I became aware of climate change 20 years ago and, being a 'techie' (IT), I eventually joined ATA to support renewable energy on the assumption that the facts would speak for themselves and greenhouse gas emitting technologies would be fazed out. As an academic trying to teach IT and Business students critical evaluation skill, I was interested in identifying ideologically based presentation of 'scientific facts'. The frenzy of climate change denial proved a rich case study, paricularly when the funding sources were traced. Climate scientist and clean energy technologists alike assume that presenting scientific evidence will mitigate climate change denial. There is growing awareness that the problem is psycho-social. Facing the issues is too scary. In my retirement I work with a group attempting to raise consciousness though public forums that utilize theatre, music, etc. to create a safe space for people to face the issues. The next forum is October 24 in Templestowe Victoria, and features Melbourne Theatre. For more information see http://warrandyte.unitingchurch.org.au/grandstand.htm#ClimatePayback
Climate change- public awareness
(183 posts) (21 voices)-
Andy Chee
MemberIt might be my own perception of the public, but might I suggest that in addition to teaching climate change, you should teach some basic science & scientific reasoning (ie. observe, hypothesize, experiment, falsifiability, etc)
It just seems to me that the public lacks scientific awareness, and can be evidenced by those who believe vaccination is bad, water fluoridation is bad, intelligent design is a science, and the moon landings were faked.
Posted Tuesday 5 Oct 2010 @ 3:44:58 am from IP # -
termite
MemberYes, it is a failing of our educational system that even the basics, such as the definition of scientific method, is not understood at all.
Nevertheless, I think most deniers are just latching on to scaremongering because they are simply afraid.
No, most wouldn't call themselves frightened. But they do think the job is too big to be done. They lack the confidence that mankind will be able to solve the problem. They think that scientists are trying to scare them, and to deny climate change is to avoid their fear. Note that there was never any dissent about what would be the effect of the hole in the ozone layer, probably because the 'cure' was simple and did not involve personal inconvenience.
I don't think any can come up with a reason as to why climate scientists would try to scare us unnecessarily.
As for those who believe in these great conspiracies, I think they started out being too trusting and naive. Once their trust is broken, some people (selectively) refuse to trust anyone in authority. At some stage, parenting changed from 'preparing children for adulthood' to 'protecting children from the evils of the world'. To someone accustomed to trust every authority figure, finding out that authorities sometimes get it wrong or have ulterior motives can be a big shock. Interestingly, there is still the belief that authorities are all-powerful - which is why they think that complex conspiracies can be perfectly executed.
What I want to see climate scientists do is to stop saying "you can't understand it because you're not one of us" in a patronising fashion and start explaining manageable pieces of the puzzle. People can learn, but are fairly impatient (and unfortunately cheap journalism isn't helping). Forcing them to wade through large online documents does not get converts.
Posted Tuesday 5 Oct 2010 @ 4:19:55 am from IP # -
juliejames4
MemberI agree to a significant extent with termite, especially the comment that climate deniers are simply afraid. It is important for climate scientists to explain the science as simply as possible but they can be drowned out by vested interest. The fear factor needs to be dealt with by fostering an environment that addresses the fear at the emotional level, hence the coming 'climate playback' forum. Check it out at http://warrandyte.unitingchurch.org.au/grandstand.htm#ClimatePayback and bring your kids if you live in Melbourne.
Posted Tuesday 5 Oct 2010 @ 7:40:34 am from IP # -
Positive messages are much better than negative ones. That's why I like the work of beyondzeroemissions ( http://beyondzeroemissions.org/ ) who show that changing to renewable energy is possible. However this approach is still too technical for many people.
Personally I try it from different and more personal angle. I promote solar cooking. I give talks, develop new designs and organize a soar cooking exhibition and competition. The aim is to demonstrate on a small scale and on the emotional level that there is plenty of non polluting energy around. We only need the right ways of harvesting it.
Posted Tuesday 5 Oct 2010 @ 10:58:05 am from IP # -
Here's how to use a negative message to alienate people. Quite stupid I think.
At least they regained enough common sense to pull it. But they really need to engage the brain before doing this sort of thing.
"At 10:10 we're all about trying new and creative ways of getting people to take action on climate change. Unfortunately in this instance we missed the mark. Oh well, we live and learn."
** WARNING - it contains graphic images ***
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/sep/30/10-10-no-pressure-film
Followup here to the project.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/oct/02/1010-richard-curtis-climate-change
Posted Tuesday 5 Oct 2010 @ 8:30:31 pm from IP # -
thatmosis
MemberPositive messages are better than negative messages, oh yeah, have a look at these examples of positive messages.
http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermail/andrewbolt/index.php/couriermail/comments/hanged_children_what_is_stirring_in_these_warmists_minds/And this possibly wouldnt help either.
