Did you know environmentalists are on OPEC’s payroll?

Last week, my grandmother forwarded me an e-mail with that stunning punchline. Here’s how the logic flowed: the United States has tremendous oil and gas reserves in the Bakken Formation, beneath the rangelands of Montana and South Dakota. Although these reserves could ensure our energy independence, no one has heard of them, and they’re not being tapped. Why? Because OPEC, fearing loss of its terrorism-funding revenue, is paying environmental watchdog groups to block development.

As something of an armchair environmentalist (I get mail from the Sierra Club and the non-wrestling WWF, anyway), I was stunned — not least because I’d never heard of the Bakken Formation myself. Per my grandmother’s request for a second opinion before she forwarded the e-mail onward, I dug a little deeper.

Yes, we’ve known about the Bakken Formation for 60 years. Yes, we’ve known that some extractable oil is there. But we’ve only recently (in 2008) increased our estimates of the recoverable volume to four billion barrels (compared to the U.S. consumption rate of seven billion barrels per year).

The Bakken has been under development since 2000, with a flurry of activity following recent technological advances and increased volume estimates. Hardly any media attention outside the local news (articles primarily focused on the dearth of women in towns glutted by young men hunting black gold) has been paid. An off-the-cuff poll of friends and coworkers brought up blank stares.

Yet, behind the scenes, oil flowing from the Bakken has actually increased our domestic production — even after disasters like the BP spill last year led to drilling suspension in the Gulf of Mexico. Technology and infrastructure have been the rate-limiting steps (it takes time to lay pipes and work up to capacity), not environmental filibusters. Indeed, the “environmentalist” line — far from being controlled by OPEC oil dollars — has consistently favored energy security for the United States. It turns out that home-grown renewables — wind, solar and the like — are even more secure (because they won’t run out) than fossil fuels, and better for the environment, too.

So how do e-mails like this one, which boasted an impressively long string of “FWD:”s before my grandmother’s note to me — gain so much momentum when they are so off base?

Part of the reason is our information saturation. We’re bombarded with sound bites, each trying to be sexier or more provocative than the one before. Details are trimmed, facts are cherry-picked and the message’s recipient rarely has the time or inclination to check up on the story’s veracity.

What happens when stories conflict? Naturally, we tend to identify with the source that confirms our existing views. The modern media — diffused over hundreds of TV stations, thousands of websites and millions of chain e-mails — makes it easier than ever to filter out conflicting messages by subscribing only to “conservative” newsfeeds or listening exclusively to “liberal” podcasts.

As an ecologist relying on the goodwill of humanity to fund my research and keep my study subjects alive, I’m worried about our increasing tunnel vision. Humanity’s gravest challenges — overpopulation, climate change, biodiversity loss and so forth — are as complex as they are frightening. Most of us don’t spend our free time wrestling with the morality of reproductive rights, pinning down the difference between “climate” and “weather” or considering the acreage of rainforest cleared to plant the coffee bushes for our daily pre-class jolt. Unfortunately, ignorance leads only to temporary bliss. And many angry e-mails.

How do we begin to talk with each other, instead of past each other?

First, by building trust. How many times do you turn to those you know and love for advice? When has a steadfast opinion been swayed by the words of someone you respect? Why will you listen patiently to your roommate but switch off the television commentary?

These interpersonal bonds are critical for our sanity and for our wisdom. One brain cannot hold all the knowledge of humanity, so we must rely on others to help us gather and parse data. That said, think for yourself. Scrutinize the facts, and check your sources. If you can convince yourself, you’ll never fear opposition, because you’ll be able to see why the differences of opinion arose. You will be able to change your own mind freely, without parroting back someone else’s dogma.

So keep an open mind, and keep having open conversations. Trust, but verify. And call your grandmother: she loves you, and you’d be surprised what she’ll let you get away with. Including convincing her not to forward that e-mail.

Did you fact check this column? If so, send your corrections and other comments to [email protected]. Oh, and “Hi, Grandma!”