Losing sight of the real problems?

[brettbh]

Google How To Be Green and you'll find countless websites offering advice on everything from choosing eco-friendly beers to how to make your Thanksgiving celebrations greener. TreeHugger, for example.

Most of what these websites recommend is small spuds - easy stuff that anybody can do without feeling too much pain - but that's ok. I mean, it all helps, right? Or does it? Are these things simply distracting people and causing them to lose sight of issues that are much more important? Are people drinking their pint of eco-beer and thinking, "Great, that's it, I've done my bit for the environment today"?

The fact is that making the changes that are needed to protect our environment and stop climate change is not going to be easy and is not going to be painless. Radical action and major changes are needed. Drinking eco-beer will not cut it. Going into the forest and chopping down holly bushes (as this post recommends - is that good for the environment, anyway?) will not cut it. And environmentally-friendly shagging certainly will not cut it.

Websites such as TreeHugger tell people what they want to hear and lead them to believe that they can make a big difference by doing small things - easy things which require minimal effort on their part and which do not entail significant lifestyle adjustments. But that's not the case. To make a real difference and to effect the changes that are needed, people do not need start drinking eco-beer or searching the Internet with Blackle. What they do need to do is to get rid off their Hummers and start using public transport (ouch!). They need to vote - and to vote for a party that has a clear environmental policy. They need to telephone their politicians and demand that they do not support Shrub's midnight regulations against the environment - and to make it clear that, if they do support them, they'll be voting for somebody else come the next election. They need to attend and express their opinions at public meetings/consultations. They need to stop buying products from companies with poor environmental records - and to make it clear to those companies why have they stopped buying their products.

People looking for information about what they can do to help the environment arrive at sites such as TreeHugger and what do they find? Trivial stuff about eco-undies and environmentally-friendly gifts for Father's Day, that's what. These sites contain practically no advice on matters of any substance. They do not encourage activism. They do not discuss serious environmental problems. They do not offer any advice as to what people can do about those problems - which local or national politician and/or which government agency or department a complaint about that problem should be addressed. They do not offer sample correspondence which would make it easier for people to draft their own complaints. They do not discuss the environmental policies of political parties. They simply talk about eco-undies.

Certain aspects of the green movement have been commercialized. Websites such as TreeHugger are for-profit enterprises which have jumped on the green bandwagon in order to make a buck. They have absolutely no interest in encouraging or helping people to do what's best for the environment; instead, they simply tell people what they want to hear so that they'll keep on returning to the website. According to the TreeHugger website:

"Our environment is currently facing huge obstacles that have the potential to seriously disrupt our future and the future of all our fellow flora and fauna friends. Keeping that in mind, TreeHugger also sympathizes with the fact that most people aren’t willing to compromise their current lifestyle in order to improve our shared environment, so we have created a place where you can discover how to maintain or improve your quality of life while reducing your harmful impact on the earth."

BS! That's akin to telling a fat person that he can lose weight without either eating less or exercising. Well, sorry to disillusion you, Butterball, but there's no gain without pain. Keep on eating supersized junk food, and you'll always look like the Michellin Man.

People absolutely do need to "compromise their current lifestyle in order to improve our shared environment" and telling them otherwise simply is not helpful. They do need to give up their Hummers, they do need to start making greater use of public transportation and, most importantly, they do occasionally give up some of their free time and use it to speak out about environmental matters. Buying eco-undies is not enough.

While it's certainly good to see the green movement gaining momentum, it's not so good to see important message being buried by nonsense pushed out by for-profit companies.

[mountainhiker]

Google How To Be Green and you'll find countless websites offering advice on everything from choosing eco-friendly beers to how to make your Thanksgiving celebrations greener. TreeHugger, for example.

Most of what these websites recommend is small spuds - easy stuff that anybody can do without feeling too much pain - but that's ok. I mean, it all helps, right? Or does it? Are these things simply distracting people and causing them to lose sight of issues that are much more important? Are people drinking their pint of eco-beer and thinking, "Great, that's it, I've done my bit for the environment today"?

