Press Association - Tuesday July 3, 2007 - Guardian Unlimited
The UK public remains sceptical about how much impact climate change will have on the country and believes the problem is being overstated by politicians and scientists, according to a poll out today.
Research by Ipsos Mori shows that while most Britons recognise the problem of climate change and that humans have played a role in causing it, many are not convinced that the issue is as bad as the scientists and politicians claim.
There is also scepticism about "greenspin" and a feeling that the situation is being overstated in order to raise revenue rather than save the planet.
Despite efforts by the government to encourage people to take action to make their own lives greener, the researchers found many were ignoring the messages, and listed other issues as of greater immediate concern.
Although 45% of those questioned said climate change was the greatest threat to mankind, terrorism, crime, graffiti and even dog mess were all higher on the list of local concerns.
Ipsos Mori interviewed 2,031 adults in their homes between June 14 and 20, and found that 56% believe scientists themselves are still questioning climate change and believe there is a live debate going on, when in fact there is virtual scientific consensus.
Phil Downing, head of environmental research at Ipsos Mori, said: "Our research shows there is still a lot to do to win the public over on climate change and encourage low-carbon lifestyles.
"We are alive to climate change and very few people actually reject out of hand the idea the climate is changing or that humans have had at least some part to play in this.
"However, a significant number have many doubts about exactly how serious it really is and believe it has been over-hyped."
Mr Downing said the majority of the population were "fairweather environmentalists", who were unwilling to give up luxuries like flying, driving and owning a plasma TV.
"The government needs to find new ways to sell low-carbon lifestyles to the public and that any changes they make will be matched by others as part of a collective solution," he said.
Sir David Read, vice president of the Royal Society, said: "It is crucial to emphasise that the vast majority of climate scientists believe that humans are having an unprecedented effect on our climate.
"People should not be misled by those that exploit the complexity of the issue, seeking to distort the science and deny the seriousness of the potential consequences of climate change.
"The science very clearly points towards the need for us all-nations, businesses and individuals to do as much as possible, as soon as possible to avoid the worst consequences of a changing climate."
What chance do we have of convincing such an apathetic public about the seriousness of the potential consequences of Peak Oil?
Westerners assume Climate Change affects the third world. And that alternative energy sources (which mostly have oil underpinnings) will replace all depleted oil, which won't run out for decades anyway.
No chance of getting your typical prole to question any of that.
The UK public remains sceptical about how much impact climate change will have on the country and believes the problem is being overstated by ... scientists, according to a poll out today.
So, those who don?t know what they are talking about think that those who do know what they are talking about have over stated the problem? Fascinating!
Aurora wrote:
What chance do we have of convincing such an apathetic public about the seriousness of the potential consequences of Peak Oil?
Well, I suppose the good new is you don?t need to convince everyone. Civilisation is a process where the majority are dragged along. Often dramatic things happen because a small group gets them moving. You just need the right few in the right place at the right time.
And if that doesn?t work, the human race will get what it deserves.
Yesterday, in a personal conversation with a reliable source (who I shall not name), I heard that the government is planning to achieve 70% of our carbon reduction (from now to 2050) by purchasing credits from abroad....
The right people in the right place at the right time... sounds like a cue for peakniks to get involved in the political process at a grassroots level. Try your parish council... not much power, but it does report to the borough council or equivalent, and you may find that if you're under 50, you're in an extreme minority.
Which is not to say that older folk don't know about PO or aren't as useful as council members, merely that for a democratic body to comprise only those of one gender, one age group, or one race, is for it not to be as representative as it should be.
I've joined the parish council. Can you tell?
Green, political and narrative songs - contemporary folk from an award-winning songwriter and performer. Now booking 2011. Talis Kimberley ~ www.talis.net ~ also Bandcamp, FB etc...
mikepepler wrote:Yesterday, in a personal conversation with a reliable source (who I shall not name), I heard that the government is planning to achieve 70% of our carbon reduction (from now to 2050) by purchasing credits from abroad....
This clearly will not work given Peak Oil.
