Melbourne based blogger Andrew Norton was the first person I saw use the term ‘the real greenhouse denialists’ to describe people who accept the scientific arguments about climate change, but still aren’t prepared to try to make the major changes to their own lifestyles that would be necessary to meet the required emission levels.
I think this term encapsulates what I see as the biggest barrier to addressing the climate change threat – a lack of awareness of just how much we need to change our economic and personal behaviours, and/or a lack of willingness to do it (as well as the normal human approach of expecting ’someone else’ to ‘do something’ when it comes to big problems)
As Andrew Norton put it last year
This is the greenhouse ‘denialist’ problem – not a few conservatives arguing that climate change is a left-wing conspiracy, but a public that accepts the theory but rejects the consequences of their beliefs.
There have been a couple more reports of late which reinforce this view.
The ABC reported recently on a survey done by the Australian National University which found that “Australians are deeply concerned about global warming but are only prepared to change their behaviour in small ways.”
A report in The Age details a survey of students from 57 countries by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and asserts that “Australian teenagers just aren’t ready to change their lifestyle to protect the environment”
Only one in 10 Australian teens strongly support the regulation of factory emissions that could lead to product price rises, less than a quarter strongly supported emission checks on vehicles as a condition of use and one in seven strongly supported cutting back on unnecessary use of electrical appliances.
Support among Australian teens for emission controls on vehicles and factories was the second lowest among the 57 countries.Professor Sweet, an independent education consultant and former senior education analyst at the OECD, says the reluctance to make personal sacrifices to improve the environment might be linked to the conservative political climate the 15-year-olds grew up in.
The Australian teens started school when John Howard’s coalition government was elected and turned 16 last year when his government was defeated. “These students were not getting strong signals from the government,” Professor Sweet says. “If the country’s political leaders are not prepared to say we should make sacrifices and adjust our lifestyles, then it’s not surprising the attitudes of these teenagers are as negative as they are. The attitudes of the US students tend to be equally far down the league tables and the US government had a similar approach to the environment.”
One could blame a lack of leadership at the political level, and there would be some validity in doing so. But one can also say that most politicians are only willing to get a certain distance ahead of public opinion. If the majority of the public aren’t really showing any great willingness to make major change, why should politicians believe they are really serious?
However, there is still plenty of room for stronger leadership and positive encouragement for people to make greater changes, make it easier for people to do so and to show that it isn’t as hard or cause the sort of major economic disruption that is often feared.
Pressure needs to be kept on politicians to take stronger action, but just as much effort needs to go into convincing people to start making bigger changes to their behaviour than a few new lightbulbs.
As noted here (and here), I’ll be participating in a panel of speakers at a Common Ground forum on climate change in Sydney on Wednesday night, 26th November, following on from speeches by Bob Carr and Pru Goward (click here for full venue, event and RSVP details).
These forums are put on by the Centre for Policy Development. As the name suggests, the forums aim to explore common ground for action rather than polarised attacks. However, that doesn’t mean a big group hug. I expect there will be some differences of opinion, but differences shouldn’t be used as the reason to stop forward movement on the often substantial areas where there is agreement.
Unfortunately, this seems to be where we are heading when it comes to action at the federal parliamentary level, where despite broad agreement on the need for an Emissions Trading Scheme, short-term politics may well lead to the areas of difference getting in the way of any forward movement at all.
Which brings me back to the need to spend as much time as possible building greater public support for significant change, rather than focusing only on the politicians.
25 Comments
Andrew,
I think one element of the personal denialism we see is being driven by the pragmatic response to harder times. People are flying less, driving less, using more public transport, and becoming much more careful with domestic electricity because they must. I could claim for example to have slashed my fossil fuel consumption by more than 85% because my toll road account shows that I have done just that, not because I’m being ‘good’ but because of the spread of wi-fi (use computer or Blackberry on train gain hours of productivity in process, save enormous sums of money on petrol and parking) pays me to change my habits.
But people can then loose interest in the bigger picture, as in ‘I’ve done my bit, so when does it get cold again’ sort of logic.
