What My Marriage Counselor Asked
| Fri Jul. 24, 2009 12:26 PM PDT
Nearly 25 years ago, a marriage counselor asked me a simple question. Four words, and it changed my life.
I had been in and out of this relationship for several years. First we hung out, then we hung it up. We lived together on a commune, we moved out and then moved apart. We saw others, we moved back in together. We separated, got married, then separated again. It was your typical troubled hippie relationship, circa 1970s.
Through all of it, there was a stew of anger simmering on a back burner. We had no idea what was fueling it, so we did the logical thing: we pretended it wasn't there. Well, watched pots may never boil, but let me tell you, it's the unwatched ones that seethe and roil out of sight, and, from time to time, explode. When they do, anyone nearby gets burned. There was never any actual violence, even verbal abuse, but the pain we inflicted on each other was real enough.
After one particularly bad scalding, we agreed to see a marriage counselor. Our first session started like a court hearing, with me as the prosecutor rattling off the charges against my then-wife. I was more like a cross between a prosecutor and an earnest shrink, actually. "Charge #1 [fill in the blank]; Why did she do that?" "Charge #2; I don't understand why she did such a terrible thing!" Repeat for charges 3-12. Why? Why? WHY?!
Finally, I turned to the judge/marriage counselor and pleaded: "I don't understand how she can say she loves me and still do these things that are so hurtful!"
The counselor had the quiet hand-wringing demeanor of Gabriel Byrne's character, Paul Weston from In Treatment. He appeared to mull over my question and then sat upright in his chair.
"I'm not really interested in why she does those things," he said, slowly. "What I want to know is: Why do you stay?"
Two days later I moved out. We got a divorce and that was that.
It's the same with climate deniers. (Stay with me, here.)
Why do good, smart people like MJ's own Kevin Drum continue to debate those who insist global warming isn't caused primarily by human action? It's not like the facts aren't out there. This is settled science (as far as science can ever be considered settled). A list-serv of enviro-journo types to which I belong recently went through a small spasm along these same lines: "How can we best convince doubters that global warming is real?"
Once upon a time that was a legitimate question. No more.
Like the marriage counselor's reaction to me digging into my former-wife's motivations, I've lost interest in what motivates climate deniers. Religion? Politics? Money? I don't know and I don't care. The battle between those who accept global warming and those who don't is like a really bad marriage where the two sides bicker endlessly over who's right. This marriage cannot be saved. It's time for a divorce.
Journalists and others need to turn our attention to solutions. Debating solutions to global warming is a sign of a healthy relationship. All sides have a common baseline and can help each other figure out where we need to go from here.
Politically, massive resources should be used to defeat everyone in Congress who still wants to debate the modern equivalent of "Is the earth really round?" We need to divorce pols who are divorced from reality, and the proper venue for that is the ballot box (or in some cases the recall petition).
And then, we need to get on with our lives, with creating solutions to the largest problem facing us: global warming
All I can say for sure is that it worked for me.
Once I stopped debating deniers I met this really wonderful energy source named solar power. We've been seeing each other pretty regularly for several months now.
I'm happy to say I think it's serious.
Osha Gray Davidson covers solar energy for The Phoenix Sun, and is a contributing blogger for Mother Jones. He edited The Climate Bill: A Field Guide. For more of his stories, click here.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Comments
But what if you still had to live in the same house?
Submitted by ericf on Fri Jul. 24, 2009 1:44 PM PDT.
Your point is valid to some degree, because there is no hope of persuading James Inhofe or the commenters here who keep insisting no one has presented any proof even on posts presenting proof. However, what if you could divorce your wife but had to stay in the same house? That's partly where we are, because the deniers have big media outlets and almost the whole Republican Party, which means when combined with the blue dogs who don't know or care much about the issue, they have the clout to interfere with solutions.