I understand - although I totally, 100%, gold plated, 180 degrees disagree with - the view that buying carbon reductions abroad rather than delivering them yourself is cheating and inferior.
However, I don't understand how PO means it won't work . Could you expand a bit please? Is your concern that we'd be paying people in other countries not to emit carbon when they wouldn't be emitting any anyway, since there'd be no fossil fuels for them to burn? But then there would still be a carbon reduction, and a transfer of wealth to (presumably) a developing country would still have taken place, so that's not so bad an outcome is it?
John Sauven wrote:An Ipsos Mori poll, undertaken last month, has found that the public doesn't trust government and scientific claims about climate change, said the BBC's website yesterday. Further, 56% of respondents believe many scientists have to yet to be convinced of the arguments on global warming.
However, surely the key finding of the poll is the fact that 70% agreed that the government should take the lead in combating climate change, even if it means using the law to change people's behaviour. This is allied to the fact that 90% agree that climate change will have a significant impact on future generations. These are the two key findings. The rest is noise: for example, that scientists are split down the middle on whether human activity is contributing to climate change. We know the clear fact is that scientists are almost unanimous in their agreement on this.
Government is elected precisely to take difficult decisions especially regarding the future security not just of the UK, but of the planet. It is also elected to make the difficult decisions about the health and welfare of future generations who don't have a voice but are going to be impacted by the decisions we make today. And it also has a responsibility to deal with an issue that we in the west are historically responsible for, but that people in the south are going to suffer the worst consequences of.
Despite the headlines, I don't believe the poll really shows that the public are in denial about climate change. Public understanding of climate change is broadly increasing. I think what the poll does show is that the public are looking for leadership in dealing with an issue which is both complex and requires bold action at a national and international level. If we are in future going to have more "quality" and less "quantity" in our lives in order to live more sustainably, then the government has got to transform and not just tinker with key issues around transport, agriculture and energy. The economy rests on ecological foundations. If we don't protect those ecological foundations the economy won't survive. The opinion poll rightly points the finger at a government that has been good at the rhetoric but sadly lacking when it comes to the practical action.
John Sauven wrote:However, surely the key finding of the poll is the fact that 70% agreed that the government should take the lead in combating climate change, even if it means using the law to change people's behaviour.
So, there we are. "Mission accomplished" I would say. Big hairy threat out there and only government can save us. More power to government. Great. Same old, same old...
John Sauven wrote:However, surely the key finding of the poll is the fact that 70% agreed that the government should take the lead in combating climate change, even if it means using the law to change people's behaviour.
So, there we are. "Mission accomplished" I would say. Big hairy threat out there and only government can save us. More power to government. Great. Same old, same old...
This tells that people don't want to give up BAU behaviours; it should just be something that the government takes care of. This is the same problem we have in trying to convince people that peak energy is (a) real and (b) a problem that means BAU is no longer an option (not for much longer anyway). Two problems, one root cause, one dilemma for those trying to address it.
Yesterday, in a personal conversation with a reliable source (who I shall not name), I heard that the government is planning to achieve 70% of our carbon reduction (from now to 2050) by purchasing credits from abroad....
If that's true (and I hope it isn't) then it's thoroughly depressing. If there is any body of people (outside of the climate scientists themselves) who by now should be completely aware of GW and the threat it poses it should be our politicians.
Besides which, this (if true) idiotic strategy of denial will get very expensive\impossible if everyone else decides to play the same game.
I can't help but think that reality will only sink in when we've gone beyond the GW event horizon (if we haven't already) and the climate really starts to get nasty.
It's frustrating but collectively we just aren't wired up to react emotionally to something as abstract as temperature increases.
The crappy thing about CO2 is that it is so damn innocuous, if only it smelt obnoxious or was opaque we might get off our collective backsides and do something to really combat this issue.
The most complete exposition of a social myth comes when the myth itself is waning (Robert M MacIver 1947)
Yesterday, in a personal conversation with a reliable source (who I shall not name), I heard that the government is planning to achieve 70% of our carbon reduction (from now to 2050) by purchasing credits from abroad....
