Melbourne based blogger Andrew Norton was the first person I saw use the term “the real greenhouse denialists” to describe people who accept the scientific arguments about climate change, but still aren’t prepared to try to make the major changes to their own lifestyles that would be necessary to meet the required emission levels.
I think this term encapsulates what I see as the biggest barrier to addressing the climate change threat — a lack of awareness of just how much we need to change our economic and personal behaviours, and/or a lack of willingness to do it (as well as the normal human approach of expecting “someone else” to “do something” when it comes to big problems)
As Andrew Norton put it last year:
This is the greenhouse ‘denialist’ problem — not a few conservatives arguing that climate change is a left-wing conspiracy, but a public that accepts the theory but rejects the consequences of their beliefs.
There have been a couple more reports of late which reinforce this view.
The ABC reported recently on a survey done by the Australian National University which found that “Australians are deeply concerned about global warming but are only prepared to change their behaviour in small ways.”
Individuals can only do so much. Options are sometimes limited, for example using public transport instead of driving. Individuals can opt to get their electricity from renewable sources, but will pay a premium for doing so. It is governments globally that must take the initiative, as they did with CFC’s. It amazes me there were not more references to the Montreal Protocol, when it came to debating the pros and cons of the Kyoto Protocol. The low hanging fruit in the form of ratifying Kyoto has been picked. A lot will depend on the new US administration and how quickly they move. It is possible that the Copenhagen meeting next year will not deliver, in which case pray a slab of ice half the size of Tasmania detaches itself from Antarctica, sooner, rather than later. Such an event may concentrate the minds of the public and politicians. Otherwise we shall continue to sleep walk to oblivion.
Mmm speaking of storm, looks pretty ominous here
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=U1GIiIz0Pzo
Well about 25% of people have tertiary education, so 75% don’t and go on trust and the settings are just not there from the Establishment.
Secondly there is genetic disposition – like the north american voles I studied in my population dynamics essay in Zoology 2nd year. Suffice to say boom and bust in times of plenty – from memory the features includes: high density increase population of course, but then also stress related illness and high rates of contagion, expansion beyond food and shelter natural limits. Leading to crash.
We are not voles …. but we might as well be! In the meantime I noticed the first cylcone in my memory in Brisbane. That’s real politik.