The 5 psychological barriers to climate action

boing
21

The link isn’t working properly at the moment, but I did peruse the text-only version here:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:nanqOXiRh8QJ:thebreakthrough.org/archive/climate_pragmatism_innovation&hl=en&gl=us&strip=1

And got the PDF here:

http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/Climate_Pragmatism_web.pdf

And I really hope people will go read the report before flaming me for being either a denier, an alarmist, a trolley, a fatalist or what have you. (But this is the internet, so I doubt anyone will read it.)

I read the PDF above. I agree we should tackle climate change in a realistic manner, but I’m not sure the paper is promoting the most truly pragmatic methodologies.

If the USA had taken an overly cautious, slower approach in WWII, we’d all probably be speaking German today and/or picking through the remains of a nuclear wasteland in (what was) the United States.

The PDF is a little old, so I can’t blame them for some old information, however, we know today that the effects of climate change are not off into the far-off future. They are happening today and the effects are happening much faster than earlier predictions even from just a few years ago.

Case and point: (something every American should watch right now)

That said, I completely agree with the paper on support for energy innovation. However, I don’t think we have the luxury of continuing to move that forward at an overly cautious, snail’s pace.

We need something on the scope and urgency of a Manhattan Project for R&D into more sustainable energy and energy storage. Unfortunately, Obama doesn’t appear to be bold enough to pull that off. We need a bold leader that’s willing to tell the fossil fuel lackey Republicans (and some Democrats) to fuck off and push forward a massive effort to get Americans working towards more sustainable energy with a massive, national effort.

You and others may naysay that possibility, but it’s already been done before. Roosevelt faced massive opposition to the New Deal. The naysayers said it was impossible. He was talking about taxing the rich, for Christ’s Sake! However, he did it anyway and it can be done again. We just need to elect bold politicians to follow in his footsteps. People like Bernie Sanders, for example.

So, when we get to the root of the issue, we really need to vote. And, for those who already vote and are frustrated with so many Americans who don’t vote, they need to stop bitching and start participating in “get out the vote” drives.

The current power structure that’s filled with lackeys for the current energy structure is our biggest obstacle – not technology.

The paper says, “None of the policies and measures described below must be pursued in a centralized manner”. I disagree with that stunted premise. I agree there needs to be widespread, decentralized efforts, but there also there needs to be a centralized, “Manhattan Project”-style approach as well.

The paper’s decidedly “libertarian” approach doesn’t cut it. And its pro-nuclear angle isn’t pragmatic at all. As the paper mentions, nuclear is too expensive, but then also says, “we should continue to invest in a new generation of safer and more affordable plant designs”.

I thought perhaps the paper was taking about nuclear fusion:

However, the paper appears to be referring to smaller nuclear fission plants, but that’s still overly expensive and a waste of money that should go into R&D and implementation of solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, etc. and very critical, more sustainable energy storage R&D and implementation.

I think it’s quite clear by now that absent the wholesale removal of our current political and economic infrastructure and its replacement by a totalitarian environmental regime

That’s a bit shrill, in my opinion. For example, Roosevelt didn’t enforce a totalitarian “New Deal” regime because he dared to tax the rich to enable it. I mean, I’m sure the very wealthy would like us all to believe that, but they are full of shit.

Roosevelt rallied solidarity of the American public to turn around a national disaster and make us a better, far less draconian nation in the process. As a nation, we need to get off our asses and vote in people like Bernie Sanders who will be bold like Roosevelt and push our nation and world forward instead listening to the naysayers and continuing to believe the great lie that there’s nothing we can do and we have to remain locked into a slow process of Democratic grandstanding and outright Republican regression.

One huge step is we should finally look at reality. The reality is the Republican party as a whole is the outright enemy of climate change action. Let’s not fool ourselves, they are not the same as Democrats in this regard. We need to oust these Republican climate change deniers and put in politicians in our midterms that at the very least admit it’s real, the impacts are real and it’s anthropogenic. You will not get that with most Republicans and/or Libertarians.

