Here’s a response to a comment on Slashdot that explains my perspective of collective superficiality and the need for a demagogue to influence policy. Even better if this demagogue could be a scientist, but I don’t believe scientists possess the qualities required to be effective demagogues (skepticism and propaganda don’t mix):

Keep in mind that global warming, despite being well-known decades ago (and theorized since the 1820s!) did not become a mainstream issue until Al Gore stepped in. Individually, many people will agree with you, but collectively, society is fairly indifferent to this reasoning. Even now, everyone is becoming “carbon neutral” (often by simply slapping some money down for “offsets”) because it’s the fashionable thing to do. I’m starting to see “green” banners sprouting up on websites and advertisements indicating that an operation offsets its carbon production, but I’m not seeing any real work going into eliminating the source of the problem (emissions). Even the “fashionable” attempts at new fuel sources (Ethanol, Biodiesel, etc.) arose from ideas recently popularized by the Bush administration and rely on combustion of organic matter. These reactions are going to release chemicals into the atmosphere, and even if they are as innocuous as water vapor, we cannot predict what their environmental effects will be when emitted in large quantities (as evidenced by the fact that there is still a debate on the role of CO2 in the atmosphere). After all, even water vapor is a greenhouse gas, although drawing it from the atmosphere and putting it back later is probably fairly inconsequential. Ultimately, what we require is energy, not fuel, and it would be great if we could popularize the search for more efficient forms of renewable energy capture that do not rely on combustion of organic matter.

But that requires a demagogue, because while individuals are capable of thinking beyond the surface issues presented to them, the masses, collectively, are not. The “Support the Troops” phenomenon is another example of this: everyone loves to put stickers on their cars, but without action, that’s simply grasping the message without understanding its meaning. The message can’t only be about global warming, but must also be about the dangers of adopting nonrenewable energy sources. Similarly, the message can’t be about “supporting the troops” in some vague way, but must be about preserving their lives, however that end goal may be accomplished.

The fact that an entire industry has built up around the concept of fueling also doesn’t help. I don’t believe that this industry is holding back the solution, per se, but they are not helping: the researchers these companies employ are not going to be interested in, say, solar power, unless there was some way for the company to maintain its viability in an economy dominated by that form of energy.

But at least what society is doing now might serve as a temporary measure. Unfortunately, there does not appear to be any measure of transience to society’s current plan; whatever methods of energy production we select in the near future, they are going to be used for quite some time and we are going to devote significant amounts of resources to their production, as with oil.