PowerSwitch

...and right down to the skeptical 'man on the street', so to speak - a previously scathing-about-AGW neighbour of mine, of above-average intelligence, has finally admitted he's convinced about climate change. If you knew the man, you'd realise it's not a small admission for him. Let's hope others of similar outlook see the light.

That neighbour of mine travelled the world in the merchant navy for twenty years, then worked in air traffic control for the Atlantic for thirty years, so when he takes AGW seriously (at last), he's speaking with some authority about weather/climate.

With Sandy we seemed to have moved from the 'You can't say anything about a single weather event' to explanations as to how this weather event is related to global warming. Take this from Jeff Masters, for example: http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/show.html

So. Now we know it is climate change. What's going to change?

Well obviously we're all going to stop burning fossil fuel, eat organic food and read poetry to each other.

Sorted.

stumuzz wrote:So. Now we know it is climate change. What's going to change?

Well we certainly aren't going to prioritise carbon reduction over (futile attempts to generate economically sustainable) growth. There may be more debates about possible ways to geo-engineer some sort of solution (which will inevitably either not work very well or produce unwanted side-effects, but at least we will be taking the issue seriously....)

biffvernon wrote:Well obviously we're all going to --------------------, eat organic food and read poetry to each other.

You need to visit Brighton maybe...

Technology will provide the answer. It will be geoengineering for the US so that they can maintain the 'Merican Way of Life unhindered. When that throws up side effects it will be another pill to counteract the side effects of the first pill and then another.... Rather along the lines of pharmacological treatments.

I was thinking of more down to earth pragmatic answers ( not that i have got any)

I have always thought the reason most people ignore or don't engage with climate change is their total impedance to do anything about it. The single mum on benefits or the van driver with two kids getting tax credits and just about surviving week to week, is going to view climate change as a 'they or them' problem.

The climate change industry never seems to come up with micro solutions to the real problems facing people. An offer to the single mum to train her in sustainability and in return pay her more and show her how to save more.

The climate message is one of despair. Change the message and offer real life alternatives and people will get on board.

stumuzz wrote: The climate change industry never seems to come up with micro solutions to the real problems facing people. An offer to the single mum to train her in sustainability and in return pay her more and show her how to save more.

I'm not sure , though. If we are to live a more simple, localized life she shouldn't need more money. More money now mean buying more things, contributing to the problem you're trying to solve.

Of course, if we could all be encouraged to save that would be great, but people are used to spend spend spend and see little point in anything else.

It's a problem without a man made solution, unfortunately.

The best thing that most people could do would be to start growing some food. Even if its a bit of salad in some pots on the window cill it would help and it would give people some satisfaction and a bit of motivation to find a bigger area to grow on.

A voucher for a bike and kiddy trailer for the poor would help. Get people to use CFLs or LEDs. The power companies give CFLs away so they shouldn't be out of the reach of those on benefits. There are so many little things that can be done but that people don't know about that would save them money as well as carbon that the government should run courses for benefit recipients, initially and compulsory, and then for everyone.

Little things add up and empower people. Empowered people might then ask why the government isn't doing more. But perhaps that's why the government doesn't encourage people very much. Empowered people might affect the great economic cancer, GROWTH, negatively.

I think we need to face the facts that Joe Bloggs doesn't give a toss about climate change or villages being flooded in Bangladesh or anything else until the water is running through his garden. Even then his cry is for higher flood defences to shift the problem somewhere else.

What green needs is to be more fashionable, not sensible.

More TV programs showing glamorous people growing fruit and veg, more Nigella Lawson putting the sex into compost (now there's a mucky image). I know it sounds shallow, but look at the viewing figures for soap operas and talent shows if you need convincing that the average viewer isn't Lake Baikal.

And some wartime spirit too, tell them the French are growing far more veg than us, that should do it. Better still, tell them the Germans laugh at our cabbages and snigger at our carrots.

You think I'm joking ? No. Get it on TV and send free seeds to everyone who wants them. It's the only way.

If everyone did everything on this list...

...it wouldn't make any difference.

emordnilap wrote:If everyone did everything on this list...

...it wouldn't make any difference.

Well there's definitely no point in writing to politicians.