"Green power is not just ludicrously expensive, but too often a transfer of wealth from the poor to the salvation-seeking rich:
SCHEMES that pay households to produce power using rooftop solar panels are costing about 25 times as much to cut greenhouse gases as a nationwide ETS…
In a confidential submission obtained by The Australian, the National Generators Forum has told the NSW government that its scheme is costing between $520 and $640 to reduce each tonne of carbon dioxide - compared with the $23 per tonne proposed in the emissions trading scheme shelved by Kevin Rudd.
The submission states that although the scheme will create green jobs, each job created will cost between $130,000 and $700,000....
The Australian Council of Social Service’s senior policy officer of energy and climate change, Tony Westmore, feared “a serious increase” in power bills and said ”those people who have the cash to be able to put the panels on their roof will be subsidised by people who can’t afford their current bills”."
This goes to the core of what I have been saying all along. People should go Green but not at the expense of all.
Posted Wednesday 6 Oct 2010 @ 1:05:55 am from IP # -
thatmosis
MemberNo way, thats just another tax to fleece the populace. What I am in favor of is people getting off their fat duffs and doing something without the Government holding their hand. Too hard for some. Have a look at the nanny state and see how many things that the Government now subsidises so people can do them. We dont need another one or a new tax just people to stand on their own feet and change because they want to not because the Government decrees and forces everybody to pay for it. Simple but maybe to simple for some.
Posted Wednesday 6 Oct 2010 @ 3:26:13 am from IP # -
thatmosis
MemberSpongers and people who believe the world owes them a living. We have got to a state where nobody will do anything unless they are sudsidised one way or the other. What ever happened to intestional fortitude, learning from ones mistakes. Now people expect to be hand held on everything they do and if it goes wrong they can blame someone else. You asked,I told you.
Posted Wednesday 6 Oct 2010 @ 5:25:53 am from IP # -
Thanks. Maybe we are actually not that far apart.
What angers me are people that leave their dirt behind causing me to deal with it. One small example is dog poo. Nearly every day I find such a 'land mine' on my front yard. And if I don't remove them, there will be even more.
And the same happens with all kinds of pollution. I think we should live by the concept that who causes cost or pollution should stand up for it. So who is going to pay my grandchildren if they cannot sell or use my house because it will be under water?I do not think the world owes me, but I think that the ones who cause harm should be made responsible. This means we do need a price of carbon! I am a "scientist" or a so called scientist (not a climate scientist, but a humble industrial chemist) and I must say that I am afraid about the world my grandchildren and their children will be facing if we do not stop the CO2 increase.
Posted Wednesday 6 Oct 2010 @ 6:00:44 am from IP # -
thatmosis
MemberWhat you are saying is that although I have a very small footprint I should be forced to pay for those that dont??????? No way. I have done the right thing off my own bat and there is no way that I should be forced to pay for someone elses crap. Thats where the whole thing falls down. People being forced to pay for other people who have either no idea, are too lazy or stupid or believe that the Government should provide. The Government should by incremental steps make it compulsory for all new homes to have solar panels and solar hot water, be constructed so as to allow for maximum efficiency, make all electrical products sold conform to strict guidelines on power ratings but not tax everybody to pay for it. The individual should be made rsponsible for their own actions and the way power and utility prices the worm is turning. Pricing carbon wont do anything but raise the prices on everything and the subsidies that will have to be paid to pensioners and the lower paid will once again reinforce the idea that the Government will pay for the peoples mistakes. This will start an endless cycle of tax, subsidy,tax breaks that will do nothing to acually lower the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere but will make the public service bigger as new departments are made to handle the miriade of new items that have to be controlled. I dont believe that chasing ones tail gets the country anywhere and I also dont believe that there is a Government on either side of the political spectrum that could be trusted to get this right and not send us deeper into debt.
Posted Wednesday 6 Oct 2010 @ 7:11:51 am from IP # -
Geno
MemberPeople should pay a fair price for what they consume, quite simply if what you are buying is dumping large amounts of waste into the enviroment, then the final consumer should pay for that. A carbon tax makes sense on that basis it is no different to the waste water levies most of us pay on our water bills.
Taxes are about transfer of wealth and resources for the greater good. Almost everything is subsidised through taxes. Education, roads, police, medicine, rail, council services including sports facilities, pools and aged care, pensions, sickness and umployment benefits to name a few. Take away the collection of taxes and redistribution and we will soon revert back to murderous savages.
