The 5 psychological barriers to climate action

boing
61

I’m not against nuclear power, not by a long shot, but it isn’t a magical panacea. Actual nuclear reactors, as opposed to the gleaming symbols of modernity from a power company PR department, require a massive infrastructure to make and refine the fuel, requires large quantities of flowing water to provide cooling, and more infrastructure to deal with waste. Nuclear plants are also a massive investment, making them less than ideal for the developing world.

Proposed fusion power plants are not going to be any better. Once you go beyond corporate image ad levels of analysis, you find they’re, well, nuclear reactors that don’t produce fissionable material waste. They will be buggeringly expensive, and you still end up with reactor vessels rendered radioactive and weakened and in need of replacement and disposal every few decades. Because, gosh, just because uranium isn’t involved, fusion reactions still produce neutrons, and lots of waste heat that needs to be dealt with.

Energy sources that don’t require rivers for cooling, giant support infrastructures to keep them going, or titanic investments just to get off the ground?

Solar and wind, which you don’t even mention, because I suspect they’re off of your ideological radar as even a possibility. But which, while the ideological blowhards and astroturfers are still dispensing bullet points from a decade ago, are getting cheaper and ramping up capacity quite nicely.

Of course, you’ll need an energy-intensive industrial base, likely powered by nuclear power and gas, to make the hardware, and in developed nations for load-leveling on the grid . . . but if you’re actually interested in the actual needs and conditions and economic and realities of the developing world and not in sanctimonious point-scoring, it’s safe to conclude that solar and wind are a more scalable and affordable option.

has an agenda which is different from being concerned about GHG emissions

No, that agenda is in your head, making an assumption that anyone who doesn’t think your solutions are the One True Way, not considering that maybe there are lots of things they’re taking into account that you haven’t, or that you even think of as problems. (Like nuclear plants adding more waste heat to rivers already stressed by rising temperatures.)

7 Likes
62

As long as folks like Al Gore are preaching austerity as the solution to
global warming to the worlds 99% from their (carbon credit paid up)
mansions and private jets there will never be acceptance of the concept.

Here’s a good example, from boingboing a couple of years ago:

I have a hunch that Yoko Ono has not spent too many nights worrying about how she’ll be able to afford to heat her digs at the Dakota next winter, whaddya think??

63

I thought it was already a lost cause. It’s not like using reuseable grocery bags is going to make any difference. The best thing to do now would be to consume and waste as much as possible so that a large portion of the human race will die off and give the earth a chance to reset.

64

Going all out and destroy the planet ain’t going to give a chance for our world to heal. It like saying that we might as well nuke ourselves since it’s too much of a hassle to make the future better for the next generations.

5 Likes
65

I’m sick, so if I attempt suicide, I’ll make it to the hospital more quickly!

3 Likes
66

Eco-psychologist now that’s a great title. And I believe a very salient understanding of the issues at hand. Alas now what do we do. I guess Overwhelming doesn’t start with a D.

67

I’ll get more interested when someone explains the Little Ice Age.

68

Well, they used alternative modes of transport back then. Horses, train travel, a lot of marching. It’s not like the millions slaughtered in that war drove there in their own car. Also, a contemporary soldier with his outfit from natural materials (cloth, metal) was pretty much bio-degradable.

69

Have you been reading through any of the many papers on the subject, or was this just an attempt to show how the 5 Ds work in practice? Because as a new poster you may not know, we sadly get enough examples of that. See for instance the cheap ad hominem above:

How could someone with money object to the idea of people with more money trying to get still more by pushing externalities on poor people and the environment, and ignoring trickle down economics? Surely that’s enough to discredit their character, as if breaking up the Beatles wasn’t, and so also their position.

If you must oppose such we’ll-assume-it’s-a-net-positive development, environmentalists, you should have the decency to be too poor and obscure for the media to pay you any attention. I mean, I suppose there might be people like that too, but there’s no way to tell. :unamused:

7 Likes
70

Sounds like an episode of House.