The fact is that making the changes that are needed to protect our environment and stop climate change is not going to be easy and is not going to be painless. Radical action and major changes are needed. Drinking eco-beer will not cut it. Going into the forest and chopping down holly bushes (as this post recommends - is that good for the environment, anyway?) will not cut it. And environmentally-friendly shagging certainly will not cut it.

Websites such as TreeHugger tell people what they want to hear and lead them to believe that they can make a big difference by doing small things - easy things which require minimal effort on their part and which do not entail significant lifestyle adjustments. But that's not the case. To make a real difference and to effect the changes that are needed, people do not need start drinking eco-beer or searching the Internet with Blackle. What they do need to do is to get rid off their Hummers and start using public transport (ouch!). They need to vote - and to vote for a party that has a clear environmental policy. They need to telephone their politicians and demand that they do not support Shrub's midnight regulations against the environment - and to make it clear that, if they do support them, they'll be voting for somebody else come the next election. They need to attend and express their opinions at public meetings/consultations. They need to stop buying products from companies with poor environmental records - and to make it clear to those companies why have they stopped buying their products.

People looking for information about what they can do to help the environment arrive at sites such as TreeHugger and what do they find? Trivial stuff about eco-undies and environmentally-friendly gifts for Father's Day, that's what. These sites contain practically no advice on matters of any substance. They do not encourage activism. They do not discuss serious environmental problems. They do not offer any advice as to what people can do about those problems - which local or national politician and/or which government agency or department a complaint about that problem should be addressed. They do not offer sample correspondence which would make it easier for people to draft their own complaints. They do not discuss the environmental policies of political parties. They simply talk about eco-undies.

Certain aspects of the green movement been commercialized. Websites such as TreeHugger are for-profit enterprises which have jumped on the green bandwagon in order to make a buck. They have absolutely no interest in encouraging or helping people to do what's best for the environment; instead, they simply tell people what they want to hear so that they'll keep on returning to the website. According to the TreeHugger website:

"Our environment is currently facing huge obstacles that have the potential to seriously disrupt our future and the future of all our fellow flora and fauna friends. Keeping that in mind, TreeHugger also sympathizes with the fact that most people aren’t willing to compromise their current lifestyle in order to improve our shared environment, so we have created a place where you can discover how to maintain or improve your quality of life while reducing your harmful impact on the earth."

BS! That's akin to telling a fat person that he can lose weight without either eating less or exercising. Well, sorry to disillusion you, Butterball, but there's no gain without pain. Keep on eating supersized junk food, and you'll always look like the Michellin Man.

People absolutely do need to "compromise their current lifestyle in order to improve our shared environment" and telling them otherwise simply is not helpful. They do need to give up their Hummers, they do need to start making greater use of public transportation and, most importantly, they do occasionally give up some of their free time and use it to speak out about environmental matters. Buying eco-undies is not enough.

While it's certainly good to see the green movement gaining momentum, it's not so good to see important message being buried by nonsense pushed out by for-profit companies.

Well the latest polls show that people are losing interest in doing the really hard stuff, too many people crying wolf ( the world is coming to an end) and interest is down.

[brettbh]

Well the latest polls show that people are losing interest in doing the really hard stuff, too many people crying wolf ( the world is coming to an end) and interest is down.

Yup, there are numerous problems. Firstly, there is the public's perception of environmentalists as bunny-hugging crackpots with absolutely no credibility. Secondly, the science related to climate change is somewhat unclear and the waters have been further muddied by impartial research (example) sponsored by bodies on both sides of the environmental fence which makes it difficult for people to understand the real situation. Thirdly, resources such as TreeHugger which infer that people can reduce their impact on the environment simply by wearing eco-undies and drinking eco-beer.

My take? The majority of people - me included - have no idea whether or not climate change is a reality and so all we can do is work with the best information to hand, and that is probably the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control:

• "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."
  