Republicans should not be leading our country in this critical time in our world history. Having them in office would be as batshit insane and destructive as voting in a U.S. party into power that was a “Third Reich denier” just before WWII (or sitting on one’s ass and not voting and helping to usher in that kind of party during that time).

Again, I agree with the paper that industry and government need to work together and there should be a decentralized effort from business, etc. — But, that’s not going to happen until we vote out a massive power structure hellbent on stopping that from happening. It’s not going to happen with Republicans in power. We’ll just spiral backwards.

4 Likes
22

Drastic means radical and extreme change and has a lot of negative connotations.

I think you’re going about it in the wrong manner.

We can change our energy structure towards more sustainable energy without being “drastic”. The “huge taxes” is fear-mongering from the wealthy, please don’t fall for it. The wealthy were taxed for the New Deal in the United States and they somehow managed to survive quite well.

We will create a massive amount of jobs and waste vastly less money and resources on dirty energy externalities by moving towards more sustainable energy production and storage.

You may naysay and claim it’s not possible around the world, but even China is showing signs of change as we speak if you research the issue. It’s becoming a source of national pride to move forward in sustainable energy and the United States will be no exception.

Our barrier isn’t technology advancement or “huge taxes”, it’s the fact that human advancement is being stunted by Republicans. It’s beyond time for the American public to vote these Republican lunatics and lackeys out of office.

4 Likes
23

Good article.

Denial is a big one. People in New Jersey don’t want to face facts that the property and lives that they’ve sunken all their wealth into will be underwater in 50-100 years, and that they better move to Pennsylvania. A bit of hyperbole, but…

Distance is another big one. To 2/3 of the USA it looks like we’re entering an ice age, but that is the only place in the world that isn’t burning and drying up. Probably because of the lack of Arctic ice pack, which wrecks the polar vortex, which should spin at the top of the globe like a beanie, and not allow the cold to droop over the midwest like jack frost’s sack.

And if you’ve gone down the crazy person rabbit hole on YouTube, there are a LOT of people relishing the possibility that the world will end soon. For them, global warming is something they welcome, along with planet Nibiru, Cern conjuring up a portal to hell, the sun triggering earthquakes, Fukushima, etc.

3 Likes
24

Personally, what I see is “Global Warming”/“Climate Change” being used to avoid thinking about some very real and very important problems. I see things being ignored because now the emphasis is on “Climate Change”, things like running out of landfill room, deforestation, toxins in the food chain, plastic in the ocean. What is being funded and what is being talked about is “Climate Change”.

1 Like
25

Good introduction to the barriers in addressing the problem but still problem oriented rather than solutions oriented.

For the past 20 years, I’ve been saying climate change is moot. Whether or not it exists, whether or not it is man-made, we all know that there is another weather emergency that will happen soon - drought, hurricane, heat wave, blizzard, flood… we don’t know what it will be but we know something is coming soon. It turns out that preparing for that weather emergency is climate change adaptation and the best preparations also turn our to be climate change mitigation. You can see this happening in NYC and Boston and other Northeast USA coastal cities after Hurricane Sandy.

It also turns out that the scale at which climate change adaptation and mitigation is happening is at the city scale all over the world. While national governments and international bodies are bogged down in wrangling over details, cities are doing what needs to be done to prepare for that next weather emergency and, incidentally, climate change.

This is why I say Solar IS Civil Defense - the flashlight, radio, cell phone, and extra set of batteries you should have on hand in case of emergency can all be powered by a few square inches of solar electric panel. Add a hand cranked or pedal powered generator and you have a reliable source of survival electricity day or night, by sunlight or muscle power. This also turns out to be entry level electricity for the 1.4 billion around the world who do not yet have access to electricity. So that answers the fatuous question Lomborg proposed about the prosperous Bangladeshi man 80 years in the future asking why we didn’t care about his grandfather.

Link emergency preparedness through small scale renewables in the developed world with raising the standard of living for the bottom of the pyramid and make civil defense the “excuse” for climate change adaptation and mitigation.

