce energy use (although starting model communities to pilot that could be cool.). At best, efficiency and conservation will make a dent. But net net, with the population continuing to grow, ever more people will need energy, and the overall energy consumption will go up.

The end place of both frames could be the same: We need to develop more, diverse, renewable ways to meet our growing energy needs. Seems like even the biggest tree-huggers and the most adamant of climate-change deniers could agree on that.

The difference is the extent to which fossil fuels will continue to be a source of energy.


And there are other ways to frame the issue – economics, health, morality, justice, etc.  

Ideally we could land on a common frame, and common language, to come together and take action. But if that's not possible, maybe we can at least agree on what's common to all the frames.