A carbon tax brought in properly would see polluters paying the real price of their waste, alternatives should be able to fill that space and may of course bring greater efficiency. The social security net must step in to compensate low income earners to ensure they are no worse off.
In Victoria we are seeing water charges in some case going through the roof. This has a fragile link to climate change yet we are paying massive increases for the right to have a tap. All it means is water authorities have failed to plan and are now price gouging to cover their failures.
Don't continue to make the mistake of assuming change has to be expensive. With water lack of change has brought the extra costs. Ditto with current power tarrifs, climate change may have given a bit of a smoke screen but really they aren't doing that much other than deal with aged plant and distribution lines.
To many are claiming that change is to expensive. Think of the original steam powered ships that required a greater tonnage of coal than the freight they carried to get anywhere. It is continued technological change that brings greater efficencies and lower cost of production.
Working on lowering emmissions should lead to more comfortable homes, more efficient transport, lower production costs. It will also need to look at comsumption of non durable goods and it is the later that could cause some pain in adjustment.
Until we move from the self serving debating of "I shouldn't have to pay" and move to a point when we start to consider the massive benefits change can deliver the better off we will be. Moving to renewables should also mean a drop in illness and disease in more heavily polluted areas, less waste heaps and a chance to develop economies that don't just look at the current generation but also ensuring that our great great granchildren also have a chance to lead decent lives in a world that can still provide for there needs.
If we don't start to move on this the pricing changes brought on by dwindling supply may well make change very damaging. In the main the vocal denier camp is provided fuel by those ei ther scared of change or who believe that their particular business will be effected (Oil and Coal to name two) Change doesn't have to be scary, but it is very obvious the world has to do something about population growth and resource waste, both have to reduce and it will not happen over night. In fact the factors that cause people to reproduce at high rates may be a bigger issue than CO2.
Posted Wednesday 6 Oct 2010 @ 9:04:15 am from IP # -
More discussion on climate change publicity here.
http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2010/10/01//3027453.htm
Posted Wednesday 6 Oct 2010 @ 7:41:57 pm from IP # -
thatmosis
MemberIt all sounds very touchy feely but have a look at this:The consequences of mad green policies are now being felt - and even social welfare groups are now complaining:
THE triple whammy of soaring electricity, gas and water costs follows years of financial pain already biting into budgets across the state. A Herald Sun investigation has found typical households are paying a staggering $900 more for the essentials compared with 2005…
And industry experts warn it will only get worse. Ben Freund, of price comparison service GoSwitch, said that electricity costs were set to explode over the next five years as governments forced companies to commit to more expensive forms of green energy such as solar and wind power, and homes overflowed with power-hungry appliances…
Water bills have ballooned because of the drought and major project costs including the Wonthaggi desalination plant… Increases of up to 10 per cent are locked in for next financial year to fund the State Government’s water infrastructure, designed to secure future supplies…
Victorian Council of Social Service chief Cath Smith said ... skyrocketing bills, especially for electricity, were hitting low-income households hard, along with pensioners and the jobless.
Why complain now at the consequences, when you never protested against the cause?
It was always insane to invest billions on unreliable and madly expensive green power? It was even more unforgivable to ban a $1.3 billion dam and spend more than $5 billion instead on a desalination plant that would give you just one third of the water - and charge us $1 million a day even if you didn’t use it.
Don’t like the bills? Then attack the green policies that produced them.
UPDATE
Where Victoria leads, NSW follows:
CONSUMERS and businesses face another rise in electricity prices, this time to pay for a blowout in the State Government’s solar-power scheme.
Panels are currently being installed at nine times the highest rate Macquarie St expected.
And:
SCHEMES that pay households to produce power using rooftop solar panels are costing about 25 times as much to cut greenhouse gases as a nationwide ETS…
In a confidential submission obtained by The Australian, the National Generators Forum has told the NSW government that its scheme is costing between $520 and $640 to reduce each tonne of carbon dioxide - compared with the $23 per tonne proposed in the emissions trading scheme shelved by Kevin Rudd…
The Australian Council of Social Service’s senior policy officer of energy and climate change, Tony Westmore, feared “a serious increase” in power bills and said “those people who have the cash to be able to put the panels on their roof will be subsidised by people who can’t afford their current bills”.