The real science of the carbon cycles, and the need for radically better energy technology including our natural advantages in solar and hot rock processes is generally being ignored, including by scientists who should know better, in a torrent of carbon copism that makes people worry about breathing deeply or farting too much. It also encourages those who deep down see a wonderful opportunity for grand scale social engineering arise. Some of things that get said in the public arena about climate change make Sarah Palin’s views on foreign policy look sophisticated.
I think the way to turn people around on these issues is to engage them with the science, not shower them with slogans. It is the hard way, but in the long run, the only way to take the alarming and dangerous anthropogenic component of climate change out of play.
It’s one thing to believe in climate change, quite another to imagine the
consequences, and entirely different to fully feel, or empathise with its
impact on yourself or the ones you love. People with power often
feel that bad things always happen to others, and this belief will
limit the fear that would otherwise drive action. If, for example, we
get a 30 year long El Nino as a result of
climate change, the monsoons in Asia will fail and the massive
productivity of the Murray Darling Basin will become a memory. How many Australian
politicians would imagine that their local supermarket would suddenly have
empty shelves? We easily imagine empty shelves elsewhere, because we
see them on TV news programs.
If we want to galvanise action on climate change
then I’d suggest Coles and Woolworths instigate random “empty shelf days”. Once
every 3 months, just destock the shelves without notice for a couple
of days. Likewise petrol stations. Likewise power stations.
This might get people to FEEL what is in the pipeline. Start by just cutting
the power to our various Parliaments every so often
and periodically cancelling the catering.
It is hardly surprising that people who are aware of the climate change problem, but not really engaged with it, are reluctant to commit to the sort of sacrifice option questions that pollsters and researchers put to them. As always, the only real way to judge what people will do is to apply some stringency measures, at the same time as you try to sell the message that these are absolutely necessary. Political leaders (remember them?) used to do this, and if you look back at that pre-spin, pre-poll era, they managed to get quite a lot done. These days, politicians seem to want to venture an occasional adventurous statement about the seriousness of climate change, and then retreat to wait for a popular groundswell of demand that they enact something or other to deal with it. This won’t work; they know that; we know that. Thomas Friedman, in his latest book “Hot, Flat and Crowded” cites an Indian corporate leader who explains that attempting to turn off the global economic growth machine (in response to environmental degradation) would be poltical suicide “..and why would any politician commit suicide? So because no-one wants to commit individual suicide, we are all committing collective suicide.”
Your post tangentially fits with what something I have been turning over in my mind since tuning into last night’s episode of ‘The Howard Years’.
Leaving aside my general opinion of John Howard, his stance on gun control (unpopular both within his party and its core constituency) during the first year of the Liberal’s first term in office for over a decade was commendable. This position needs to be taken with regards to climate change – its just that I’m not confident that our current batch of leader’s possess the necessary initiative or political will.
Geoff,
Tim Flannery has raised the spectre of Perth becoming the first modern city to be abandoned because of climate change, although irrational use of the ground water reserves is another factor.
If you wish to impress on people the terrible consequences of climate change in Australia, a stark example is found along the long arid shores of Lake Mungo, which toward the climax of the last ice age was indeed the fabled inland sea. The landscape was open grasslands and broken woods. We can see where Indigenous agriculture may have started to flourish. Where Mungo man and Mungo woman were buried with ceremony, and trade from further parts may have begun, if the clues have been read correctly.
There was social order and some form of economic surplus in play on the shores of Lake Mungo. All turned to dust, literally, by climate change. What happened there was part of a long cyclical process. What is happening now is being driven by an intense and massive overwhelming of the natural process by the release of copious quantities of fossilised carbon. The seas are becoming acidic because they can’t cope quickly enough. The marine food chain is being broken. There are synthetic halons in the atmosphere that have never been present in the 4 billion year long natural history of the planet.
This is the biggest test yet of our adaptability and ingenuity as a species. I fear that this is not reflected in the public debate, nor the political responses, nor in the scale of public and private risk capital investment in finding energy alternatives.
eek.
Yes, Ben. There is no shortage of evidence for people with the time and inclination to
investigate. But we are running out of time and we are still stuffing round with turning
off lights and green shopping bags!
I’ll believe politicians are serious about climate change when they take beef off
the menu at Parliament House.
