There are lots of things I don’t know how I
know. Facts ricochet
around my head with no recollection of where I learned them.
No real indication of their veracity.
I learned 105 kcal/mol is the bond dissociation energy for
methane. I just looked
it up. It is still the
bond dissociation energy for methane.
6.023 X 1023 molecules per mole was what I
learned. 6.022 X 1023
is what it is now. The
change is slight, but it still befuddles me.
I must reflect for a moment every time I use Avogadro’s
number, pausing to remember what I learned and then selecting the
other option.
Occasionally, I know exactly
where I learned something.
I learned that urban birds use the cellulose acetate from
cigarette filters to build nests.
I remember the room I was in, where I was sitting, who stated
the fact and how she stated it.
It was stated as yet another example of how humans were
wrecking the planet.
After I learned that birds were using cigarette butts as nesting
material, a paper came out concluding that the birds were choosing
the filter material because it reduced insect pests in the nest[1].
Chicks raise in nests containing tobacco-tainted material
were healthier. More
recently, the same researchers raised the potential of longer-term,
chronic health impacts.
The chicks were healthier, but some metrics indicated adult birds
hatched in tobacco laden nests suffer longer lasting, chronic
harm[2].
Science is, in part,
observational. The
observation that birds use cigarette filters for nesting material is
now a scientific fact.
Determining the impact of those filters is more complicated, more
difficult to interpret, more nuanced.
Science builds on observations to be
predictive, linking causes and effects.
Science guides actions.
Compelling science on the merits of cigarette butt nests
could lead me to offer cigarette butts to the bluebirds and robins
currently nesting in my yard.
I am not a smoker.
I have no ready source of used cigarette filters.
I don’t see myself collecting them given current
understanding of the causes and effects.
Compelling science indicating the filters cause harm to birds
would spur very different action.
I could use forums, like this, to implore responsible
disposal, disposal that eliminates the chance they ever end up in
nests. I already make a
point of picking up trash, but currently don’t bother with the
infrequent cigarette butt.
Cellulose acetate and paper degrade rapidly in the
environment and I find them kind of disgusting.
I would overcome my disgust if I knew birds were being
actively harmed. Were
the science more settled, it would guide action.
I fall victim to motivated
reasoning. Things that
sound right, things that I want to believe are accepted easily.
Things that I don’t want to believe are more easily ignored,
more easily called unsettled science.
I don’t do it intentionally, but I am likely to hold onto
preexisting beliefs, yearning for new while clinging to the
familiar. “No level of
alcohol consumption improves health” is the title of a 2018
meta-analysis on alcohol consumption[3].
The title is amazingly succinct and direct.
It could have easily been “Don’t drink alcohol, it is bad for
you”. The analysis
concludes that any slight potential benefits are more than offset by
negative impacts on health.
Motivated reasoning let me drink a glass of wine last night.
There is some subjectivity to the measure of benefits and
detriments. It is nuanced, at least nuanced enough, to let me hold
hope the wine I drank last night wasn’t bad for me.
I’ve been exposed to data, but I’ve not yet turned those data
into knowledge. Synthesis of
knowledge from data requires processing.
That processing is flawed, not just for me, but for all of
us. Motivated reasoning lets me drink.
Things get more complicated when
trying to ascertain group knowledge.
My wife and I clearly offer different responses to data on
the deleterious impacts of alcohol consumption.
Two reasonably intelligent people confronted with the same
data act differently. I
can state with some certainty when my family knew bluebirds built a
nest in the yard, a simple observational fact immediately shared.
I don’t know whether my wife spent even one clock cycle
pondering cigarette butts and birds.
Even if the science were completely settled, my knowledge
does not translate to family knowledge.
My family doesn’t know about, doesn’t have a position on,
birds and cigarette butts, any more than we have a unified position
on alcohol consumption.
Even with a small group, determining when consensus interpretation
of complicated data is reached is challenging.
Yet, it is surprisingly common to ask when a company, a group
of people, knew something.
Darren Woods, the current CEO of
ExxonMobil, recently wrote about carbon capture in an opinion piece
for the Wall Street Journal[4].