Somehow we have to reach the deniers who haven't formed a really hard opinion, but just haven't heard much and that was wrong. We need to reach the people who haven't paid attention and don't know the science, but just hear one thing from one side and one thing from another, and decide no one knows anyway.
I wish I had the magic solution to reaching them. I'm reasonably sure they aren't here. Maybe if we could get the real information on top 40 radio and reality TV.
http://www.ravensblog.net
Thanks for the very
Submitted by Osha Gray Davidson on Sat Jul. 25, 2009 7:26 PM PDT.
Thanks for the very thoughtful comment, Eric. Well, I've already had my say, so I'll just comment on the comment where I can :>). I don't think there are many people at this point who can be convinced by any arguments. Also, arguing over the existence of global warming means the deniers continue to frame the debate. Reframing it around solutions is the best way to change minds and, at the same time, deal with the problem.
Americans love solutions. We love technology. We love optimism. I do believe we can solve this (how very American of me!), but only if we concentrate on actually solving it. The future belongs to those who are solving the problem of global warming, innovating, participating in what Stephen Chu has called an "energy revolution."
Let the deniers quarrel with each other -- and they will, if we withdraw from the battlefield.
You have to keep arguing
Submitted by James E. Powell on Fri Jul. 24, 2009 3:36 PM PDT.
You have to keep arguing or the great mass of badly informed Americans will be convinced by the climate change deniers that there is no reason to do anything differently. Even now, they dominate the airwaves. They lie and lie and lie. But the problem isn't that they lie, it is that their lies are believed.
Thanks for engaging, James.
Submitted by Osha Gray Davidson on Sat Jul. 25, 2009 7:31 PM PDT.
Thanks for engaging, James. If I believed that arguing would work, I'd do it. God knows, I've tried. But, where have the arguments gotten us? I think we should try something different. Think of it as a new tactic toward the same end.
It's hard to come together
Submitted by Jo (not verified) on Sat Jul. 25, 2009 8:30 AM PDT.
It's hard to come together and discuss a solution if one side doesn't believe that their is a problem.
I don't think we can
Submitted by Osha Gray Davidson on Sat Jul. 25, 2009 7:38 PM PDT.
I don't think we can convince (or even need to) global warming deniers. We have an administration that is committed to solving the problem. There are millions of Americans who understand the problem and want to be part of the solution. We have most of the rest of the world believing the problem is real, but disagree so far on what to do. We're jumping back into this debate on the international level, and, maybe, will do a bit of that leadership thing we're always patting ourselves on the back for. What do you think?
Modern answers
Submitted by C. Rich on Sat Jul. 25, 2009 8:50 AM PDT.
I like most have had all different kinds of advice of marriage. For me "The Relationship Reconstruction Project" has all the answers any of us need. Just the raw power of how that took off shows me it works.
Global Warming and Relationship Reconstruction
Submitted by jbolaw (not verified) on Mon Jul. 27, 2009 1:47 PM PDT.
This is for C. Rich. Could you tell me more about the "Relationship Reconstruction Project," or provide a reference to it. Before I can devote my time to helping with the solution to GW I need to reconcile with my own partner, or divorce, as Mr. Davidson suggests.
I'm with you, Osha...
Submitted by Emily Gertz (not verified) on Sat Jul. 25, 2009 2:53 PM PDT.
...time for us journalists to focus most of our attention on reporting on both the problems of and the solutions to global warming, and stop falling for this perpetual waste of time.
The best we journos can do, to help relieve the USA of its startling degree of scientific illiteracy (46% of the public don't believe humans are causing global warming, while 84% of scientists do), is to make our reporting fair and ACCURATE. What's accurate here is that there's a lot of policy debate about global warming, but next to no scientific debate. Further, the entities that promote the most global warming disinformation are ultimately trying to influence policy, not to make contributions to science.
In any case, there are a few dogged souls who'll continue with the debunking, because apparently it's still much needed in the halls of the Capitol Building. I quote your great post and talk a little about that on my globalwarming.change.org blog.
