Sally Furniss
Well-known member
CLIMATE CHANGE: The Fault Lies Not in Our Cars but in Ourselves
Analysis by Stephen Leahy*
<table align="right" border="0" cellpadding="10" cellspacing="0" width="25%"><tbody><tr><td class="linksmollbordeaux"> </td></tr></tbody></table>
BROOKLIN, Canada, Apr 2 (IPS) - Rising levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth's atmosphere can be compared to a flooding river, swamping low areas at first but inevitably bursting its banks.
But unlike normal seasonal flooding, humanity is largely responsible for the crisis by burning fossil fuels.
Today, a routine drive to the supermarket adds another fraction to the CO2 in the atmosphere, trapping a little more heat. And not just for today but the next 5,000 years. That is how long it takes before the carbon dioxide we release today is finally absorbed and safely tucked away. But for 5,000 years, that carbon will trap additional heat.
If climate change were a rising river near our street, we'd all be at the dikes, filling and carting sandbags with neighbours and strangers. We'd share our food, enjoy the camaraderie and remember forever our individual and collective effort with pride and satisfaction.
With a flooding river, the risk is visible and imminent, and people know what action they need to take, said Glynis Breakwell, a leading psychologist and vice-chancellor of the University of Bath in England who just published a book titled "The Psychology of Risk".
Climate change is invisible or distant for most people. It's melting ice in the Arctic -- too bad for the polar bears, but it doesn't affect me or my family.
And when people see experts apparently debating some aspect of climate change, they think there is uncertainty about the issue, resulting in a "nobody really knows" perception, Breakwell told IPS.
"That uncertainty produces resistance to behavioural changes," she said. And so we sit on our hands, concerned perhaps about the rising river but unwilling to be first to race to the dikes.
There are reasons for this seeming paralysis, and some have little to do with science.
Thousands of researchers from around the world have studied the issue for the better part of two decades and declared climate change an imminent danger to human civilisation. The best and brightest scientific minds speak openly now about cascading climate catastrophes. Scientific societies by the dozen from many nations and disciplines have issued warnings and impassioned calls to sharply reduce emissions.
This news has not been taken well by corporations dependent for their profits on fossil fuels. Just as the tobacco industry spent decades denying the health impacts of smoking and delaying anti-tobacco legislation, oil companies like Exxon Mobil, the parent company of Esso, and U.S. coal companies have and are still employing the same tactics of confusion and contradiction to manufacture uncertainty and hold up collective action on climate, critics say.
Public uncertainty about climate is also reinforced by behavioural norms: If no one is acting as if climate change is a serious problem, then how can it be one?
"People also resist doing things that are different from what everyone one else is doing," said Breakwell.
Driving your car at 50 miles per hour optimises gas mileage and cuts CO2 emissions, but most people can't do it when everyone else on the road is driving 70 mph. Even when you know you'll save money driving at 50 and want to reduce your emissions, it is difficult to do, she said.
Role models and regulations are needed to shift what's perceived as "different" behaviour so that they become the "new normal". Simple explanations of why such a shift was necessary gained traction during the U.S. energy crisis of the 1970s, when highway speed limits were lowered to 55 mph. Newspapers and television broadcasts were filled with reminders to conserve energy. "Last Out, Lights Out" stickers were added to millions of light switches. The U.S. government told automakers to boost fuel efficiency. Everyone knew the reason why and complied.
"With climate change it's not so clear what people ought to do," said Breakwell. "Experts need to give a simple and consistent message of what can be done to reduce emissions."
Feedback is also important for shifting behaviour, she said. If cars had a gauge that showed drivers how their mile per gallon average declined the faster they went, many would drive slower.
"We need many more indicators that show the consequences of our behaviour," she said.
Even something as simple as a bumper sticking saying a truck is limited to 50 mph to conserve energy and reduce emissions is both a reminder and reinforcement to others to drive slower.
"Policy-makers need to apply these simple psychological techniques if they want to shift society to a low-carbon economy," said Breakwell.
What is clear is that climate change is a problem that requires both collective and individual action to move towards a "climate-safe" way of living, detailed in the third article in this series.
*This story is part two of a four-part examination of the psychological and behavioural changes needed to dial down the temperature on our global greenhouse. Part one appeared on Apr. 1, 2008.