The climate journey of ExxonMobil is exceedingly well
described. Entire books
are written about it[5]. The
discussion is disproportionately about when and what the company
knew about climate change.
Mr. Woods outlines intent to make a business of carbon
capture. It is not a
treatise on acceptance of scientific consensus or impacts on
existing company business. Mr.
Woods never states in this most recent piece whether he or
ExxonMobil believe in human-caused climate change.
Previous CEOs clearly stated they didn’t[6].
Questions were raised about whether best available science
was used to inform company decisions[7].
These investigations make a point of highlighting documents
indicating when data were presented[8].
An epiphany by one member of a group, one employee in a
company, doesn’t indicate an epiphany by the entire group or
company. Motivated
reasoning, spiced with cognitive dissonance, means that reaching
consensus within any group can be slow, especially when the data are
challenging and nuanced.
It is my conjecture that defining an exact moment a company knew
something is impossible.
It isn’t a reasonable question of any group of people short of
directly observable facts.
Science is a game of guess and
test. It is no surprise
that facts are questioned, reconsidered and updated.
The hesitancy of the petrochemical enterprise to embrace
climate change is now a thing of the past.
Motivated reasoning held back acceptance.
Now motivated reasoning is enabling it.
Like ExxonMobil, many oil companies are now seeing
opportunity in carbon storage[9].
Motivated reasoning prompted by fear is now superseded by
reasoning motivated by opportunity. Change
in collective thought takes time.
I am optimistic that I will soon
see fledged bluebirds flitting about my yard.
Other than the money thrown at them in the form of $6 per
pound mealworms, I haven’t actively intervened to ensure their
health. My exposure to
data on the impacts of nesting material failed to drive action.
I do run a periodic search looking for “tequila is good for
you”. So far nothing has
turned up, but I remain an optimistic victim of motivated reasoning.
I am also optimistic about the change in mindset in the
petrochemical industry regarding climate change.
The decision to be part of the solution, long in coming, is
reason for optimism regardless of the motivation.
references
1.
Suarez-Rodriguez Monserrat,
Lopez-Rull I. & Macias Garcia Constantino "Incorporation of
cigarette butts into nests reduces nest ectoparasite load in urban
birds: new ingredients for an old recipe?", Biology Letters, 9 (1),
2012, 20120931-20120931. DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2012.0931
2.
Suárez-Rodríguez, Monserrat;
Montero-Montoya, Regina D.
and Macías Garcia, Constantino;
"Anthropogenic Nest Materials May Increase Breeding Costs for Urban
Birds" Front. Ecol. Evol., 03 February 2017.
doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2017.00004
3.
Burton, Robyn; Sheron Nick;
"No level of alcohol consumption
improves health", The Lancet,
22 September 2018;392(10152):987-8.
doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31571-X
4.
Woods, Darren W.; Blommaert, Joe;
"ExxonMobil’s Plan to Capture Carbon", The Wall Street Journal, 20
April 2021.
www.wsj.com/articles/exxonmobils-plan-to-capture-carbon-11618871420
5. Banerjee, Neela;
Cushman, Jr., John H.; Hasemyer, David; and Song, Lisa; Exxon:
The Road Not Taken,
InsideClimate News (October 28,
2015) and is available from Amazon and other sources.
6.
Former Exxon CEO Lee Raymond made
statements at the Detroit Economic Club in 1996,
www.climatefiles.com/lee-raymond-collection/1996-exxon-raymond-moving-forward-together-economic-club/,
and at the World Petroleum Congress in 1997,
www.climatefiles.com/exxonmobil/1997-exxon-lee-raymond-speech-at-world-petroleum-congress/
7.
Schwartz, John; "Rex Tillerson
Testifies in Exxon Climate Change Case", The New York Times, 30
October 2019.
www.nytimes.com/2019/10/30/climate/rex-tillerson-exxon-climate-change-case.html
8.
Hall,
Shannon; "Exxon Knew about Climate Change almost 40 years ago",
Scientific American, 26 October 2015,
www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/
9.
McFarlane,
Sarah; "Oil Giants Turn to Carbon Storage", The Wall Street Journal,
20 April 2021.
www.wsj.com/articles/shell-exxon-look-to-profit-from-capturing-customers-carbon-emissions-11618824602