Hi, Emily. You've been doing
Submitted by Osha Gray Davidson on Sat Jul. 25, 2009 7:45 PM PDT.
Hi, Emily. You've been doing a yeowoman's job reporting on this issue for a long time, so: thank you!
Why bother debunking the trolls?
Submitted by Trippp on Sat Jul. 25, 2009 5:42 PM PDT.
I suppose I am hopeful that somebody who hasn't made up his/her mind will read it and will be persuaded by my reasoning.
I started out lurking on usenet groups before there was an internet, and I really appreciated reading somebody with knowledge and reasoning power make an articulate argument that debunked the fools. Now I guess I am trying to return the favor by doing the same for those who come after me.
Plus every now and then one of the 'trolls' ends up being someone simply trying out different arguments to see how they feel. Someone who is actually capable of reason. That is rare, but it does happen. Seeing someone else respond to reason and facts is very gratifying to me.
Tripp
What I find, Tripp...
Submitted by Emily Gertz (not verified) on Sun Jul. 26, 2009 10:17 AM PDT.
...is that yes, around one in twenty or thirty times, someone comes along on my blog's comment threads who expresses doubt about the reality or causes of global warming, has an open mind, and really wants to have a good conversation and introduction to the facts.
Frankly, I find I enjoy these conversations the most, since part of blogging and reporting on environmental and societal problems is to spur change for the better. I hope that in the process, people who are "lurking" on the boards are also learning more.
When someone's got their mind made up and is coming along to effectively yank your chain, they tend to "out" themselves pretty quickly. They're not looking to learn; they veer toward being rude or dismissive very quickly; they tend to rely heavily on very prejudiced sources of information, and go for "gotchas" over acknowledging the subtleties of science; and, unfortunately, they almost never grasp what it means to discriminate between the relative worth of different sources.
That's a more fundamental dilemma of both education and temperament that I don't think journalism can solve. I guess that's why people invented politics.
"What My Marriage Counselor Asked"
Submitted by davedave (not verified) on Sun Jul. 26, 2009 1:51 PM PDT.
people, people, people!
don't debate global warming. debate whether fossil fuels from the mideast help or hinder a good life for americans.
solar, wind, tide, even nuclear can keep us safer, ethically less schizophrenic and healthier. fossil fuels will keep us poor or at war until the wells run dry...
d
It is an economic and technological issue - not a scientific one
Submitted by Raven (not verified) on Sun Jul. 26, 2009 8:06 PM PDT.
Anyone who thinks the there is nothing to debate about the science does not understand the science and has no business lecturing those that do take the time to learn the complexities and the uncertainties.
More importantly, most of the IPCC policy agenda is based on dubious *economic* models which inflate the cost of adapting to change and minimize the cost of reducing CO2. What this means is that even if one accepts the climate science as presented by the IPCC as fact it does not necessarily follow that the aggressive action to reduce CO2 emissions is the most cost effective policy response.
Frankly, I think it is rediculous to make policy based on arbitrary targets (e.g. 85% reduce 2050) that cannot possibly be met with the technology we have. Such policies will only waste a lot of money before being abandoned and will leave us worse off than if we did nothing. The only policy approach that makes sense is a technology driven one: i.e. develop cost effective technologies FIRST and then look at promoting their use. So far, the only technologies that are even worth looking at are nuclear and possibly thermal solar (if they can solve the water-in-a-desert problem).
The fossil fuels from the middle east argument is a red herring since any anti-CO2 regulations will force the US to import more middle east oil since they have "clean" oil compared to suppliers like Canada. In fact, forcing the Canadians to ship the tar sands oil across the pacific ocean (something they will do no matter what the US does) will likely increase the amount of CO2 emitted into atmosphere as a result of their production.
gas tax is the only solution that makes sense
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon Jul. 27, 2009 11:17 AM PDT.