• "From new estimates of the combined anthropogenic forcing due to greenhouse gases, aerosols, and land surface changes, it is extremely likely that human activities have exerted a substantial net warming influence on climate since 1750."
  
• "It is virtually certain that anthropogenic aerosols produce a net negative radiative forcing (cooling influence) with a greater magnitude in the Northern Hemisphere than in the Southern Hemisphere."
  

We have no way of knowing whether the IPCC are right (even they cannot say for sure whether they are right), but it would be extremely stupid to sit back and do nothing in the hope that they are wrong.

IMO, the green movement needs to starting working with the facts and facts only. Debates about whether more glaciers are shrinking than expanding are not needed and simply confuse people ("Huh? Some are getting bigger while others are getting smaller. Why's that? What does it mean? Does it mean that the planet is getting warmer? Or does it mean that the next Ice Age is almost upon us?"). What's really important - and what needs to be stressed - is that the world's best brains have concluded that, "It is extremely likely that human activities have exerted a substantial net warming influence on climate since 1750." That alone should be enough to convince most people that we should change our ways.

[mountainhiker]

"It is extremely likely that human activities have exerted a substantial net warming influence on climate since 1750." That alone should be enough to convince most people that we should change our ways.

Have to agree with you on several points and now we do have people saying "the next Ice Age is almost upon us" but either way we still need to change the way we are interacting with the environment. And the "warm" people might do much better if they focus on working to change our interaction rather than running around it little circle screaming that the oceans are going to rise 200 feet and flood the world. After a while and the sea level is the same, credibility is lost and you still have the problems.

[brettbh]

And the "warm" people might do much better if they focus on working to change our interaction rather than running around it little circle screaming that the oceans are going to rise 200 feet and flood the world. After a while and the sea level is the same, credibility is lost and you still have the problems.

Yup, some debates simply serve to muddy the waters. For example, claiming that the Carteret Islands are sinking because of global warming will invariably be perceived by some as alarmist doom mongering. The fact is, that nobody can say for sure what's causing these islands to "sink". Is it due to tectonic movement, reef erosion, El Niño, global warming or some other combination of conditions? And, if it is due to global warning, is that a natural phenomenon (such as 5° rise during the Jurassic period) or a man-made phenomenon? Or a combination of both?

I did some reading on the Carteret Islands and, I must say, that I am not at all convinced that these islands are sinking because of global warming (at least, not yet) and I'm sure that others feel exactly the same way. If people see claims which state that it is a matter of absolute fact that these islands are sinking because of global warming, they may well wonder about the accuracy of other claims about global warming. And that's counterproductive.

The fact is that the majority of people do not know enough to be able to hold an informed opinion about global warming. They do not know enough to be able to say whether it's a man-made phenomenon or whether it's part of the same natural cycle that saw temperatures rise by about 5 degrees during the Jurassic period due to an increased concentration of greenhouse gasses or whether it's a combination of both. There is no point in confouding them with science because the science is contradictory and completely beyond their understanding. There is no point telling them that global warming is casuing glaciers to melt when some glaciers are, in fact, expanding. That simply creates confusion. There is no point telling people that global warming is causing islands to sink when there is no evidence to support such a claim. That simply creates mistrust.

As I said, to really get people to on board, the green movement needs to simplify its message and start dealing in indisputable facts. And, where facts are disputable, to present them as such instead of claiming, "We're all gonna drown - and the few who do not drown shall become climatic refugees in a scorched post-apocalyptic world, slowly starving to death because of global crop failures."

[mountainhiker]

The fact is that the majority of people do not know enough to be able to hold an informed opinion about global warming. They do not know enough to be able to say whether it's a man-made phenomenon or whether it's part of the same natural cycle that saw temperatures rise by about 5 degrees during the Jurassic period due to an increased concentration of greenhouse gasses or whether it's a combination of both. There is no point in confouding them with science because the science is contradictory and completely beyond their understanding. There is no point telling them that global warming is casuing glaciers to melt when some glaciers are, in fact, expanding. That simply creates confusion. There is no point telling people that global warming is causing islands to sink when there is no evidence to support such a claim. That simply creates mistrust.

