"Doing my bit" for climate change: why bother?

[Calrissian]

I can assure you, that having energy efficient light bulbs does nothing for ones sex life. I've installed a few dozen, and things have not changed, either way

[parmenides3]

I can assure you, that having energy efficient light bulbs does nothing for ones sex life. I've installed a few dozen, and things have not changed, either way

I have found that turning lights off can work wonders...

VP: a very interesting post. A response:

We know that we can no longer trust the media (if we ever could) to tell it straight, and we expect exaggeration and confusion from that direction. This is why NW and other websites are so useful; we can pool our knowledge understanding and experience and identify the real messages out of the dross which assails us almost daily. Even if the media representation is hyperbolic (or wrong), we can still recognise that there is an issue to do with the changing climate, there is an issue about our role in these changes, and the issue is probably serious if the media, governments and scientists are all saying pretty much the same basic thing. Decidning what to believe or not is a more difficult problem, but in general, if I want to know the facts, I look for the greatest authority on a subject. In the case of climate change, this is the scientists.

We also know that governments are habitually long on talk and short on action. We also know that policy will be dictated by economic concerns first, foremost and always, so where these conflict with environmental concerns, the government will always look for where the money is. One of the ideas I suggested is that governments listen when voters act. This is generally a fair claim, even if, after listening, they still do the wrong things. If our government sees that several million of us are willing to actually do something, one at a time and of our own choosing, they must reach the conclusion that, as an electorate, we care sufficiently to influence our voting decisions. As they depend on these for their survival, they must then make the effort to act, or lose their positions.

In the face of one message telling us how big the problem is, and another telling us how important doing something tiny is, it is no surprise if some of us spot the apparent contradiction and decide that action is pointless. But even if it was pointless in the face of CC, it would still be good for us to do these things, as we would benefit directly and personally. If it also turns out that the scientists have been right all along, then we gain more, and lose nothing.

I'm still of the opinion that DL has misunderstood my original post, so unless there's more to come, we can put that to one side for the time being.

thanks to all for the responses,

:)P

[Turnedoutniceagain]

I believe the Australians have banned the sale of old style light bulbs. It's now only possible to buy energy efficient bulbs.

Do you chuck litter down on the ground because you've no conscience? Throw fags end out of the car? Fly tip? That the road you're on.

Don't smoke. Most of my junk that the bone-idle council gits won't/can't take, ends up on my bonfire. Sorted.

It's just about being a nice thoughtful considerate person, and the benefits that is likely to bring

Err, bring out a book -Change your life by using your blue-bin

Edited August 28, 2007 by Turnedoutniceagain

[VillagePlank]

VP: a very interesting post.

Yeah, well, I gave it a go. Can't really disagree with what you say, to be honest.

[Devonian]

Don't smoke. Most of my junk that the bone-idle council gits won't/can't take, ends up on my bonfire. Sorted.

Right, so you don't drop litter - good. But, why not drop litter if other people do? After all your argument is why should we as a country try to limit our waste if China doesn't. So why do you not drop litter if other people do?

As to bin men, people like you really do say he most amazingly bitter things - it's as if insulting people is fine. Well, I hear the bin men come around as I get up. They do a job I don't want to do. Good for them.

Edited August 28, 2007 by Devonian

[Gray-Wolf]

Dear All,

Interesting discussion - a small point regarding Gray Wolf's comment re people with Asperger's Syndrome - hopefully quoted below

I'd Agree Pennine, no matter how much we pretend we 'don't care/won't care' we all do (unless we're some kind of Asberger type or just plain psychopathic) and I'd rather not clutter my life up with guilt I then have to try to hide from/escape from to feel good again.

People with Asperger's are not necessarily less likely to care about the environment or anything else for that matter, but are more likely to have difficulties understanding social communication and social relationships, some people with Aspergers may not wish to be involved in social aspects others will want to desperately but not be able to understand how to make friends etc. and it is not helpful or accurate to link Asperger's with psychopathy.

Best wishes,

Gil

I'm off topic but I feel I must appologise for the clumbsy way I word things, esp. when it causes upset/offence where none was intended. I fully accept your correction Gil and hope I'll not repeat my mistake in the future.

Ian.

[Turnedoutniceagain]

Right, so you don't drop litter - good. So why do you not drop litter if other people do?

Because I use a bin as most other civilized people do . Who wants to live in rubbish strewn countryside ??

[Devonian]

Because I use a bin as most other civilized people do . Who wants to live in rubbish strewn countryside ??

Right!

So why not extend that view to the planet? You don't say 'I'll litter here because others do' but you do say 'I'll litter the planet because others do'. You're being inconsistent imo.

[VillagePlank]

In the face of one message telling us how big the problem is, and another telling us how important doing something tiny is, it is no surprise if some of us spot the apparent contradiction and decide that action is pointless. But even if it was pointless in the face of CC, it would still be good for us to do these things, as we would benefit directly and personally. If it also turns out that the scientists have been right all along, then we gain more, and lose nothing.

I agree, P3, but your appeal to the logic of efficiency, in both a fiscal and climatic sense, unfortunately, is likely to land on deaf ears.