People will base their day-to-day decisions based on economics. Although there will always be a few Mother Jones readers who will behave otherwise, the vast majority of folks will follow their wallets.
if we want to dramatically reduce the amount of fossil fuels (whether for geostrategic or environmental reasons) used in this country, the only way to do so is through a steady and predictable tax on such products.
This is not a new idea. Since John Anderson's unsuccessful run for the presidency in the 1980 election (his platform was a $0.50/gallon tax back when gas was cheap), economists have said repeatedly that this is the only solution that will work.
Regulations, tax incentives and programs such as 'Cash for Clunkers' all nibble on the edges. If Obama announced a 10-year $5 per gallon tax, to be rolled out annually in $0.50 increments, you would see a magical transformation in the ways Americans insulate their homes, in the cars they purchase, etc. Fossil fuel usage would plunge, support for alternative technologies would soar with compelling advantages for the environment and for the US's energy independence.
A good example of this is the imposition of a hefty cigarette tax in New York. Despite the best of intentions, massive spending on education and advertising about the dangers of smoking, the level of smoking was high and steadily increasing. Once Mayor Giuliani (followed by Mayor Bloomberg) imposed a hefty tax on cigarettes with other restrictions, the rate of smoking plunged from 21% to 15%. That is a huge decrease given the addictive nature of tobacco. The rate of smoking, particularly among the young, continues to decline annually.
The lesson from all this is that economics is the most powerful tool we can use to influence energy behavior. The challenge is how to do so without unduly burdening the poor and people in rural communities.
one other suggestion regarding economic incentives
Submitted by tlfbiy (not verified) on Tue Jul. 28, 2009 6:04 AM PDT.
A floor price on fossil fuels should also be considered, such that whenever the price of a barrel of oil falls beneath a certain benchmark (say $80 per barrel) a fee is imposed to raise the price to $80.
The reason for this is that for certain alternative technologies to take root, there needs to be a sustainable and predictable demand based on the cost of the incumbent technology. The wild swings in price this past year, from $150 per barrel to the $30s and now back up to the mid-$60s have had a devastating effect on alternative energy projects large and small, including the high profile Pickens project. A clear and predictable minimum price for oil and other fossil fuel energies, for a defined period of time (e.g. 10 years) will gave nascent technologies time to develop both technically and commercially.
I suggest circulating the
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon Jul. 27, 2009 11:38 AM PDT.
I suggest circulating the following as a tool for discussion:
My Pledge: Global Warming Is a Hoax
Article 1. I hereby officially register my opinion that Global Warming is a Hoax.
Article 2. In so asserting, I recognize that I am in disagreement with many, including many scientists who have warned that Global Warming is not only real, but accelerating.
Article 3. I also disagree with the many scientists who have warned that one of the effects of Global Warming will be dislocations and failures of many crops, including food crops.
Article 4. These same scientists have said that there are measures, which, if taken before it is too late, may help reduce some of the more drastic effects of Global Warming. I consider these measures unnecessary, and I oppose them.
Article 5. I recognize that along with those (such as myself) who oppose government action to prevent Global Warming, we have, through our opposition, collectively prevented timely actions that might have helped to reduce its effects.
My pledge: Having as a citizen opposed actions which might have reduced the effects of Global Warming, should it occur, I pledge that I will take full responsibility for my part in preventing such actions. Therefore, should the increase in Global Average Temperature actually result in crop failures that produce food rationing anywhere in the world where I am present, I will not accept food rations, rations that should be available first to innocent people. I further pledge that by signing this document, I give my full and complete permission for my name to be posted on a public web site that acknowledges my belief and my pledge to take responsibility for the consequences of my belief. I further pledge that the presence of my name on this list means I have given permission to be denied food rations by any properly constituted authority.
I hereby so pledge:
Date Name Address Date of Birth
Not new to me.