Not my words but they convey what I am saying. Governments are moving to inflict massive price rises onto the public in the name of Climate Change without a real and unbiased debate on the subject. Its all well and good for people to say that we need a Carbon tax but why? Is the science conclusive for either side-no, has it been discussed intelligently with out the doom and gloom scenarios and fear mongering from the Climate Change faithful-no. We are being plunged head long into a Tax that will only increase prices everywhere and do no discernable good for the planet. A fie on this.
Posted Wednesday 6 Oct 2010 @ 9:34:31 pm from IP # -
Electricity infrastructure spending on replacing old coal fired power stations and overstressed power lines due to a massive increase in cheap Chinese energy hogging appliances is the reason for power price increases. It has nothing to do with climate change policies.
Posted Wednesday 6 Oct 2010 @ 9:47:46 pm from IP # -
thatmosis
MemberAnd the earth is flat and the pigs are all serviced and ready to fly. Of course the appliance being used are contributing to the cost of power but to say that is the only factor whilst dismissing the push by Government for a carbon tax is sticking ones head in the sand.
Posted Wednesday 6 Oct 2010 @ 9:50:36 pm from IP # -
Appliances are contributing we agree on on that but the real problem is the peak demand for a few days each year caused by those extra aircons etc. The power industry engineers, not the climate change industry, will all tell you that the billions required to upgrade infrastructure for those few days is the only option to avoid the alternative, politically unacceptable rolling blackouts.
Edit: Forgot to add. We all have to pay for it. Energy conservationists pay less. Wasters pay more.
Posted Wednesday 6 Oct 2010 @ 9:57:31 pm from IP # -
thatmosis, You seem to mix things up in your ranting. What has a desalination plant to do with green politics? It is the opposite! But it appears you are happy to go on and on and you are immune to insight. No wonder you believe the earth is flat.
Posted Wednesday 6 Oct 2010 @ 10:49:41 pm from IP # -
termite
MemberYes, rockabye, one thing I want to see is those hot-weather peak usage figures tumble.
I well remember being home in Sydney on Jan 1 2006, when Sydney reached a record 43 degrees. I was cooling with an overhead fan, which was rendered useless on two occasions by blackouts, undoubtedly caused by my neighbours turning on their air conditioning. Grr!
I wonder what will happen if (when I eventually get my own grid-connected renewable power generation going) the same weather and power overload occurs again - from what I read in this forum, my own inverter will shut down and I will be no better off. Can someone confirm?
In a way, underinvestment in peak power generation and transmission infrastructure by our power utilities may work in our favour to some extent. Those who can afford it will seek to become independent of its frailties (via passive solar design or independent power generation), thus making the biggest users/wasters also less demanding of the grid.
Unfortunately, that is also tackling the problem with a sledgehammer, by making everyone suffer (inconvenience or worse) in order to get a behavioural change. Why not learn from those who know the capacities of these systems, and act BEFORE the overload occurs? We are supposed to be intelligent - why must it be only after a failure that we feel enough of an urge to change? Complacency in this context is indeed a great fault of humanity.Posted Thursday 7 Oct 2010 @ 12:05:17 am from IP # -
When the grid goes down so does your solar system inverter. This a safety feature to protect other users and grid workers etc.
As for what to do "when the lights go out" see a new thread.
Re intelligent grids we are well on the way with these technologies. But resistance to change is difficult to overcome as you can see by various comments to these threads. Some people prefer blackouts.
Posted Thursday 7 Oct 2010 @ 2:30:19 am from IP # -
juliejames4
MemberWow! What a storm I stirred up when I started this topic (look at the first post). You are all preaching to the converted (the ones aware of low carbon technologies, etc.). I was talking about reaching those so scared about potential climated change that they simply freeze up or go into denial
Posted Thursday 7 Oct 2010 @ 3:26:57 am from IP # -
thatmosis
MemberIve got no Doom and Gloom scenarios, Im sitting very comfortably in my Solar powered home with my vegie garden and my cattle to slaughter for meat and watch as the country goes to hell in a handcart. Im not the one showing people splattered with blood or children hanging. Im just saying that a tax on CO2 is wrong and stating my reasons. Joolia must agree as she has just broken another election promise to form a Climate Change Committtee and seek other forms of input. The desal plant was part of the whole text that I copied and pasted but if you think desal is the way to go far be it for me to correct you. If you think that a desal plant has no bearing on Green sustainability then think again. The Victorian Government had the choice of a dam or the desal plant and went the desal plant whereas the dam would now be overflowing and saving electricity and millions of tax payers dollars on power. If thats green then I must be seeing a different colour.
