Stop Reading About Climate Change - It’s Not Helping!
Did you know, that by reading TalkClimateChange and other climate change related information widely discussed on the Internet, you are likely to feel less responsible and less concerned about the whole problem in the first place?
In a recent New York Times article, John Tierney reports on the curious results of a recent survey conducted by researchers at Texas A&M University. After asking more than 1,000 Americans how much they knew about global warming, and how they felt about the topic, the researchers discovered that the more informed people were, the less responsible and less concerned they felt. The study further found that the more information was given to support a specific fact, the less likely people were to believe it.
Several explanations for this phenomena are offered in the research paper, titled “Personal Efficacy, the Information Environment, and Attitudes Toward Global Warming and Climate Change in the United States”. Among them, is the possibility that those who are better informed are simply more realistic; Tierny quotes from the paper:
Global warming is an extreme collective action dilemma, with the actions of one person having a negligible effect in the aggregate. Informed persons appear to realize this objective fact. Therefore, informed persons can be highly concerned and reasonably pessimistic about their ability to change climate outcomes.
Tierney goes on to to propose that people with a better knowledge of the science tend to have a greater faith in scientific solutions, thus feeling less overall concern:
But why would people who trust scientists not be as concerned when they hear so many scientists warning of the perils of global warming? “Though this effect differs from our expectations,” the researcher write, “it is consistent with the notion that people trust that scientists will be able, somehow, to devise technical solutions to any problems that arise because of global warming and climate change.” Dr. Kellstedt elaborated on this point by telling me:
“More broadly, and again quite speculatively, I think that Americans have a great deal of faith in technology and technological solutions to problems. We have seen science do things (like send people into outer space, and to miraculously save them, Apollo-13 style, when things go badly) unimaginable for 99.9% of human history. “
Tierney summarises on a positive note: “I think it’s a real risk, but I’m also confident that we’ll cope by adapting to climate change and/or finding ways to minimize it.”
For the sake of argument and to provide an alternative viewpoint I’ll disagree on that one. Despite huge media and political attention there has been very little evidence so far of any real and tangible progress. Talks, meetings and agreements are one thing – but real measurable action is quite another.
One might suggest another, more cynical reason for the apparent mismatch in understanding and responsibility: Those who are well informed are likely to be better educated and more invested in the status quo than those who are not. With more to loose, these people are more likely to convince themselves that things will be alright in the long run. People who are less informed tend to be so due to other immediate priorities in life, such as the source of their next meal or rent payment. If you’re not sure where your next meal is coming from, why would you be bothered about something that probably won’t happen for several years anyway?
Am I being too negative, cynical and gloomy? TalkClimateChange is not intended to be all doom & gloom, but it is intended to highlight these important issues which require discussion. However, if we ever get you down then just keep reading – you’ll feel less concerned and less responsible!
I have to disagree, I for one, and I am sure there are a lot of people like me out there.As I became more informed, it actually made me look at my lifestyle and make minor changes that really did not impact my energy use, but just made sense. Even though I do not accept the mainstream AGW rhetoric.
Yet all the things I found I could do I was doing for the most part and had been doing since a child. None of these things are NEW.
Not Wasting Electricity
- my Mom used to yell at me for that!
Using mass transit when available.
- Rode a bus to school, now take a train to work
Recycle.
- Been doing this all my adult life
Energy Star appliances.
- This standard is over 15 years old, improving the levels, I think 8 times in that period, I do not even really see non-compliant appliances anymore.
CFLs are the only really new tech
- but I have had flourescent lights in some high use rooms, like my kitchen and office for years. I install them if I move to a new place without them.
Fuel Economy
- I buy the car I like to drive, not based on economy because I do not commute in it, If I had to I would use it as a factor. This is more about a standard not increasing in step with other parts of world.
Building standards
- in my country these are high, because it is cold here.
So then you get hit with the extremists. The 100 Mile Diet, Do not eat red meat, take cold showers, do not flush your toilet, ride a bike all year, use 3 squares of toilet tissue, no air travel, etc.
Do %50,000+ home energy retrofits with Geothermal,solar or wind to save $30 a month until the next energy rate increase. Never mind the cost! Your equity in your home is all for spending never mind you lost 30% of your home value ( US comment, anyone read the newspapers lately )
I am not prepared to make these lifestyle changes, nor are the general public.
So I think that is what you hear from most people, you do not hear that they want to do nothing, but that there is a limit they will accept as a cost. Most do what they can.
As you get more informed you realize that even if everyone does it, it will have an insignificant impact on the total GHG emissions of the planet.
When we are in an energy deficit the best we could do is hold back demand for a short time, there are no reductions to be found here on the time scales we are discussing.