As I said, to really get people to on board, the green movement needs to simplify its message and start dealing in indisputable facts. And, where facts are disputable, to present them as such instead of claiming, "We're all gonna drown - and the few who do not drown shall become climatic refugees in a scorched post-apocalyptic world, slowly starving to death because of global crop failures."

To many people only want to focus on the "man-made" cries because that attracts more attention. And to muddy the water even more, now some are starting to say we are swinging into a cold period, ie, in may places this will be a much colder winter than many of the last winters. Looking out the window at a covering of snow that we have not seen in several years myself so I too have to wonder "what happened to global warming". When people wade thru the snow to listen to a "global warming" talk it does seem to take the edge off.... <_<

[Simon]

To many people only want to focus on the "man-made" cries because that attracts more attention. And to muddy the water even more, now some are starting to say we are swinging into a cold period, ie, in may places this will be a much colder winter than many of the last winters. Looking out the window at a covering of snow that we have not seen in several years myself so I too have to wonder "what happened to global warming". When people wade thru the snow to listen to a "global warming" talk it does seem to take the edge off....

That is a local climate event and hasn't happened frequently yet. I thought you were a bit smart than believing in climate deniers bullshit.

And Yes, the data show the planet STILL keeps warming and Killing the myth of the 1970s global cooling scientific consensus.

[brettbh]

That is a local climate event and hasn't happened frequently yet. I thought you were a bit smart than believing in climate deniers bullshit.

And Yes, the data show the planet STILL keeps warming and Killing the myth of the 1970s global cooling scientific consensus.

Hmmm. I don't think that he actually expressed an opinion - he simply said that cold winters make some people wonder whether or not global warming is really something about which they need to be worried.

That said, there is really no doubt at all that global warming is a reality. What's less certain is the cause. Is it man-made? Is it part of a natural warming cycle? Or is it a combination of both? Temperatures rose by 5º during the Jurassic period due to increased concentrations of greenhouse gasses, and who’s to say that that’s not what’s happening now?

My point is that saying man is, without doubt, to blame for global warming is not helpful. And nor is saying that seas are rising and that islands are sinking because of man-induced global warming. The science is way too complicated to enable people to make informed decisions about the realities of global warming. They have to rely on what they are being told. And if the green movement is telling them that global warming is causing islands to sink (when the evidence does not conclusively support that), then people will doubt everything that the green movement has to say.

Simple and honest facts are the best way to motivate people into action. Doomsday scenarios based on inclusive science are not.

[mountainhiker]

That said, there is really no doubt at all that global warming is a reality. What's less certain is the cause. Is it man-made? Is it part of a natural warming cycle? Or is it a combination of both? Temperatures rose by 5º during the Jurassic period due to increased concentrations of greenhouse gasses, and who’s to say that that’s not what’s happening now?

And there rests a major issue. No one has proven it is man-made or that it is not the result of a natural warming cycle or both. We never really see any facts only the constant one sided remarks based on smoke and mirrors. We know that this has happened before and men were not there to be blamed for it.

[Bobby]

I think the point here is to live with awareness! As with every issue - be it social, economic or political - there are people who care enough to do something, people who care but that's about it and people who don't share your point of view.

The fact that we are trying definitely makes a difference, even if it is only for our own peace of mind.

[Simon]

I think what you guys are doing now is very dangerous, spreading sceptisicm around, making "ordinary" people confused about climate change. And this is part of why we haven't advanced further when it comes to the climate crisis and our reaction to it. There is way too much ignorant sceptisicm floating around outside of the scientific sphere, and that is not good!

And of course, there is an overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is man-made and that the main contributing factor is the burning of fossil fuels. That is pretty much basic climate science by now.

