Finding common ground during a time of hyperpolarized political opinions seems increasingly challenging. Almost as difficult to find as a unicorn, some would surely argue.
With either side of the spectrum seemingly digging deeper and deeper into the comfort of their own ideological trenches, echo chambers and filter bubbles, having a meaningful — not to mention civil and respectful — exchange of ideas has become almost impossible. Almost, but not quite.
During the Alberta Library Conference hosted in Jasper in April, I sat at a table for lunch and met a couple of people with whom I enjoyed a historical chat about the Second World War. Both had relations who had served, and we talked about how fortunate we are today for the sacrifices our predecessors endured.
Although the gentleman eventually had to bow out, I continued chatting with the lady who had a lengthy history of farming in her family. The subject of climate change came up, and she largely scoffed at the idea as make believe.
Yet as the conversation progressed, I was pleasantly surprised to learn we essentially stood on largely shared common ground.
She agreed that reducing dependency on the fossil fuel industry, whose volatility has proven time and again to be our Achilles heel, while increasing investment in greener technology from geothermal and solar to wind and hydro, should be a priority.
She also felt strongly about the need to re-evaluate convenience consumer culture that has resulted in so many wasteful, single-use disposable products, and that such short-sightedness cannot be sustainable if we hope to ensure future generations do not inherit a planet choking on plastic and pollution.
Before long, we came to realize we both agreed on just about everything — except for anthropogenic climate change.
Perhaps what most counted was simply having the conversation and realizing we both had far more in common than not.
Particularly encouraging was that at no point in our discussion did either of us attempt to dismiss or belittle the other, resorting to petty ad hominem attacks such as “Climate alarmist!” and “Climate denier!” that we all too often see on display when it comes to the climate change conversation.
The simple fact is regardless of whether she believes ceaseless human activity has substantially accelerated an otherwise naturally occurring climate change cycle, she seemed to understand that a closed system like the Earth will eventually be detrimentally impacted by a population that has since the 19th century exploded to nearly eight billion people from barely more than one billion.
So despite being on polar opposite sides of the climate change issue, we were nevertheless essentially on the same page.
That, in and of itself, I found to be encouraging.
