WASHINGTON, D.C. – In late April, more than 200,000 people organized at the National Mall to promote science-based policies for environmental and climate change.
University of Maine at Farmington Professor of Biology Drew Barton was in attendance with seven Maine scientists, as well as others from marine and fishery industries, with the Union of Concerned Scientists. Barton discussed his increased time investments to public advocacy as a scientist, when our leadership “doesn’t quite recognize that C.C. is happening.”
Barton’s work on national and local forest and wilderness issues, as well as citizen involvement efforts, have put him in a position to see the effects of our destabilizing climate firsthand.
“I’ve seen the impacts on the coast of Maine, with fishermen, and shellfish [industries] and others,” said Barton.
His previous research in the Southwest American forests illustrates the destructive nature of wildfires to local communities, jobs, and natural resources. He’s been engaged with individuals from the timber sector to offload vehicle services, and “worked with them to come up with solutions” to the challenges emerging with a changing climate.
Part of the network of volunteer scientists working in each state to assist legislators, Barton was invited to meet with the Maine congressional delegation on April 29 to discuss “the direction we’d like to see the congress and the budget go in.” Barton said that it was key for Maine’s representatives to understand the impact of Trump’s proposed budget, which he termed “Draconian” on the environment. The group organized in the D.C. Senate building to brainstorm talking points for Sen. Susan Collins, Sen. Angus King, and Rep. Bruce Poliquin.
Their first meeting, Barton said, was with Senator Collins, who displayed concern about climate-conscious policy and opposition to the proposed Trump administration budget–-which has since been pushed to September for re-evaluation. “Collins understands the realities of climate change. We did ask her to push back, and they were open to that,” said Barton. Second, they met with Angus King, who’s open support for climate initiatives provided an opportunity where everyone “learned a lot and were able to give him some really good information,” as Barton noted.
The group spent considerable time with Rep. Bruce Poliquin’s staff.
“Poliquin is not a strong proponent of climate legislation, and he wasn’t there to meet with us,” Barton said, “but we met with an energy and environment staff person and had a good back and forth conversation.” All in all, they were encouraging and open discussions “especially on the impacts on local communities that are really important for Maine jobs and the economy,” Barton added.
Listeners were more likely to be open to information and opinions through respectful conversation, Barton noted.
Barton’s looks at climate legislation as insurance. “We know the climate is warming, we know it’s going to continue warming, and we don’t know what the impacts will be yet,” he said, “but let’s take out some insurance to make sure we don’t find ourselves in a disastrous situation–-and let’s create some jobs along the way.”
Describing the climate change march as “pretty awesome” and “huge, hot and inspiring, and hopeful” Barton said he was inspired by the age range and diverse backgrounds of the participants.
“People were having fun, and it was very peaceful, very organized,” he said. When asked about the perceived effectiveness of the march and our messages, Barton said “it sends a signal to policy makers and others that there are a lot of people who really care about this, and that can be powerful– [marching] was certainly powerful in the ’60s.”
All in all, Barton saw the efforts as inspiring. “199,998 other people like you” marching for a common cause. “There have been events we’ve tied to climate, like more heat intensifies certain [ecosystem] functions … but we have to be careful not to over-explain things like single weather events.” He used the analogy of Barry Bonds and his alleged steroid use in the MLB. “It wasn’t his 714th home run, but 73 home-runs in a single year just doesn’t fit. Those numbers way above normal are attributable to steroid use, but any one single home-run is barely attributable,” Barton said.
Barton said that he will continue to work with legislators. “We’re scientists after all, and we’re in a unique position to provide some scientific evidence.”
Scientifically, intellectually correct and practical.
“Listeners were more likely to be open to information and opinions through respectful conversation, Barton noted.
Barton’s looks at climate legislation as insurance. “We know the climate is warming, we know it’s going to continue warming, and we don’t know what the impacts will be yet,” Barton said, “but let’s take out some insurance to make sure we don’t find ourselves in a disastrous situation–-and let’s create some jobs along the way.”
Thank you, Drew! Keep up the good work.
Climate change is a natural phenomenon. Yet the march shows how politicized it has become.
Is this professor Barton a climate scientist? He is a biologist.
When I was an undergraduate at UM Orono I took a sociology class by a noted professor, and author, Glen Vernon. He gave a Sociological definition of Secular Religion to this effect—It is a movement that embodies the highest values in a population but does not affirm a deity. It seems to me that Climate Change fits that definition very well. It has all the impulses and dynamics of a religion.
…….. ‘and let’s create some jobs along the way’…. and keep the ‘Al Goreites’ smiling and happy as they get richer…..
Climate change is an example where the whole world essentially listens to the science. In Europe conservatives as well as liberals and social democrats all agree that the potential danger is so high should the scientists be right, that it would be foolish to bet they are wrong. (And absolutely absurd to say they’re acting like a religion – that’s the opposite of what’s going on, the deniers have ‘faith’ in something unseen). In the US groups with a lot of money have tapped into the politicized discourse we have to convince people who see themselves as “conservatives” to simply adopt the denier stance, with vague claims about scientists lying in order to get government grants (so silly it’s hard to believe some think that) or who link on to very obscure and unsupported claims like this is ‘Natural” and not caused by humans. That is bluntly, BS. Almost all climate scientists agree that the evidence and models are overwhelmingly clear that humans are the likely cause of most global warming. Now, it is possible the scientists are wrong. But here’s the rub:
Bet with the scientists: we may prevent severe problems that will hurt our children and grandchildren by shifting to clean energy sources and developing green technology. This also has been proven to help the economy (The EU met the Kyoto accords and beyond, and it’s stimulated their economy through increased technology).
Or bet against the scientists: There’s a small chance that scientists are wrong and nothing will be too bad, but the risk is very high. Meanwhile, we’ll lose out on the benefits other countries gain by switching to green technology, hurting our economy.
So, even though it’s POSSIBLE the scientists are wrong, betting against them is irrational. Unfortunately, the heavily funded deniers have managed to convince a politicized segment of the US to see this through political lenses, ignoring the science. But all over the rest of the world conservatives and liberals are united in seeing this as a problem we have to take seriously. Even China is on board.
Luckily in the US the youth – most likely affected, are starting to see this scientifically, whether right or left. That gives me hope for the future.
And yet This meets the definition of a secular religion.