Human Defenses to Climate Change (Week 9) - Post 1

How to Get People Engaged in the Climate Change Debate 

TED TALK: 

New Thinking on the Climate Crisis - Al Gore

https://www.ted.com/talks/al_gore_s_new_thinking_on_the_climate_crisis

-In order to become optimistic about this [climate change], we have to become incredibly active citizens in our democracy. Don’t change the lightbulbs, change the laws.

-In order to solve the climate crisis, we have to solve the democracy crisis

-The climate crisis is the rare, global, strategic conflict. We must organize our response appropriately.

-Earth, Venus, and Mercury, atmospheric carbon comparison

-IPCC wanted to say 99% certain, but CHINA objected so they settled at 90%.

-Congress when given a list of challenges to confront, Global Warming it still near the bottom.

-What’s missing is a sense of urgency

-NBC asked 956 questions of the presidential candidates in 2007,  2 of them were about the climate crisis:

ABC – 844/2

FOX- 601/ 2

CNN 481/ 2

CBS 319/ 0

-If the wealthy countries were completely missing from the picture, we would still have this crisis. We have given the developing countries the technologies and the way of thinking that are what is creating the crisis.

 -We have to have a unified view to solve this

-Al Gore’s Solution: Put a Price on Carbon

Developed countries - CO2 tax, revenue: neutral, to replace employment taxes

Developing Countries-

-History has presented us with a choice: We have to find a way to make [my generation] another hero generation. Founding Fathers are a hero generation.  One that ended slavery and gave women the right to vote. We have the capacity to do it! We have the capacity to put aside the distractions and rise to the challenge history has given us.

-We can be the ones to solve this crisis and lay the basis for a bright and optimistic future. 

TED TALK`:

 How to transform apocalypse fatigue into action on global warming – Per Espen Stoknes

 https://www.ted.com/talks/per_espen_stoknes_how_to_transform_apocalypse_fatigue_into_action_on_global_warming

Too many facts and advanced scientific language- Detached

Apocolypse, end of world language – Fearful, or just numb

The questions remains, on how to get people engaged in solving global warming?

You see, the biggest obstacle to dealing with climate disruptions lies between your ears.

The five inner defenses that stop people from engaging:

+Distance – When people hear news about the climate coming straight at them, the first defense comes up rapidly: distance. When we hear about the climate, we hear about something far away in space -- think Arctic ice, polar bears -- far away in time -- think 2100. It's huge and slow-moving -- think gigatons and centuries. So it's not here. It's not now. Since it feels so far away from me, it seems outside my circle of influence, so I feel helpless about it. There's nothing I can do. In our everyday lives, most of us prefer to think about nearer things, such as our jobs, our kids, how many likes we get on Facebook. Now, that, that's real.

+Doom –Climate change is usually framed as a looming disaster, bringing losses, cost and sacrifice. That makes us fearful. But after the first fear is gone, my brain soon wants to avoid this topic altogether. After 30 years of scary climate change communications, more than 80 percent of media articles still use disaster framings, but people habituate to and then -- desensitize to doom overuse. So many of us are now suffering a kind of apocalypse fatigue, getting numb from too much collapse porn.

+Dissonance — Now, if what we know, that fossil fuel use contributes to global warming, conflicts with what we do -- drive, fly, eat beef -- then so-called cognitive dissonance sets in. This is felt as an inner discomfort. We may feel like hypocrites. To get rid of this discomfort, our brain starts coming up with justifications. So I can say, for instance, "My neighbor, he has a much bigger car than I do." Or, "Changing my diet doesn't amount to anything if I am the only one to do it." Or, I could even want to doubt climate science itself. I could say, "You know, climate is always changing." They are justifications that make us feel better, by dismissing what w

+Denial – So if we keep silent, ignore or ridicule facts about climate disruptions, then we might find inner refuge from fear and guilt. Denial doesn't really come from lack of intelligence or knowledge. No, denial is a state of mind in which I may be aware of some troubling knowledge, but I live and act as if I don't know. So you could call it a kind of double life, both knowing and not knowing, and often this is reinforced by others, my family or community, agreeing not to raise this tricky topic.

+Identity – Finally, identity. Alarmed climate activists demand that government takes action, either with regulation or carbon taxes. But consider what happens when people who hold conservative values, for instance, hear from an activist that government ought to expand even further. Particularly in rich Western democracies, they are then less likely to believe that science. How is that? Well, if I hold conservative values, for instance, I probably prefer big proper cars and small government over tiny, tiny cars and huge government. And if climate science comes and then says government should expand further, then I probably will trust that science less. In this way, cultural identity starts to override the facts. The values eat the facts, and my identity trumps truth any day.

The Case for Optimism on Climate Change - Al Gore 

https://www.ted.com/talks/al_gore_the_case_for_optimism_on_climate_change

 

-93% of all extra heat is trapped in the ocean

-Storm Insurance agencies are not under any denial, the losses have been mounting.

Al Gore’s Questions:

Must We Change?  Yes

Can We Change?

How long will it take to get there? 

Misinformation:

Article Notes: 

California 6th grade science books: Climate change a matter of opinion not scientific fact

 https://phys.org/news/2015-11-california-6th-grade-science-climate.html

Studies estimate that only 3 percent of scientists who are experts in climate analysis disagree about the causes of climate change. But the most recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—the evidence of 600 climate researchers in 32 countries reporting changes to Earth's atmosphere, ice and seas—in 2013 stated "human influence on the climate system is clear."…Yet only 54 percent of American teens believe climate change is happening, 43 percent don't believe it's caused by humans, and 57 percent aren't concerned about it.

The researchers examined different textbooks, each published in either 2007 or 2008 by a different major publisher. They found and analyzed 279 clauses containing 2,770 words discussing climate change.

"We found that climate change is presented as a controversial debate stemming from differing opinions," said Román, an assistant professor in the Department of Teaching and Learning in the SMU Simmons School. "Climate skeptics and climate deniers are given equal time and treated with equal weight as scientists and scientific facts—even though scientists who refute global warming total a miniscule number."

The message communicated in the four textbooks was that climate change is possibly happening, that humans may or may not be causing it, and its unclear if we need to take immediate mitigating action, the researchers found.

That representation matches the public discourse around global warming, in which previous studies have shown that media characterize climate change as unsettled science with high levels of scientific uncertainty. The researchers said only 33 percent of the U.S. public believes climate change is a serious threat.

Language matters, particularly in California, Texas, New York:

The findings suggest that textbooks should be more specific about the facts, should cite sources, and should accurately reflect the methods by which scientists reached their conclusions.

"The work of scientists should be represented accurately rather than saying that scientists think or believe, as if it's a matter of opinion," Román said.

As a social scientist who studies linguistics and the impact of words, Román said language matters, particularly in the textbooks in the nation's three most populated states, California, Texas and New York, which set standards for the rest of the country.

"These textbooks discuss the impact of climate change on the Earth in hypothetical terms, in complete contradiction to scientific research findings," he said.

Textbooks lack specific language to guide student Action:

Textbook language should reflect the language used in scientific reports, be explicit about the sources of information and should clarify human cause, with specific actions students can take to produce change, the authors recommend.

Yet none of the textbooks explicitly called students to act to mitigate climate change, the authors note.

Generic information, such as "take care of the environment" or "stop burning coal and wood," lack specific solutions for action.

"Students think, 'that's not me—that's the people in the Amazon who are burning forests,'" Román said. "Textbooks must draw the connection between specifics, such as turning off lights or driving less, to relate solutions to students and their lives."