1 Like
26

[quote=“gmoke, post:25, topic:54858”]
Add a hand cranked or pedal powered generator and you have a reliable source of survival electricity day or night, by sunlight or muscle power.
[/quote]Americans who are part of the “standing desk” and/or “exercise while you work” craze should all start looking into things like this:

27

[quote=“arthurapplebee, post:24, topic:54858”]
Personally, what I see is “Global Warming”/“Climate Change” being used to avoid thinking about some very real and very important problems
[/quote]In my opinion, the problems you mentioned are important and need to be addressed, but it’s not an either/or situation. Climate change is also a very real and important problem. Fortunately, some of the same strategies that will help to alleviate climate change will also help with some of those other issues you mentioned. I think it’s a symbiotic thing for the most part.

3 Likes
28

The biggest problem preventing action is too many politicians using it for BS schemes. It instantly turns people off to it.

The other issue is the change will be SLOW. New Orleans won’t be uninhabitable over a decade, but several generations. Even when the ice age melted sea levels only went up an inch a year. It’s not like we can’t slowly move back from the coasts. It will take several Katrinas in a row before people start not rebuilding there. Even now people are moving to DESERTS in record number (face palm), including THE LAST MAN ON EARTH (double face palm).

The other issue is I don’t think there is anything we can do. I know, lower our CO2 out put. The numbers on how badly CO2 affects temperature still isn’t clear. It may not affect things much at all. But that aside, the earth freezes and melts with out the help of man. In the past we would just migrate. We are less likely to do that now, but at some point we may need to in some areas.

But still, I contend there is little to nothing we can really DO besides manage current resources and try not to live in areas that are low in resources. In 15,000 years from now, everything north of South Dakota will be under a mile of ice. So we have that to look forward to.

29

[quote=“stupendousman, post:15, topic:54858”]
As a smart person recently said- if you’re not promoting nuclear energy you’re not serious about climate change.[/quote]
Oh, fuck that noise you condescending ass.

Do you really think big oil and the coal lobbies would have jumped up and down shouting “GOODY!” if some mythical enlightened late-70s environmental movement suggested shutting them down in favor of an all-nuclear power generation and the required to make that dream work all-electric transportation infrastructure?

Much the same FUD would be in operation, but instead of mocking solar energy and wind farms they’d be attacking the required to make that dream work subsidies for nuclear power plants.

2 Likes
30

The idea that a leader or a party needs only to be more willful, bold, and aggressive now has a name; it’s called ‘Green Lanternism’. The term has been noticed in various politics blogs.

As a number of people in this discussion have pointed out, there is little public will for difficult changes to present behavior and policies, especially when the outcomes may be decades or centuries in the future. This is regardless of whether the science is correct. Mr. Obama cannot overcome this antipathy merely by hectoring the population.

Hitler convenienced FDR by declaring war on the United States first. Climate activists don’t have a villain, which makes things difficult.

31

[quote=“arthurapplebee, post:24, topic:54858”]
I see things being ignored because now the emphasis is on “Climate Change”, things like running out of landfill room, deforestation, toxins in the food chain, plastic in the ocean.[/quote]

Right. I’m sure if everyone stopped worrying about climate change all of those other problems would suddenly be taken seriously and receive funding and serious attention. Because all the bought-off climate change denying GOP pols are so frustrated that they can’t get anyone to pay attention to these real environmental issues they’ve been heroically championing all these years.

4 Likes
32

“Oh, fuck that noise you condescending ass.”

Wow, I’m sure you’re a blast at parties.

Do you really think big oil and the coal lobbies would have jumped up
and down shouting “GOODY!” if some mythical enlightened late-70s
environmental movement suggested shutting them down in favor of an
all-nuclear power generation

Hm… so instead of actually addressing the quote, which was pretty benign btw, you sketch a boogieman who hypothetically could have stopped innovation and implementation of nuclear power. There were actual groups who did everything in their power to halt nuclear power but instead of saying, “yeah those people were shortsighted,” you say it doesn’t matter because some cartoonish corporate cabal would have done the same.

suggested shutting them down in favor of an all-nuclear power generation and the required to make that dream work all-electric transportation infrastructure?

