I can't believe we're on the eve of destruction

Picking up on a couple of pieces of editorial in the Guardian recently, both by Adam Corner, gives me the opportunity to cover two matters which I think are important. The first concerns changing our World for the better here, "Morality is missing from the debate about sustainable behaviour" and the second, "Will the IPCC start a new conversation about climate change?", here .

Reading the comments to the latter piece it was interesting to note that many of the responses were about responsibility, crisis, protection, danger; familiar themes in climate change dialogue, and the common subject for accusations of alarmism. Here is my contribution to the comments thread:

Fear need not be the overriding 'necessary' response to climate change. To an extent it plays into the hands of those unwilling to face the reality of change; it's just too easy for them to cry 'alarmism' or simply go into denial.
The IPCC was formed to help all governments understand and address the risks which were first identified twenty years ago. What have governments managed to achieve in this time? Some are trying, most are failing.

The fact that our world is changing almost faster than we can comprehend should be recognised as a simple reality. But it is also an opportunity. We can see from countless bits of evidence that we have placed ourselves in jeopardy from the historic indifference not just to the climate but also the environment and ecology of the planet. We know the relationship between our past choices and present predicament.

So now, being able to see what has been and see what is likely to be, without decisive action, we have an opportunity. Our generation can (should?) shape the future that we choose; we can let the slide into the mire continue, or we can choose to envision a better way of living within our planet and get off our arses and do something about it.

Don't be afraid. Be determined.
The first Guardian piece is really about the reasons we have for making a change in our personal lives. Corner proposes that most lasting behavioural change comes from internalisation and decision based on ethical foundations. He also points to the ineffectiveness of purely 'money-as-value'- driven arguments for action. These are the ones which assume that we are stuck in the 'sixties presumption that all the Public cares about really is the 'pound in their pocket'.

It was interesting to note the creation in September of a new think tank,  The New Climate Economy. Read the 'about' section to get a sense of the undoubtedly valuable mission the organisation has. But the organisation suffers from the same fundamental problem shared with much of the Political debate on climate change - it presumes that the ultimate motivation for any future action must be self-interested, and (for politicians and corporations) that variations of cost-benefit and risk assessment analysis are the way forward, since their content is ostensibly measurable.

And so I think that the New Climate Economy is missing something - in sticking to the presumption of the pre-eminence of Economy over other elements of the sustainability circle, it will no doubt do much to counter the pseudo-Lomborgian 'Climate change mitigation is a waste of money' argument. But it won't stimulate sustained behavioural change without a heart. As Corner suggests, that heart needs to be fundamentally ethical, based on values other than economic ones. Then, the language, the communication and the call to action will have a more powerful response.

We should recognise that, in important ways, the way that modern human society works has resulted in disproportionate power being placed in the hands of the bean-counters and their lawyers. And whilst their role and contribution to development, change management and future-building is both important and valuable, I would leave you with the questions: Are these the (kind of) people who we want to shape our future World? If they are already just too powerful to replace, what can we do to restructure both climate and sustainability thinking in such a way that their role is less about the why and more about the how?

Because the why matters.

Can we move on?

People argue a lot online about climate change and AGW. The 'Public Acceptance' of AGW fluctuates somewhat, but in broader terms, a majority accept that AGW is a reality and 'Something Must Be Done' about it, whilst a minority (which varies in size depending on variables such as demographics, geography, etc. but is not insubstantial) challenge this 'Conventional Wisdom'. I suppose many climate blogs exist precisely because their authors see a necessity/opportunity in engaging with what is potentially a sizeable audience of the 'General Public' and expressing/espousing/championing/defending their own point of view on the subject.

And now we have got stuck. The opportunity for developing a better understanding of the subject is more or less non-existent. You see, people just don't listen. Part of the fun of the blogosphere is that we can, as bloggers or commenters or trolls, have our voices heard. So much of the interaction between people is reduced to SHOUTING or having a dig at another (relatively) anonymous, absent person who can't really punch us because we're seven thousand miles apart and anyway he/she is an idiot...

The challenge that 'scientists must/should engage more actively' (or similar) in order to sway the balance of Public Opinion is commonly touted, but, honestly, there are a lot of scientists doing a lot of this and it doesn't seem to make a lot of difference.

The politicisation of climate science hasn't helped. It tends to polarise  - by design - discussion, turning it into (at best) Rhetoric and Sophistry or (at worst) Polemic. It has to be recognised that sophistry can be influential - people can be and are swayed by smooth arguments and clever manipulation of the facts. Polemic is just shouting, it frequently confuses and upsets people, but probably doesn't change their thoughts, opinions or inclinations, unless they are so frightened by the bullying that they simply withdraw.

And of course this suits The Media very well. The essence of News is conflict. The communication of AGW has firmly been been framed in terms of 'pro' and 'anti' and we, the masses, naturally tend to join in on the side with which we most readily associate (Us versus Them). There's no point in blaming the media for doing this - it is in the nature of the beast itself to be thus - but that doesn't mean conversely that we should sit idly by while the flim-flam men and snake-oil sellers rip off our neighbours...we should (and often do) speak up and expose these people for what they are.

All of which leaves us in a dark place; the possibility that no matter what you do or say, that majority/minority is unlikely to change its mind in less than a generation, at least. There will always be a differencing, the problem with it is that, as it stands, it encourages politicians and decision makers to believe that the status quo is an acceptable state of being, so that important, difficult, potentially world-effecting decisions do not actually have to be made; they can sit on the fence and fudge it, avoiding the risk of becoming unpopular and thereby losing their mandate.

Is there no hope? Of course, there is always hope (thanks, Pandora). I have a couple of ideas about how interaction between science and the public can move forward in such a way that we, the masses, can look at our own uncertainties/opinions/obsessions/prejudices and question them, that we can actually change our minds. And I'll give you a clue - it isn't via Pedagogy. More on this later.