… and replace it with kangaroo meat?
When I see the masses giving up cheap flights for the sake of the planet I’ll start believing we have some hope. Until then, we’re doomed!
Yes Kangaroo!. A lot less methane to produce and better suited to our climate. Properly managed the meat is lean and parasite free. Better than Pork.
I believe there are some Aussie ranchers keen to get this one off the ground. Pity about the national emblem but it would be a traditional dish for this land. Don’t be squeamish.
Look, I am not convinced on the whole carbon greenhouse issue yet (be nice I say “yet”) and there is a lot of good debate on the against side that is not getting much airtime. Hardly a fair approach or scientific if we do not get to see both arguments. The press are on the bandwagon now and there’s no stopping it. Once highly respected naturalists such as David Ballamy are being given the cold-shoulder. Oh the Irony! It seems nothing short of heresy to question what is starting to resemble a carbon-neutral religious fervour. Where did all the carbon locked up in fossil fuels come from in the first place? Surely the atmosphere? You can’t really create the stuff you know. You just move it about. (Like water) As I understand it, we in Oz will be protected somewhat by the hole in the Ozone layer!! (jeez mate) Anybody comment on that? And now the Norwegian Lemmings have stopped commiting mass suicide (see my blog!). Just as well as they are not such good eating. Guinea pig is preferred in Peru. What next? Less pollution is good, no question there. Always has been that way and I support that 100%. I am not on the road to Damascus yet though.
Carbonsink,
I’ll bite. Do you see air transport as reserved for the elite? Or should we give up shipping our exports and imports first, since shipping wasn’t counted in some IPCC reports, but is regarded as being roughly double the contributor of green house gases as is air transport.
My own view is that the aircraft manufacturers are over-estimating the growth of air travel in the future, partly because the western markets are mature and reaching a fairly stable level, not counting the sharp decline starting to appear in recent weeks because of the financial crisis.
In Europe fast trains are taking over the growth that had been assumed to be owned by air as new city pairs come on line, and even in the US Amtrack is making a partial comeback. It is true nothing will happen to revive rail in Australia, perhaps apart from metropolitan area services, and definitely not in Sydney in our life times.
The growth zones for air travel will be in the eastern half of Asia, but they also have the population and plausible population densities to make next generation maglev or high speed surface links work on a huge scale before the century is half gone.
Personally I’m in favor of sail, or non-fossil fuel burning steam ships, or steam/sail/solar hybrids. Or the return of the Zeppelins, in my dreamings of course. I began my career in journalism 48 years ago quickly becoming the last (full time) shipping cadet for the Sydney Morning Herald. I saw the jet age come, and the scheduled passenger liners go. I may well see the jet age reach its maximum altitude, just as I saw the astonishing fleet that linked most of this country to the rest of the world disappear over the horizon.
Ben,
LOL! The IPCC doesn’t count international air travel either!
Passenger numbers have been growing at 5-6% p.a. for 20 years. Around 2.5 billion passengers will travel by air in 2008. If current growth rates continue (at say 5.5%) for the next 42 years, then there will 26 billion passenger movements in 2050!
I disagree about slowing growth in air travel. Absent global economic catastrophe (which can’t be completely ruled out ATM) growth in air travel is accelerating, certainly in developing countries.
Your very defensive reaction to my (somewhat provacative) comment is yet another indication that even the most committed environmentalists are unwilling to give up flying.
I dare say our esteemed host has f*rted out several hundred tonnes of CO2 during his tenure in the red house, and I don’t doubt for a moment that he is an honourable and decent man who genuinely believes action on climate change is urgent. He almost certainly bought offsets, and the very best quality offsets at that, but the inconvenient truth is, the best thing he could have done is not fly.
Oh BTW, very fast trains are almost as bad as very fast planes, unless its a French nuclear-powered TGV of course, but lets not open that can of worms.
Still not convinced? Then watch good old George destroy your arguments here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbYsZFEYclM
So your position is one that involves not doing anything but locking down social activity because carbon will be released?
The real issue is replacing the release of excessive quantities of fossilized carbon. And that among other things requires economies that deliver a sufficient surplus of wealth that can through policy or market settings invest in finding those alternatives.