And its not because of "natural cycles", or the sun. A scientific study has concluded that changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change. It shows that for the last 20 years, the Sun's output has declined, yet temperatures on Earth have risen. It also shows that modern temperatures are not determined by the Sun's effect on cosmic rays, as has been claimed. Writing in the Royal Society's journal Proceedings A, the researchers say cosmic rays may have affected climate in the past, but not the present.

http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/index....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/na...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/07/...

http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/front/de...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment...

[brettbh]

I think what you guys are doing now is very dangerous, spreading scepticism around, making "ordinary" people confused about climate change.

Even the IPCC cannot say for sure that global warming is a man-made phenomenon and so their reports use phrases such as “very likely†and “extremely likely.â€

My point is simply that the majority of people would react better to simple honesty than overstatement. Tell them that the world's leading climate scientists have concluded that, "It is extremely likely that human activities have exerted a substantial net warming influence on climate since 1750," and they may sit up and listen. Pull a Chicken Licken and tell them that the sky is falling in and that islands are sinking (when that has not been conclusively proven) and they'll likely think, "Uh-oh. Here we go again," and promptly lose interest.

[Simon]

Even the IPCC cannot say for sure that global warming is a man-made phenomenon and so their reports use phrases such as "very likely" and "extremely likely."

My point is simply that the majority of people would react better to simple honesty than overstatement. Tell them that the world's leading climate scientists have concluded that, "It is extremely likely that human activities have exerted a substantial net warming influence on climate since 1750," and they may sit up and listen. Pull a Chicken Licken and tell them that the sky is falling in and that islands are sinking (when that has not been conclusively proven) and they'll likely think, "Uh-oh. Here we go again," and promptly lose interest.

A scientists can never say they are sure about anything. They can't say they are 100% sure that it's man-made, because then they cant call themselves scientists. But this doesn't mean that climate change might not be caused by humans. Gravity is a fine example of this. Scientists can only use phrases such as "very likely" and "extremely likely" that gravity is what it is. They can't say it's 100% true. But that doesn't mean we non-scientists should go around being sceptical about this.

And I don't think this is the main reason why people don't care about climate change, or don't want to "believe" in it. It's because it is such a HUGE and complex doomsday crisis that its hard for people to even grasp or imagine what climate change means. Before the tsunami in South Asia no one could imagine how awful and devastating a tsunami could be. But now when we have experienced one we all know.. Unfortunately when the effects of climate change kicks in and people can actually see and feel the effects it will probably be too late to do anything about it. That is why its so hard to summon togheter people in the fight against global warming.

[brettbh]

But this doesn't mean that climate change might not be caused by humans.

Nope, it doesn’t. In fact, it is undoubtedly “very likely†and “extremely likely†that human activity has indeed contributed to climate change.

And I don't think this is the main reason why people don't care about climate change, or don't want to "believe" in it.

I do. The climate change discussion have become akin to a political debate with both sides presenting conflicting and biased (mis)information. This results in confusion. People simply do not know what’s fact, what’s fiction and what’s speculation. And that’s not the way to stimulate them into action. Telling them that islands are sinking because of global warming (when the evidence to support that claim is extremely weak) is not the way to get them to get them to accept the realities of climate change.

I am not for one moment suggesting that the green movement should underplay the importance of climate change; simply that it should distil its arguments and start to place greater emphasis on simple, indisputable and important facts. The green movement should stop talking about sinking islands and start talking about the fact that the majority of climate scientists agree that human activities are almost certainly causing the world to get warmer. The green movement should stop talking about knickers made from recycled cans and environmentally-friendly clothing for chihuahuas and start talking about what people need to do in order to really make a difference.

[mountainhiker]

The green movement should stop talking about knickers made from recycled cans and environmentally-friendly clothing for chihuahuas and start talking about what people need to do in order to really make a difference.

10-4 on the part about

start talking about what people need to do in order to really make a difference

.

If you came down from the 50,000 foot level with islands sinking and got down to something that the average person could clearly accomplish, then you would make progress.

[brettbh]

If you came down from the 50,000 foot level with islands sinking and got down to something that the average person could clearly accomplish, then you would make progress.