(END/2008)
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=41832
Analysis by Stephen Leahy*
<table align="right" border="0" cellpadding="10" cellspacing="0" width="25%"><tbody><tr><td class="linksmollbordeaux"> </td></tr></tbody></table>
avid ReidBROOKLIN, Canada, Apr 2 (IPS) - Rising levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth's atmosphere can be compared to a flooding river, swamping low areas at first but inevitably bursting its banks.
But unlike normal seasonal flooding, humanity is largely responsible for the crisis by burning fossil fuels.
Today, a routine drive to the supermarket adds another fraction to the CO2 in the atmosphere, trapping a little more heat. And not just for today but the next 5,000 years. That is how long it takes before the carbon dioxide we release today is finally absorbed and safely tucked away. But for 5,000 years, that carbon will trap additional heat.
If climate change were a rising river near our street, we'd all be at the dikes, filling and carting sandbags with neighbours and strangers. We'd share our food, enjoy the camaraderie and remember forever our individual and collective effort with pride and satisfaction.
With a flooding river, the risk is visible and imminent, and people know what action they need to take, said Glynis Breakwell, a leading psychologist and vice-chancellor of the University of Bath in England who just published a book titled "The Psychology of Risk".
Climate change is invisible or distant for most people. It's melting ice in the Arctic -- too bad for the polar bears, but it doesn't affect me or my family.
And when people see experts apparently debating some aspect of climate change, they think there is uncertainty about the issue, resulting in a "nobody really knows" perception, Breakwell told IPS.
"That uncertainty produces resistance to behavioural changes," she said. And so we sit on our hands, concerned perhaps about the rising river but unwilling to be first to race to the dikes.
There are reasons for this seeming paralysis, and some have little to do with science.
Thousands of researchers from around the world have studied the issue for the better part of two decades and declared climate change an imminent danger to human civilisation. The best and brightest scientific minds speak openly now about cascading climate catastrophes. Scientific societies by the dozen from many nations and disciplines have issued warnings and impassioned calls to sharply reduce emissions.
This news has not been taken well by corporations dependent for their profits on fossil fuels. Just as the tobacco industry spent decades denying the health impacts of smoking and delaying anti-tobacco legislation, oil companies like Exxon Mobil, the parent company of Esso, and U.S. coal companies have and are still employing the same tactics of confusion and contradiction to manufacture uncertainty and hold up collective action on climate, critics say.
Public uncertainty about climate is also reinforced by behavioural norms: If no one is acting as if climate change is a serious problem, then how can it be one?
"People also resist doing things that are different from what everyone one else is doing," said Breakwell.
Driving your car at 50 miles per hour optimises gas mileage and cuts CO2 emissions, but most people can't do it when everyone else on the road is driving 70 mph. Even when you know you'll save money driving at 50 and want to reduce your emissions, it is difficult to do, she said.
Role models and regulations are needed to shift what's perceived as "different" behaviour so that they become the "new normal". Simple explanations of why such a shift was necessary gained traction during the U.S. energy crisis of the 1970s, when highway speed limits were lowered to 55 mph. Newspapers and television broadcasts were filled with reminders to conserve energy. "Last Out, Lights Out" stickers were added to millions of light switches. The U.S. government told automakers to boost fuel efficiency. Everyone knew the reason why and complied.
"With climate change it's not so clear what people ought to do," said Breakwell. "Experts need to give a simple and consistent message of what can be done to reduce emissions."
Feedback is also important for shifting behaviour, she said. If cars had a gauge that showed drivers how their mile per gallon average declined the faster they went, many would drive slower.
"We need many more indicators that show the consequences of our behaviour," she said.
Even something as simple as a bumper sticking saying a truck is limited to 50 mph to conserve energy and reduce emissions is both a reminder and reinforcement to others to drive slower.
"Policy-makers need to apply these simple psychological techniques if they want to shift society to a low-carbon economy," said Breakwell.
What is clear is that climate change is a problem that requires both collective and individual action to move towards a "climate-safe" way of living, detailed in the third article in this series.
*This story is part two of a four-part examination of the psychological and behavioural changes needed to dial down the temperature on our global greenhouse. Part one appeared on Apr. 1, 2008.
(END/2008)
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=41832