I doubt that fossil fuel will be burned in the airliners of 2040 if octane producing microbological research delivers a sustainable alternative to kerosene. Or energy is transmitted to or received by machines of any form rather than carried as fuel. We live in a universe seething with unlimited energy at the quantum level. It will be tapped one day.
In terms of future growth of air transport I think we are missing a number of factors. Flying is an increasingly miserable experience. By and large, this isn’t going to change. Bigger windows, wider seats, quieter cabins, sure, but flying, like inner city driving, is something people seem to wish to minimize, especially if the result is $$$ in their favor and quality time with family.
The growth you see at the moment is essentially from those who previously couldn’t afford to fly to do business, meet peers or attend conferences, not additional low frequency leisure travellers.
But they will be as finite as the main source of airline business right up to the low fare revolution. They will hit the same limits of tolerance for flying as those ‘elite’ flyers of the 80s and 90s, who contributed most of the traffic and whose fares were overwhelmingly purchased by the public service and large corporations.
This is why air transport growth into the future will cease to be linear.
A bigger issue for me in reporting on this industry has been the rise of anti-technologists who insist there is no possibility of air transport, or motor transport, or heavy industry, inventing their ways out of excessive liberation of fossilized carbon. What I term the anti-technology tendency also takes the view that the only possible solution is to shut down or rigidly control economic activity, and mobility, and engage in a somewhat zealous micro management of our lives.
While I find arguments to the contrary interesting, because they are evidence that ‘we’ are all looking for answers, I take the view that bright invention is preferable to dogmatic intervention.
I should point out that “flatus” is more an issue of methane than CO2 as the breakdown of matter is anaerobic in the gut. Methane has a much higher global warming potential (GWP) than CO2 by about 72 times! And yes, it is covered by the Kyoto Protocol. Burning Methane produces CO2 (sigh) and water (good) but overall it looks like it is better to burn it than leave it as it is more harmful itself than its combustion by-product. Ergo, the more methane we can capture and burn as fuel the better would you agree? Note ‘capture’ not ‘produce’ as there is already abundant generation of methane to be harnessed for good rather than the evil it now does. There may be some merit in biomass (poo) generators. On this premise alone I confidently predict Canberra could power the whole nation!
Ben: I agree we cannot go backwards! Jet engines could conceivably run on “botty-burps”!
BTW many are unaware that we are already making some use of Methane from landfill. A friend of mine is involved in these installations and says they are not really cost effective at the moment and are high upkeep but they are proving the technology works. Has to be a move in the right direction. http://www.energex.com.au/switched_on/power_up/power_up_landfill.html
No my position is that we have to tackle the growth economy if we are going to solve this problem. We simply can’t allow 25 billion people to fly 40 years from now if we are to have a habitable planet. Problem is, if China and India keep growing like they have been, they’ll be able to afford it.
I suggest you read Robert Rapier’s blog for a does of reality on biofuels. There is no alternative to kerosene on the horizon, at least not one with lower energy inputs and with lower life-cycle CO2 emissions.
The energy transmission stuff is pretty ‘out there’. Where did you read that? Popular Science, next to the article on perpetual motion machines?
Mate, I am not an anti-technologist. I work in technology, always have. There are good low carbon solutions for ground transportation and stationary electricity generation, but there’s nothing on the horizon for air travel. Nothing.
Beevo,
I thought the opacity of methane in terms of atmospheric green house gas effects was between 22 and 23 times that of carbon dioxide.
Methane however breaks down very rapidly compared to the latter, which will reduce only slowly through natural processes. There is a need for care to be taken in discussing methane, apart from during socially awkward moments. For example, I read one somewhat hysterical reader comment in Crikey recently expressing alarm at how much methane would be liberated into the atmosphere during forest fires. The answer of course is none. It is like asking how much petroleum will be injected into the atmosphere when an oil refinery goes up. None. It burns. Methane is the prime component of natural gas.
The issue too isn’t how much methane is ‘liberated’ by livestock or humans, but how much carbon dioxide overload is being pumped out by industrial processes that burn fossil fuels (which can include methane rich natural gas, which releases carbon dioxide and other pollutants during combustion.)