Submitted by koyaanisqatsi (not verified) on Mon Jul. 27, 2009 2:57 PM PDT.
Once again...OK, for the first time, I'm ahead of the curve. For some time, I've been writing in blogs and forums that the debate is really over, we need to leave the whining/deniers behind, and work on the solutions to climate change. It just doesn't matter what the deniers think anymore. They once served a useful purpose in keeping the debate honest and forcing believers to examine issues they'd not examined before. But the deniers were not and are not trying to be useful. They're mostly a fringe group inhabiting right wing-nut forums and blogs...more or less like the Sarah Palin crowd. Data, facts, and theory mean nothing to them. They are undeterred by logic. They keep pulling out the same old erroneous Rush Limbaugh/George Will talking points that are falsehoods and have been debunked over and over. I've never converted a _single_ global warming denier, even though I, myself, wish anthropogenic global warming was not a reality. So I no longer try. Time to move on and jump on this problem like ugly on a monkey.
Battered wife solution
Submitted by G2G2 on Mon Jul. 27, 2009 10:22 PM PDT.
So just roll over and shut up?
Great solution.
Doesn't need proving
Submitted by greenknight on Tue Jul. 28, 2009 3:00 AM PDT.
There's no downside to eliminating our dependence on fossil fuels, and we stand to only gain by improving energy efficiency - except for those who are heavily invested in fossil fuel energy, who will lose market for their product. Those folks have raked in enough profits that they could afford to go into another line of business, but they couldn't make the same kind of windfall profits, so they don't want to - so they overstate the costs of making changes, and scoff at the dangers of continuing the way we are.
The thing to ask the global warming deniers this - if there is any chance that it might be true, why risk it? Is protecting the profits of oil and coal companies worth that kind of gamble?
PUTTING A PRICE ON CARBON IS THE PROBLEM
Submitted by John Davidson (not verified) on Tue Jul. 28, 2009 3:26 AM PDT.
If I had to design something to scare people off doing something about AGW it would be hard to go past emission trading. It is too complex to work out what effect it will have on the jobs in general let alone the effect on my job. Then there are all the special cases and uncertainity re the price of carbon permits let alone the price increases that are not really necessary.
As a result, all this complexity/uncertainity make it hard to argue against climate skeptics who claim that "AGW supporters want to risk your job on the grounds of their dodgy science."
The reality is that we can drive major changes in emission levels without having to "put a price on carbon" let alone use cap and trade to set the price. Two examples:
1. Driving down the average fuel consumption of new cars. There is no reason why this cannot be acheived by regulation. Gives a predictable outcome without any need to increase the price of fuel.
2. Encouraging investment in clean alternatives:
Option A: Put a price on the dirty alternative that is high enough to justify investment in the clean alternative. Price outcome: The average price jumps to the price required to justify investment in the clean alternative.
Option B: Leave the price of the dirty alternative unchanged and offer price and sales guarantees to investors in the clean alternative. Price outcome: Average price only rises slowly as the % of clean alternative being sold increases. BIG ADVANTAGE FOR SOMETHING LIKE ELECTRICITY THAT WILL TAKE DECADES TO CLEAN UP.
It makes it far harder to run scare campaigns against simple actions that peole have some chance of understanding. In the short to medium term we will get better results if we concentrate on a limited number of industries at one time, understand the issues that need to be dealt with and give ourselves the freedom to think outside the "we must put a price on carbon" square. For more details see:
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2009/05/27/guest-post-ets-is-the-problem-not-t...
Environmental pollution raises sovereignty questions
Submitted by tlfbiy (not verified) on Tue Jul. 28, 2009 6:26 AM PDT.
Imagine we are all in a lifeboat and one of us starts to drill a hole under his seat. The others would certainly object to the threat it poses to all of us. How would we respond if the driller says "You do what you want under your seat, I'll do what I want under mine." The fossil fuel debate has similar elements. While we might respect the driller's right to independence, we would surely take aggressive steps to prevent his hurting or killing the rest of us by his actions. No doubt he would be indignant at the thought of our interfering in his right to drill.