If that's true (and I hope it isn't) then it's thoroughly depressing. If there is any body of people (outside of the climate scientists themselves) who by now should be completely aware of GW and the threat it poses it should be our politicians.
But that's exactly why it's so important to use resources as effectively as possible in seeking to reduce carbon emissions. If the same amount of money will deliver a carbon emissions reduction of 100 tonnes if spent in the UK and 1000 tonnes if spent in India, which will bring more benefit in tackliong global warming, so which is the more effective use of that money? It really does seem to me that those who insist that all the UK effort and resource has to be concentrated on reducing emissions from the UK are actively harming the cause of tackling climate change. They are advocating diverting resources which would deliver better results elsewhere, into inefficiency and waste here.
Of course "everybody" can't buy carbon reduction from somebody else, just as "everybody" can't buy food, or clothes, or legal advice from somebody else. Somebody has to actually grow the food, make the clothes, provide the legal advice, make the carbon reduction. But it's not unreasonable to believe that indicating willingness to pay for something is as good a way as any of encouraging people to come forward and offer to provide it, and ensuring that resources find their way to wherever they'll deliver the most bang-per-buck.
I'd like to say that as a short term quick fix, I have no problem with buying credits and if CO2 can be scrubbed out of Indian\Chinese factories cheaper than in the UK then lets go to India\China.
However the original statement was that 70% of emissions upto 2050 would be covered by buying credits. Do they really think that they are seriously going to get away with this 'pass the buck' approach to CO2 emissions over the next 43 years? If they do then I'd like to suggest that they pull their collective heads out of the sand.
Commentators like Monbiot have stated that the UK has to reduce emissions by around 90% by 2030 to have a fighting chance of pulling free of climate change and he's not a lone voice.
If the developed nations accept that deep cuts are needed in the coming decades then they are living in a fantasy if they think that those cuts are going to be bought whilst maintaining a business as usual approach. After all they are the ones making those emissions in the first place!
Maybe Peak Oil and an energy descent will save us? Unlikely. Even if we are at peak oil we still have 50% of the stuff left (although a lot of that will never be extracted). More ominously we are a long way from peak coal and the oil co's will try their hardest to convert as much tar sand, oil shale and heavy oil to usable crude (and there are a lot of these resources left). You can also throw in natural gas and the picture is clear, there are more than enough hydrocarbon reserves left to drive through a PT style extinction or worse (if that's possible).
So relying on hydrocarbon depletion is not viable (IMO), what needs to be altered is this 'we'll just get someone else to do it for us' attitude.
We (i.e. the developed nations) are the ones creating most of this and we are the ones who have to clean it up. By all means let's buy some credits generated in developing nations as a part of the solution but to think that we can sit back for 43 years and buy our way out of this is a delusion.
The most complete exposition of a social myth comes when the myth itself is waning (Robert M MacIver 1947)
Considering Russia: "In 1992, the first full year after the demise of the USSR, Russian carbon dioxide emissions stood at 573.5 million tonnes, but by 1997 had fallen to 394.7 million tonnes - a 31 per cent decline in just five years."
If I remember correctly former-Soviet Eastern European states saw more dramatic declines.
Economic collapse appears more effective at reducing CO2 emissions than policy or fossil fuel depletion. I agree with Bob that recession-depression is likely and believe this also represents a significant reduction in CO2 emissions.
Peak oil could create a global recession-depression, destroying demand for fossil fuels below even their depleting envelope of production. Russia's economic collapse destroyed their demand for oil below their production capabilities.
Last edited by clv101 on 05 Jul 2007, 17:00, edited 3 times in total.
. Could you expand a bit please? Is your concern that we'd be paying people in other countries not to emit carbon when they wouldn't be emitting any anyway, since there'd be no fossil fuels for them to burn? But then there would still be a carbon reduction, and a transfer of wealth to (presumably) a developing country would still have taken place, so that's not so bad an outcome is it?