In what world does change on that scale happen overnight? Energy companies are energy companies, many would have gotten behind nuclear. Additionally, hydrocarbons have a lot of uses beyond energy production and transportation would probably still be mostly powered by hydrocarbons.

but instead of mocking solar energy and wind farms they’d be attacking the required to make that dream work subsidies for nuclear power plants.

Who mocks solar and wind? I think people mock the idea that their forced implementation would be a net benefit.

This takes me back to my days as a militant atheist. Arguing online and in person against magical thinking.

2 Likes
33

[quote=“starrygordon, post:30, topic:54858”]
As a number of people in this discussion have pointed out, there is little public will for difficult changes to present behavior and policies
[/quote]Then that number of pessimistic naysayers within this discussion are in error. Please also keep in mind that many of these same naysayers have also been proven to be wrong over time on many other issues as well. There’s some credibility issues there.

Also, it doesn’t have to be terribly “difficult”, dire changes that fuck our little worlds. That’s often a load of dirty energy, corporate propaganda bullshit. What we can do is convert over to more sustainable energy and prosper far better than we do with our current dirty energy infrastructure and all of its far-reaching, negative externalities it entails.

When Obama ran on a progressive agenda promising change (that included climate action), he won in a landslide with the highest voter turnout in 40 years. When Obama and other Democrats failed to follow through on progressive agendas, voter turnout was its lowest in 70 years. There clearly is public support for progressive agendas within the USA.

The country is ready. Don’t allow the corporate media (with an agenda) and negative naysayers to lull you into believing otherwise.

Mr. Obama cannot overcome this antipathy merely by hectoring the population.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#straw

Hitler convenienced FDR by declaring war on the United States first.
Climate activists don’t have a villain, which makes things difficult.

There are very clear villians within this issue. Fossil fuel lackey Republicans, for one example.

Other “villains” that come to mind are extreme, deadly drought, deadly catastrophic floods, deadly wild fires, deadly and destructive super-storms like hurricane Sandy and many other extreme and deadly weather events that are already happening within the USA and our world as we speak.

3 Likes
34

“If you were really serious about climate change you would have been for nuclear energy in the 70s” is a “gotcha” I’ve seen trotted out numerous times by comment-board champions of prosperity, common sense, and free enterprise for well over a decade.

It isn’t an argument, it is a specious gotcha point, like the factoids (“Why is dust on the moon only a quarter inch deep?”) a creationist deploys during the Gish Gallop.

3 Likes
35

“If you were really serious about climate change you would have been for
nuclear energy in the 70s” is a “gotcha” I’ve seen trotted out numerous
times

Interesting. I didn’t write that.

champions of prosperity, common sense, and free enterprise for well over a decade.

Is that supposed to be a negative characterization?

It isn’t an argument

Sure it is. If one is concerned about CO2 emissions AND cares about people in developing nations nuclear is the clear choice. So people who don’t support nuclear aren’t serious.

36

[quote=“Mister44, post:28, topic:54858”]
The other issue is the change will be SLOW.
[/quote]Not as slow as you may think. VICE did an excellent story on this.

also here on YouTube, for now:

Slow change is the old paradigm. This shit is happening much faster than many scientists predicted even just a few years ago.

1 Like
37

6th barrier: Astroturfers, paid or otherwise.

4 Likes
38

There’s nothing worse than a bored archaeologist.

39

There’s a huge problem in the U.S. with people thinking either nothing bad will really happen because God can just go ‘poof’ and it’ll all be right again, or actively hoping things will get very bad because it’s necessary for the Apocalypse to start. I’ve even heard people claim both of those ideas simultaneously.

1 Like
40

I don’t think its because “God can just go ‘poof’ and it’ll all be right again”.

Where the heck do you get that? Maybe some fringe group, but not enough to make a “huge” problem.