Juliejames4, great thread, I am injoying it immensly as I keep getting a clearer picture of the lop sided logic of the CCF and their need to denigrate those that oppose their views and their shock tactics used to terrorfy the populace, terrific.Posted Thursday 7 Oct 2010 @ 8:23:48 am from IP # -
"What you are saying is that although I have a very small footprint I should be forced to pay for those that dont???????" Yes. Your ability to have a solar powered home is as a result of others spending the time and energy to develop the technologies to a point where you *can* have a small footprint. If you want to claim independance, ditch the technologies you're using such as the solar, the generators, the car, the computer, and the Internet connection; all of which were generated through lots of effort and energy by other people.
"Don’t like the bills? Then attack the green policies that produced them." I respectfully disagree. If you don't like the bills, use less. (that doesn't mean "reduce your standard of living" by the way). We've had a "credit card" energy consumption mentality for decades, and now we're needing to pay some of it back, and unfortunately there's going to be some interest accrued. We're running out of resources, and we're weaning ourselves of cheap energy. It's going to cost more whoever's making the policies.
"The Victorian Government had the choice of a dam or the desal plant and went the desal plant whereas the dam would now be overflowing and saving electricity and millions of tax payers dollars on power." True, but the dam would also have destroyed large amounts of flora and fauna in the process; something we're exceedingly good at, and there's not a heck of a lot of it left. I don't particularly like the desal plant either by the way, but a new dam is hardly a silver bullet, and yet again, cost isn't the only consideration.
Back to the original post topic though, I think a lot of it's simply because people don't like change; especially when there's not a "clear and present danger". I don't necessarily agree that climate change deniers are "afraid". I just think they're happy with their life the way it is, and will resist external forces impacting on it, particularly if there's even a hint of taking a backward step.
If climate change was something that came around and tried to steal your hubcaps or run off with your new flat-screen TV, and the problem of it could be solved in the same time it takes to watch an episode of Home and Away (and with about as much emotional investment), I think you'd be having people supporting the cause in droves.
Posted Thursday 7 Oct 2010 @ 10:22:07 am from IP # -
thatmosis
MemberSorry Karl you destroyed your own arguement by using a computer and technology to complain on this forum. I paid in the price of the Solar system for the technology as does everyone that buys anything. The R and D is built into every price so your arguement again falls flat. The Desla Plant in Victoria was going to cost $3.1b but that has already blown out to $5.3b whereas a dam would have cost $1.3b. Add to this the cost of operation of the desal plant over its 28year life and that equates to about $860m a year for 3 decades. Not a silver bullet but another example of waste from a Government, wasted power and wasted opportunity. As for the fauna, with a dam most would relocate to other environs during the filling stage as has happened at the other dams that have been built. Now back to the original topic the majority of people are sick and tired of half truths, lies deceit and shock tactics based on some peoples idea of the future. Add to this the current economic climate and an extra tax would be as welcome as a case of Herpes. I am saying that we need a clean, open debate with all the protagonists present to present their "facts" and these "facts" presented to the public so that an informed decision can be made not based on theory or shock tactics but "facts". Thats not too much to ask is it or are the CCF afraid that their "facts" might not stack up to the sceptics/deniers "facts".
Posted Friday 8 Oct 2010 @ 1:34:17 am from IP # -
Sorry thatmosis, but the argument doesn't fall flat; the trouble is that you seem to keep wanting to view things as if they only have an economic cost. You may pay an economic fee for the R&D of a particular product (such as solar, batteries, etc), but you certainly don't pay for the environmental cost of the R&D or the technolgies that were used to build that product. (By technologies I'm referring to development of transistors, IC's, laser diodes, composite materials, etc rather than just the raw materials used to create those technlogies). And yes, I'm using a computer to send this, and I'm acknowledging that I need to start paying an economic price for the environmental impact that that technology has caused, and for the development of new solutions to mitigate or reduce it.
Your comment on the impact of dams is just wrong. It's a destructive process whether we like it or not; you need to stop looking at it just from an economic standpoint.
To reiterate previous comments, even your own posts such as the Andrew Bolt one said that the science is clear and that the majority of scientists agree with anthropogenic climate change, so what sort of open debate are you after, and which facts are you wanting to bring to the table? I'm all in favour of the facts, and believe in Carl Sagan's 'Baloney Detection Kit' (http://users.tpg.com.au/users/tps-seti/baloney.html) as a method for identifying erroneous facts. I'm yet to see though much from the deniers that could be considered fact, and a fair bit that could be characterised as baloney.
Posted Friday 8 Oct 2010 @ 3:36:13 am from IP #
Reply »
You must log in to post.