• Loading...
  • Welcome to my personal website. My passion is making valuable connections between people and ideas. I’m retained by several organizations to do exactly that and enjoy taking on special projects.

    I’m based in the UK at the moment and hope you will be in touch if you think that I can help you in some way or if you think that we could work together. Please have a read about the sort of things I’m up to.

    Who Cares About Climate Change?

    Sunday 6th December 2009, 12:22pm

    rainforest by tauntingpanda.

    Tomorrow, politicians, scientists and campaigners from around the world will meet in Copenhagen for landmark talks, aimed at resulting in a global deal on Climate Change. 

    I’m not qualified to get into the science, however I’d like to ponder why we don’t care more, and do more about this important subject.  Here are a few ideas which you may not hear being put forward over the coming few days.  I’m sure that there are hundreds of possible theories.  Here are seven;

    1)  We don’t care more because we don’t care about each other. We are brought up to be afraid of strangers and not formally disillusioned of the myth that ’they’ are dangerous. We don’t grow up connecting with people in other countries, so when we are told of their plight, we find it difficult to get our heads around this.  Modern languages are now optional in schools, which adds to how disconnected we and our children are from the rest of the world.  We don’t have enough substantial global networks, so we rely too much on politicians to represent us.

    2)  We don’t care more because we don’t care about our descendants.  We don’t care about our ancestors either.  We are not able to imagine where we come from or what will happen to our genes.  We know that the people who will pay the price for our mistakes are our grandchildren and their grandchildren, yet we find this too difficult and abstract to imagine.

    3) We think that ‘change’ sounds exciting.  Any business guru worth their pinch of salt will tell you that we must embrace and accept change.  This is of course nonsense.  If we were talking about Nature’s Destruction or Global Pollution, we would not feel as if this was something to accept. 

    4)  Global Warming, when you’re based in a cold and wet country, risks sounding attractive.  This may not be as flippant as it sounds.  Names are important.  Some might care more if they were taking a stand against Global Wetting.   

    4)  Too many spokespeople are ‘posh’.  George Bernard Shaw said that “It is impossible for an Englishman to open his mouth without making some other Englishman despise him”.  In Britain, we confuse conversations about class with conversations about accent.  I have been in enough situations to suspect that millions of our fine country take an instant dislike to what might be called ‘posh’ accents.  Although this might be annoying and a great shame, it is true.  Until we have role models with a wider range of regional accents, this dislike will too often be connected with the substance of the conversation itself.

    5)  We have become suspicious of politicians and, recently, scientists.  We tend to be sceptical of anything they say, and as long as they are seen to be the main spokespeople for any movement, we will not buy into it.

    6) We don’t care because we don’t understand what’s in it for us.  We must continue to underline how a certain type of food actually tastes better rather than the fact that it is better for the earth.  Similarly, saving money will matter more to many families than saving energy.  We must inspire people to make changes which they will personally benefit from and this benefit must be clear.  The motivating force cannot be penance or guilt. 

    7)  We don’t know who to agree with or ’believe’. The democratisation of voice, the idea that anyone can share their view, brings many benefits.  One risk is that we confuse volume with authority.  We begin to agree with people who quite literally don’t know what they are talking about.  As objects in the mirror may appear closer than they appear, so sources of information closest to us may appear louder, or more authoritative then they really are.  So the verdict of a global panel of scientists can be overturned by a single attention-seeking journalist, or indeed blogger.

    So, I suggest;

    1) More programmes to connect schools globally.  Gemin-i (with whom I am working) is a great example.

    2) ’Stranger Safety’ schemes to integrate communities and undo the unwitting damage of Stranger Danger thinking.

    3) More airtime to genealogy enthusiasts, with a moment to imagine the future of families.

    4) A concerted avoidance of phrases with ‘change’ and ‘warming’, replaced by ‘pollution’.

    5) More lead spokespeople who are neither ‘posh’ nor ‘politicians’

    6) More explanation of the personal benefits of anything being introduced

    7) A clearer representation of the weight of certain opinions, as opposed to the relative flimsiness of others. 

    Regardless of the science or the overall temperature, it seems to me that we humans are killing our planet.   I hope it’s useful to think about why, in the hope that some solutions may come from a proper understanding of the causes, not just the symptoms. 

    I’d welcome your thoughts! 

     

    4 Responses to “Who Cares About Climate Change?”

    1. Anton says:

      The opinions in this post are surprising considering the level of collusion and obfuscation of data by proponents of Anthropogenic Global Warming community that have recently come to light.
      To make decisions about global policy now when so much of the scientific data is in doubt would be massively irresponsible and would never be considered in any other field.
      The notion that “it must be true, whatever the evidence” is highly dangerous.
      The general public are not suspicious of scientists. They are only suspicious of climate scientists and there is plenty of good reason.
      The notion that there is concensus in the scientific community is bunk. There is a clear setting to one side of scientific method and the war for the acceptance of AGW has not been fought with data and scientific debate but with politics PR and Rhetoric. It appears to me that your post is part of this..
      The predictions are wrong, the models are wrong, the data is secret.

      Perhaps though they are right… I don’t know… If they are the data and methodologies should be sufficient.
      One thing I do know, underestimating the intellect and judgement of ordinary men is a common mistake of the educated classes.

    2. Anton says:

      I should be clear that in my view things that reduce pollution and conserve energy are in and of themselves desirable and do not require a “climate change” tag to promote them. I believe this to be blatantly obvious but universally ignored.

      I could go into the obvious reasons for western political support for climate change science. But people might call me cynical for believing that politicians don’t really give a monkeys about future generations or saving the planet.
      Do you think that they do?

    3. I think that #6 is probably the closest. I think we don’t care because it is almost irrelevant – too *big* a thing to cope with, and something that can go to the bottom of the ‘to do’ list – after feeding, clothing and providing a home for our families. Ensuring some stability in our work; abiding by the laws of a country in the grip of change – happening at a rate not known in our lifetimes, in the grip of a worldwide recession that is actually affecting our pockets and security.

      I don’t think we don’t care, it is just at the bottom of the list; and unfortunately it may take a few years before we get there (if we continue as we are).

      This is also a reflection of society, where the change of focus is from global/large scale issues; to protecting our own and our country’s identity. Taking more interest in hyperlocal issues. This is helped by technology, where we can focus all the information we read and receive through postcode identification/IP address. Google is personalising search, government is personalising services and information (slowly but surely).

      With such an onslaught of relevant, local, personal information – who has time for the planet?

      PS I am not saying that it is not important, I am ruminating as you are, before I get attacked for being selfish!

    4. One of the biggest problems for me is that, at heart, people want to believe this isn’t happening, or that it’s part of a natural cycle so there’s no point doing anything about it or worrying about it.

      Add to this the vastly superior ‘framing’ of the climate change debate by the ‘climate deniers’ (http://climatedenial.org) and it’s no surprise that a relative storm in a tea-cup about hacked e-mails (which don’t for one second seriously question the weight of scientific evidence about climate change) resonate so deeply. “Aha” people like Anton say to themselves, “I knew it was all a big con.”

      You make some great points Oli, although there’s a lot of literature about the reasons behind people’s apparent lack of concern or belief in or action to prevent climate change which I won’t go into that here but which speak to many of the issues you touch on.

      I particularly liked your last point. “Information on the Internet may be louder and more authoritative than it appears to be” ;-) So very true.

    Leave a Reply