The accidental or willful fudging of all carbon emissions involved in the natural carbon cycles with the persistent and serious long term consequences of fossil fuel releases means the focus of the debate is blurred. We need a sharp focus surely on the prime issue, which is ‘dirty’ energy.
Carbonsink,
You are backing yourself into the same corner as those moments in late colonial history when the popular media would run “We warn the Tsar” headlines. How exactly do you propose stopping the Chinese and Indians from flying if they decide they can afford to do so?
You are out of touch with the commitment by the air transport industry to devise and use non fossil fuel sources of fuel. Your comment also illustrates the danger of the anti-technology position, in that its authority would rest on suppressing innovation. I don’t think we can say in 2008, hey, it’s all over. Shut it down. There is no solution.
This is the same problem that would arise if for example, large economies decided they had to go down the nuclear fission path for base power load generation as a compulsory and urgent pathway to drastically reducing fossilized carbon release. There is no economic or environmentally rational case for adopting ‘old style’ fission for base load power, but if it was embraced on a massive and urgent scale, the state would have to suppress any subsequent clean energy initiatives that might emerge to undermine that investment, and the restrictive legal environment, that would facilitate the massive use of nuclear energy.
Once it becomes official policy that there are no technological solutions to clean flight, or clean anything for that matter, the stability of such a closed society depends on crushing dissent or innovation.
Sort of like the Rudd Government in its embrace of clean coal at the expense of solar or other renewable solutions.
Carbon-sink: “The energy transmission stuff is pretty ‘out there’. Where did you read that? Popular Science, next to the article on perpetual motion machines? “…jeez!
Try here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission#Superconducting_cables
They quote 50% reduction in wasted energy and then use half that to cool the cable so still ahead. Possible cheaper than the cost of purchasing land in cities for more overhead cables.
Ben: Yes but atmosheric methane mainly (about 90%)breaks down naturally in the troposphere forming water vapour and CO2!! same-same!. There is a difference in emissions from burning natural gas which is not pure methane and is a fossil fuel but that was not really my point either. Rather that it must be better to use the biomass stuff.
I was quoting the GWP number as follows but don’t see your point… mine sounded much bigger but it is still worse whichever way you look!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential
Indeed, methane’s shorter half-life makes it a much better target for reduction as this will impact more rapidly on potential global warming than concentrating on CO2 alone. This will buy you more time to deal with the CO2.
Why must these things always end this way? YOU were wanting to run jets on cleaner fuel so the Chinese don’t have to walk to Europe for holidays. I was just trying to help. I guess we stray from the original point about what we would personally give up? The transport issue is a biggy as I cannot see society functioning without airtravel and cars. We have to find a way to make them work. Our infrastructure would completely collapse.
Bevo,
I agree we have to find a way to make them work, and of course responsibly. Non fossil carbon releasing fuel will come, the question is when, and one answer that is unacceptable is anything that comes at the expense of agricultural production, hence the sudden fascination in the past year by the aircraft and engine makers in fuel derived from algae.
If we were to shut down the air transport sector (apart from flights for the ruling elite) the investment in those innovations will never occur. I don’t think the public purse will ever be raided that extensively to help airlines. That is not politically feasible. These innovations have to be paid for by the industry, and so far, that is happening, because the market for acceptable fleet replacement with green machines is enormous, and so far, those who fly the cleanest jets are also enjoying cost benefits that are seriously useful in the current adverse trading environment.
Ben: Algae… good call. I will have to look at that. Did I put the wrong spin on my comment? I am not anti-airtravel. Far from it, I am actually a private pilot. Neither am I a convert to the global warming scenario and its causes or final scenarios. I am not in denial, I am still sceptical and feel it has been politically enhanced and exploded into the public forum without balanced scientific evidence or alternative outcomes. However, I see no need not to reduce all undesirable emissions. I am scared that all of the drama over carbon emissions/global warming and the attitudes that are emerging will crush the dreams of people like me wishing to see the world we are trying to save and it will be considered immoral to travel for pleasure and enlightenment. There have been remarkable inceases in efficiency from technology and design with subsequent savings to operators and passengers. In the end, it won’t be about cost as we have seen the oil price is very flexible and demand driven. the OPEC nations will always make sure they charge as much as they can get away with until demand drops and then the price will slide down again. Look at what has happened to prices since the latest global downturn. They will make sure it all gets burned eventually, I truly believe that. Conversely I do not believe the answer for anyone lies in artificially adding to fossil fuel costs with taxes and trading schemes. It just wont work. Oil will just get cheaper.
has anyone calculated how much oil is left and when it will run out?