In economics there is a well-established concept of 'externalities' which basically says that I have the right to control your actions in direct proportion to the way your actions impact me. So, for example, there are zoning regulations that allow a homeowner to compel your neighbor to cut his lawn and keep his property garbage-free, lest there be negative impact to the value of neighboring properties. Of course, there is always the issue of individual liberty and the rights of landowners. After all, one man's Chevy Stonehenge artwork is another man's junkyard. And so we keep the courts busy weighing individual liberty versus legitimate community concerns.
Same is true with pollution generally and use of fossil fuels particularly. On the one hand, we respect the rights of nations to use their (or other's) resources and conduct their business and personal lives as they see fit. Until recently we said they could pretty much do to their population whatever they want ("human rights" is a relatively recent concept). The nation-state was sacrosanct. But what if one country uses energy in a way that impacts the world in a hurtful way (drilling a hole under his lifeboat seat). Do we respect his right to conduct his business, or does the world have a right to demand behavior change based on the principle of externalities? Do countries merely become like states, with some rights but subject to a greater federal authority? Should some organization (e.g. the UN) have the right to force compliance with respect to environmental behavior? Does the creation of such an organization risk the slippery slope to world gov't controlling other areas? Should influence in such an organization be based on wealth, industrial might, population? Should the US have 5% of the votes based on its % of world population or a greater percentage based on other factors? Should China and India dominate based on their large populations? As the US is the world's largest consumers of oil, would adoption of measures to reduce consumption ever be politically possible given the likely dramatic effect such change would have on American's way of life?
I'm interested in a serious dialog on this issue. The UN is such an abomination of corruption, bias and injustice that the prospect of a world government based on a similar body is frightening. But the alternative, countries hurting the world climate without any consequences, is a ruinous path.
Love to hear your thoughts on this issue. tlfbiy@gmail.com
Necessity
Submitted by EnikhanJohorns on Wed Jul. 29, 2009 10:51 AM PDT.
We need to turn attention to solutions, but solar panels are still made of petroleum, and therefore come from another unjust war. Perhaps you should have remembered Tesla and Hemp instead of divorcing your spouse for having a differing opinion. You two could have just agreed on not fighting a war against inherent risk of the natural environment. We should all adapt ourselves to nature, not adapt nature to conform with our desires. Our health depends on the health of the earth, not the other way around. Mindfulness and peace be upon you.
Are you suggesting these
Submitted by louis vuitton replica (not verified) on Mon Aug. 3, 2009 7:20 AM PDT.
Are you suggesting these people, perceiving threats to their lives, actually successfully defended themselves and neutralized the danger with GUNS!!! ARMED defense against aggressors?!?! And our beloved UNIONS are forwarding this Right Wing Wacko agenda?!?!tiffany jewelry
If this story gets out, the Whole NATION will be demanding the Right to Keep and Bear Arms for their Own Defense!
Marriage Counselors
Submitted by deepanshu on Sat Sep. 12, 2009 2:47 AM PDT.
Relationship is all about the trust, so the main thing is to gain trust of your partner. But the problem is that not all the spouses are that much knowledgeable, decent and understandable to handle the little or bigger issues. It doesn’t matters that what you partner did in their past but the main thing is that is your partner faithful to you now and continuing the relationship faithfully. There are many qualified marriage counselors giving lessons to the couples for learning positive techniques for better relationship. These best marriage therapists completely analyze your relationship problem by solo therapy session of both of the partners and then discuss your relationship issues deeply and advice accordingly. All such tips of licensed marriage counselors are very helpful in making you the closest person to your partner and you will become the best friend of your spouse. Then your partner can easily share the whole things with you because you have gained your partner’s trust. Find more information about the marriage counselors of this site.
Post new comment
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.
