On the day of Al Gore’s global Live Earth Concerts, I thought it fitting to address a growing problem in modern politics, exemplified perfectly by the battle over global warming and the environment. I call it The Battle Between Ideals and Reality, but you might as well call it The Inconvenience of Science.

Unless you’ve been living in a cave for the last several years, you know what global warming is. You probably also know that there is an overwhelming consensus amongst scientists that our excessive CO2 emissions are largely to blame for climate change. One would think that with such conclusive evidence, everyone would be clamouring to buck the trend. Yet an alarming number of people still trivialize the issue and often contest the science with more or less dubious claims of conspiracies, alternate theories and blatant misinformation.

The battle over global warming is a perfect example of the clash between political ideals and harsh reality. The word “ideal” was used by the Ancient Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle to define perfection itself. In their minds, the human quest was to get ever closer to that ideal in all aspects of life. Today’s definition is pretty much the same, although the principle of constantly evolving one’s theories to get closer to the ideal has been lost. Today’s idealism – political, religious or otherwise – has become dogmatic and those that follow it are more like a creed than a group of independent thinkers.

Political theory – or idealism – is not necessarily founded in reality and will not necessarily lead us toward a perfect world.

In the climate change debate, you now have two fronts: Those who use science as their basis for action, and those that use political ideals. The first group constitutes the overwhelming majority of scientis who do research in the relevant fields, as well as people and politicians who put their trust in the science. The second group is made up of those that believe the propositions of the first group are a danger to the financial state of themselves, their company or nation. For the most part, these convictions are soundly based in political theory, but there is a problem here: Political theory – or idealism – is not necessarily founded in reality and will not necessarily lead us toward a perfect world. In fact, political theory is often based on misguided intentions or a greed for power, money or both. Herein lies the conflict: What do you believe in? Your political or religious convictions, built over a lifetime and the basis for your approach to life? or scientific fact, presented by people you don’t know, often in direct contrast to what you believe and in constant flux. The answer, sadly, is often the former. People are more willing to cling to their rigid beliefs than open their minds to a new and scary reality.

Nowhere is this better demonstrated than in the debates over climate change that have taken place in the US over the last few years. Scientists from all over the world have been pitted against political, corporate or independent thinkers with idealistic agendas and solid funding. Whereas the scientists have presented the facts as they appear before them, their opponents have thrown out a barrage of alternate theories and misinformation, clouding the waters and confusing the public: “Rising temperatures are caused by the sun’s proximity to Earth” is one (this claim by the way, is in direct contradiction to scientific reality). “Rising temperatures is part of a natural cycle” is another. In a Senate hearing last year, famed novelist Michael Crichton testified in opposition to climate scientists, and boasted a claim that global warming is a leftist conspiracy designed by Europeans and environmentalists to ruin the American way of life and control its people. His proof of this theory was his book State of Fear, a work of fiction. If this were to be taken seriously, we would also have to believe there are live dinosaurs roaming on an island just off the coast of Costa Rica. When Al Gore released his movie An Inconvenient Truth in 2006, his reference to the melting of the Kilimajaro Glacier was put into question, yet the fact that glaciers all over the world are melting at a shocking rate was ignored. It is always easier to believe that the world’s problems are caused by some outside influence or someone else, rather than realize you have to change your own way of life to solve them.

The problems of idealism vs. reality also appear in the discussion of solutions to the problem. Conservatives have long claimed that curbing carbon emissions would ruin the nation’s economy. This calculation is based on a status quo and does not take into account new technologies and altered strategies. The fact that Great Britan’s GDP went up despite a dramatic reduction in carbon emissions is ignored because it doesn’t fit the theory. The Hydrogen Economy is touted as the future saviour of the planet even though the production of hydrogen through electricity actually creates more pollution than what we see today. If we ignored the problem of distribution and infrastructure, a viable hydrogen vehicle is also at least 10 years away.

The Solar Mirror or Solar Shade Project presented by US President George W. Bush as a perfect solution to the problem is a concept even its inventor says is nothing but a neat theory. Even if the technology needed to create the billions of tiny mirrors existed (it doesn’t), it would take over 10 years to put the 20 million ton mirror in orbit, and that is if flyers powered by electromagnetic space launchers (not yet in operation) containing mirrors was launched every 5 minutes for that entire time (source). Not exactly a viable option, yet politicians are willing to put money into it. Biodiesel is a viable option that can be implemented immediately but no one’s talking about it. Instead, they are pushing Ethanol fuel (also known as E85), which in the 1920′s was abandoned as a fuel due to its low efficiency. There is also the issue of agricultural land to grow corn or sugar cane to take into account. As the need for ethanol to drive vehicles goes up, so will the prices for food.

While all this is happening, renewable sources of energy are being largely ignored. Solar power, wind power and geothermal power are all effective solutions with existing technology, yet few talk about them. Instead, politicians call for new technologies to be invented as if the existing ones aren’t already hitting them in the face.

There’s a Chinese story about a bird that, faced with a dangerous situation, sticks its head in the river. This is much like an ostrich that sticks its head in the sand. The difference is that the Chinese bird drowns. As uncomfortable as it may sound, this is a perfect analogy for where we are today.