Yes, the discussion on agri-fuel sources (biofuel crops) does ignore the use of food-producing land being procured for fuel production. A similar argument has surfaced against carbon-sink investment forest planting too.
Beevo,
If the focus of public discussion can be kept on the release of fossilized carbon it means the core issue of the manmade component of green house gas emissions being liberated in unprecedented volumes over a very short time frame is more likely to be better addressed by public policy settings.
The distractions that get thrown up about methane, which is predominantly released by decaying vegetable matter, or farting livestock,have very little contact with the burning of huge amounts of coal or oil. They are part of the short term carbon cycles. We need to target carbon by origin rather than have hysterics about all carbon.
If surface transport systems had experienced the same market driven efficiency drive as air transport in the past 30 years the industrial contribution to greenhouse gas forcing might well have been halved by now. It is ironic that these improvements were not motivated by concerns about greenhouse gases but more mundane things like community outrage over the black sooty contrails of the early 707s and DC-8s and a need to cut costs and find ways of flying jets non-stop from Europe to LA instead of one-stop to New York via Gander or Prestwick.
If an ETS will work along similar lines it clearly will be welcomed. If it leads to more synthetic derivatives like those that are bringing down the global financial system, and results in balance sheet engineering rather than transport engineering, then very little benefit is going to emerge.
Perhaps my last word here as the topic fades with time and we drift from the original thread… and it may be too old for anyone to look here anymore.
Have a look at Andrew’s Crikey post about “Carbon Levy instead of ETS for farms” (nov 3 2008)
(http://blogs.crikey.com.au/bartlett/2008/11/03/carbon-levy-instead-of-ets-for-farms/)
refers to a report from the Australia Institute which concurs with my comments about Methane in the short term (ie. achievable in your lifetime type!) We are not talking about native animals but agricultural livestock. Surely an essential service but a man-made issue if ever there was one. Hardly a distraction, but not something anybody wants to do anything about.
I am not having a go at the farmers or the poor livstock. My concern is that the panic attacks are going to cost us and not deliver any outcomes. Any real hope (assuming this is a problem with a solution) may lie in actively scrubbing the atmosphere of CO2 (http://www.physorg.com/news141915261.html) as I will bet London-to-a-brick that if it is in the ground (fossil fuel) it WILL be dug up and burned until it is all gone. Guaranteed.
PS Andrew, is there a better way to put permalinks into a reply like this??
You can put a hyperlink in through using code
a href=”URL” with the text in the middle, followed by /a normally does it (with the <> thingies around the code, which I didn’t put in cos it turns them into code and than you can’t see them)
(quote)the term ‘the real greenhouse denialists’ (end quote)
“greenhouse”? What greenhouse effect?
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
Gerlich, Gerhard; Tscheuschner, Ralf D.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161
The common misconception is;As we add more and more carbon atoms so more heat is retained by the increasing number and reflection of heat also increases
You missed the point regarding the fact that once the outgoing radiation that CO2 can capture has been absorbed there’s none left for additional CO2 to have any further influence – it’s a logarithmic effect i.e. the more CO2 you add the less the effect until there’s virtually no effect at all. And as you stated “reflects heat in all directions” – that’s out into space as well. This “greenhouse” has no roof.
The fact that that Co2 was many times higher in the past during extreme cold periods proves the point.
A simple way to explain it is;If you add extra blinds to a window the second has little effect and the third next to zilsh and so on.
So in fact,WHO REALLY ARE THE REAL DENIALISTS OF TRUTH?
THE SCAMERS,!THE SCAREMONGERS FOR PROFIT OR GREED!,THOSE ON THE AWG BANDWAGON!THE IGNORANT AND UNEDUCATED! THATS WHO!!!!!