For my Public Lecture assignment I decided to attend a lecture at the New School titled Confronting Climate Change: Insights from the Nuclear Disarmament Movement, on Thursday December 4^th. The lecture addressed the topics of global warming and nuclear energy. The lecture was divided into two sections led by two presenters: Robert Jay Lifton, anti-nuclear activist and author of Witness to an Extreme Century and Naomi Oreskes, author, environmental activist and History of Science professor at Harvard University.
            The first section of the lecture, led by Robert Jay Lifton, was a study in the comparison between nuclear normality and climate normality. Robert Lifton believes that both the government and the people of the United States are treating climate change similarly to how people in the post World War II era up until the end of the Cold War treated the possession of nuclear weapons. This is because instead of taking preventative measures against climate change and its destructive events, Lifton says we approach climate change in a way where we cope with the short-term consequences and try to adapt to life with these new side effects, like global warming and rising sea levels. During the Cold War, America took the same approach to addressing nuclear wars, weapons and energy. Lifton recalls reading American propaganda in the 1960’s where the United States government described measures of “living with nuclear weapons”. Measures included teaching children how to duck under desks during an air raid, creating radiation teller devices for individuals to carry and training people to distrust those with “atomic neurosis” or overblown fears of the danger of atomic weapons. In the end, Lifton urges the audience to beware of climate normality in the present day. In order to do so, Lifton says we must urge our politicians to enact policies that can reverse climate problems like CO2 emissions, and not just take adaptive measures to protect ourselves from effects like Hurricane Sandy.
            The second half of the lecture was taken over by Naomi Oreskes, who wanted to address our current climate change initiatives. Oreskes explains that after being asked so many times as an activist whether she feels optimistic or pessimistic about the United States and climate change, she cannot muster an answer for either position. This is because while America has made some positive steps towards solving the environmental problems we have created, there are still too many negatives to conquer. First speaking about her optimism, Oreskes says that we are experiencing a climate swerve, where 80% of the United States’ population believes that something should be done about climate change in this country. Also, 70% of Americans believe fostering green energy is a possible technological solution to this growing issue. So while public opinion is high and the technology we need to solve the issue has been created, there are major negatives to address.
Oreskes laments over the increasing rate of greenhouse gas emissions, which has multiplied at a faster rate since 1992. She also is pessimistic about the political discourse surrounding climate change, stating that even though global warming is a growingly popular issue for the American people, not enough politicians are making climate change a major priority in their campaigns. Furthermore many politicians, mostly of the Republican party, deny the issue altogether. To make matters even worse, Oreskes reminds us that Oil companies who hold a large control over the economy of the United States and the politicians who run it, will never be willing to accept or compete with alternative forms of energy. Lastly, Oreskes addresses our own forms of passive denial towards climate change, stating that the majority of Americans want to help but either feel powerless or are too busy to dedicate their time to the cause. Furthermore, since alternative energy and green technology are very expensive, many Americans simply cannot afford to pay for a better environment. Oreskes concludes on a bittersweet note saying that the only way to make a difference is to change our mentalities towards the issue and once again, push for policy changes. She concludes that although we may feel powerless, we the people have the power to elect the officials who eventually make the decisions to either help the environment or not, and that is where we can help.
            While I feel that attending a climate change lecture makes one walk out of it extremely depressed, I also feel that one of the most important things we can do as inhabitants of this world, is educate ourselves about the issue. I find that much of the doubt and disinterest that surrounds climate change is fuelled primarily by a lack of knowledge of the problem and the disastrous consequences of not acting. While it is impossible to convince someone who refuses to believe in climate change of its urgency, public lectures can really make a difference to people who, like me, want to help but feel there is very little that can be done while acting alone. In the end, I feel the best point made in the lecture by both speakers, was that we as a people must elect the individuals who can truly make a difference. Hopefully next election, if America still exists by then, we can make better decisions about how we want our issues to be represented, and our world to be handled.