Indeed. And I certainly wish that there were more green resources which encouraged and helped people to accomplish something meaningful rather than encouraging them to drink eco-beer and wear undies made of recycled aluminium.

[Simon]

Doing such small things does help save the environment. You can't say they are meaningless. But I do understand your point. I tend to say that the only "real" difference one ordinary human can do is to vote for the political party that represents change.

Its only the governments and politicians that can turn this crisis around. Drinking eco-beer or buying an energy star tech-o-thing is good stuff. But they are just the money-making side of the green coin. Governments with their rules, regulations and policies are the only ones that can do any lasting change.

As a side note.. I try to keep Green Blog away from this green capitalistic way that the majority of the green blogs out there are based on. But its hard because those are the stuff that people are interested in, those are the topics that increases your traffic.

EDIT: I wrote this in a rush so there will most likely be some grammar errors but "bear" with me! ;)

[brettbh]

>>Doing such small things does help save the environment.<<

Yeah, and were Santa to bring MountainHiker a pair of methane-absorbing charcoal underpants, that too would help the environment by reducing his greenhouse gas emissions. But so what? Even if the poor chap suffered from an exceptionally bad case of chronic flatulence, his new undies would have no real impact on the environment at all.

>>You can't say they are meaningless.<<

I can and I will :-) Or rather, I'll say that they are counterproductive. Telling people wear aluminium underwear or to "Accessorize Your Vehicle with Green Bling" or to "Make Your Own Bath Bombs" or to follow the golden toilet rule (if it's yellow let it mellow, if it's brown flush it down) paints the green movement as a bunch of crazy, unhygienic nutcases. Encouraging people to do stupid things simply does not help. It does not help the environment and nor does it help the green movement's credibility.

>>Drinking eco-beer or buying an energy star tech-o-thing is good stuff. But they are just the money-making side of the green coin. But they are just the money-making side of the green coin.<<

These businesses are neither heads nor tails on the green coin. They are not committed to bettering the environment, they are simply committed to bettering their bottom lines. They are not businesses started by environmentally-minded people, they are simply the latest brainchilren of so-called serial entrepeneurs seeking to make a buck from an expanding market for green products. Green sells and that's why some business claim that products are green even when they are not. Heck, the CEO of BitTorrent even attempted to claim that P2P was environmentally-friendly.

Now, I have no problem at all with people making money from providing green products/services. Should somebody be able to make a living out of helping the environment, then that's excellent. But may of these businesses are not doing that. They're making money, yes, but helping the environment? Nope, hardly at all. They are simply lining their own pockets while simultaneously trashing and trivializing the meaning of being green.

[mountainhiker]

>>Doing such small things does help save the environment.<<

Yeah, and were Santa to bring MountainHiker a pair of methane-absorbing charcoal underpants, that too would help the environment by reducing his greenhouse gas emissions. But so what? Even if the poor chap suffered from an exceptionally bad case of chronic flatulence, his new undies would have no real impact on the environment at all.

>>You can't say they are meaningless.<<

I can and I will :-) Or rather, I'll say that they are counterproductive. Telling people wear aluminium underwear or to "Accessorize Your Vehicle with Green Bling" or to "Make Your Own Bath Bombs" or to follow the golden toilet rule (if it's yellow let it mellow, if it's brown flush it down) paints the green movement as a bunch of crazy, unhygienic nutcases. Encouraging people to do stupid things simply does not help. It does not help the environment and nor does it help the green movement's credibility.

I suspect that people getting charcoal underpants for Christmas will not be amused unless they have a real sense of humor.

However due to the cost and maintenance I fail to see how it will be rated as a "green" product....

[brettbh]

However due to the cost and maintenance I fail to see how it will be rated as a "green" product....

Yup, it's a dumb idea. Just like aluminium undies, environmentally-friendly clothes for chihuahuas and all the other completely trivial and idiotic ideas that are listed on some (supposedly) green websites.