71

The new optimism of Al Gore

Of course, with global income inequalitity what it is, Americans are among the moneyed elite, so your criticism of Gore serves to justify dangerous profligacy on the part of your society,

72

Yeah, it seems like its really more a money and power issue than psychological. Sure its true that people want to believe the thing that makes their life the easiest, but not many will unless someone puts some money and effort behind it.

73

The author forgot to mention Disrespect.

In nearly every discussion about climate change I’ve seen, skeptics are bombarded with name calling and derision. Perhaps the changers don’t realize that it’s not the best way to change someone’s mind or convince them they might be mistaken.

It occurs to me that since a large portion of the world is still on the fence as to the the validity of climate change, AND will be needed to pass laws, put measures in place, and cooperate to help fix it, the best way to insure no fix will ever happen, is to alienate the other side with holier than thou attitudes.

In my view, the changers are their own worst enemy and in the end, must share the blame for their part in taking us past the tipping point by insisting on belittling the skeptics.

74

Wrong. Even the most religious country in the world (Vatican City) accepts the validity of climate change. Oh, and evolution too, in case you’re heading off in that direction.

6 Likes
75

It is frustrating that the environmental movement has so much focus on an issue that moves so little, but its not exactly their fault that denial of the biggest environmental threat is so well funded.

76

If what you are asking is: do I oppose the 1%ers who advocate lifestyle austerity for the little people as the way to save the planet, the answer would be: yes, yes I do.

And I’m poor enough that my lifetime carbon footprint probably doesn’t equate to what Al Gore, or Tom Friedman, or Leo DiCaprio, cranks out in a month or two.

77

It wasn’t, that’s you painting a face on a hay bale and pretending it looks like me. What I was pointing out was how completely dishonest it is to try and spin things the way this does:

  1. To first pretend opposition to fracking is a form of austerity, so assuming away all the negative consequences it has for little people that are the real reason for objections, in favor of your own sinister version where any environmentalism is inherently harmful;

  2. Next to try and make that something the greedy 1% are imposing on the rest of us. Because you know nobody would ever oppose an environmentally-damaging industrial development who isn’t rich, and there certainly aren’t the 1% at the heart of anti-environment movements like climate change denial.

People here aren’t stupid, lolipop_jones, and you should know by now that when you get called for disingenuity you aren’t going to dig yourself out with more. Go fire your Cuvierian tubules at someone else.

3 Likes
78

It is not always bad when psychological factors prevent us from taking political action.

For one thing, do we really know which action to take? Do we know how to steer the climate where we want? Can we do so without severe economic disruption? That we can detect global warming and perhaps even determine that our species is largely responsible, is not the same thing as knowing how to correct it.

For another, any major action Will be implemented by the idiots we elect, for reasons much more political than scientific. We can be sure than any enacted legislation will not run against the interests of the legislators.

79

This seems a bit off-topic, but really? No benefits to ordinary people? No fast and ubiquitous computing, no internet, no ability for anyone to research a question in a minute, day or night? No greatly improved solar panels, no fast and inexpensive shipping around the world, no greater variety of fresh food, no movies or books on demand, no automobiles with a third the appetite for fuel, no tires that last 50,000 miles (quite unlike those before 1973), no significantly increased average lifespan?
Say it isn’t so!

80

Perhaps I am wrong about the numbers. When I see governments falling over themselves to pass effective laws, sign and ratify real treaties that don’t just make everyone feel warm and fuzzy, I’ll admit I was in error. Until then, I see nothing but political foot dragging and empty rhetoric, which on the face of it, means a lot of the world’s leaders and population don’t take climate change seriously. Whatever the numbers are, climate change marches on with no real solution in sight.

But, what on God’s green earth does religion have to do with this discussion? It seems you were reading something into my post that I did not write, and found an implication that I did not intend.