This is not to say that those who disagree with your point of view are ignorant, it is to say that those who find it difficult to change are simply representative of the clear and vast majority of human beings.

Although this is an extremely difficult point of view to rationalise I can only offer my experience in working in the IT sector for well over a decade and supporting users from all backgrounds, and, dare I say it, users of vastly differing intellects. None of them like change. Not one of them.

The software I have delivered has not only made a measurable difference to company profits, but has also made users life easier to bear, and more productive. Whilst, for instance, once they were using pens to paper to produce quotes they can produce much more detailed customer responses using a mouse and whilst on the telephone to their customers. In fact you'd be suprised by the amount of customers who are suprised by their quote arriving whilst still on the phone (by fax or email)

This is, of course, the application of technology. Do you think any user liked the change. Like hell they did. They hated it. With a vengeance. They have got used to it now, but they won't like the next iteration of change, and I'm almost certain that I will spend even more time sitting in front of the board justifying the same decisions over and over and over again.

I've threatened that we should have a 'Let's go back to the way it was five years ago day' but no-one seems too keen .....

Edited August 28, 2007 by VillagePlank

[Iceberg]

Lazy but of people us human's.

People don't like change but they do like the effects of change. All these factors concerning the inconsistances of people make modelling our behaviour bloody difficult.

For the public you need to educate them to understand the subject.

For the decision makers you need to educate them to make the right decision.

The public are not decision makers. At least the vast majority of them.

[Pennine Ten Foot Drifts]

Err, bring out a book -Change your life by using your blue-bin

In the end it's all about respect - respect for others, both now and in the future, and respect for one's environment, as opposed to the 'I'll behave how I please and no-one has the 'right' to tell me otherwise' approach, which, whilst to a certain extent true, (we are 'free' to behave incredibly selfishly if we want), doesn't help in any way. In fact, it is the 'why should I', 'I can't be bothered', 'it won't make any difference' kind of responses which are really just an extension of the astounding levels of selfish self-serving behaviour which is in truth at the heart of many more of our society's ills than just the environmental issues.

Back to P3s original post, behaving respectfully and considerately to both the people you meet and the environment you share, (which many seem to forget), can only have beneficial results - as P3 and others have said - with no downsides, so to refuse to accept (and then hopefully adopt) such suggestions is either a sign of deep disillusionment/depression/cynicism or just being deliberately obtuse.

[Turnedoutniceagain]

, so to refuse to accept (and then hopefully adopt) such suggestions is either a sign of deep disillusionment/depression/cynicism or just being deliberately obtuse.

I'll take the cynicism option.

[eddie]

I just wrote this for my blog, and it occurred to me that somebody on NW might find it useful. It's also an important question and I hope will stimulate some response:

Any thoughts?

:)P

I am guessing a Ferrari and a private jet would also get me a lot of attention from the opposite sex but since I

can't afford either of those I guess some energy saving lightbulbs and a recyling bin is the second best option

Joking aside, I do think your method of 'selling' a greener lifestyle has some merit. Tackling climate change is currently presented as series of sacrifices that we all need to make: Drive less, fly less, consume less, turn the heating down, use less water etc. It's no wonder that a lot of the public are turned off by this.

The whole climate change thing needs to be presented as an oportunity to make peoples' lives better. It needs to be something that people want to be part of. Exciting new green technology, cleaner cities, cleaner air, houses that cost virtually nothing to run, saving money etc.

People also hate to be told that the way they conduct their life is bad. You probably can't pick a better way of stopping somebody listening to you than trying to make them feel guilty for driving a big 4x4 or having a foreign holiday. I'm not sure what the solution to this particular problem is though.

[laserguy]

The trouble with governments Eddie, is that they'd lose too much tax revenue(fuel,road fund)by banning 'gas guzzlers' and anything else that's seen as extravagant. Like smoking,the way I see it is they've figured on enough revenue from tobacco from the ones who inevitably refuse to quit to avoid a complete ban. I read somewhere very recently that climate change 'guru' Al Gore uses more fuel in his palatial mansion every day (not to mention limos,private jets etc),than the average American does every month. What's the average American to make of that? They're being told "do as we say,not do as we do". No doubt the average American has worked hard for what he's got and is happy with his lot but here comes big Al telling him it's not acceptable. No wonder he's being seen increasingly as a fraud and a hypocrite.

While I do not agree with P3 about the role of man-made CO2 in climate change,I think he's spot on with regard to general environmental issues and on the whole encouraging a more responsible attitude to the world and our neighbours both near and far. However,my relatively 'clean' and inocuous lifestyle is a personal choice and is a regime I've followed long before the 'green muggers' came along. Like anyone else I hate being preached to but fortunately there's very little I need to change. Pity those who apparently do and have to either choose or ignore that monkey on their backs,because it isn't going to go away any time soon. And rightly so,but I feel that 'change' really has to come from the top and not be treated as an option.

[parmenides3]

On the suggestion that we don't like change: it depends. If a change becomes a fashion, we are capable of jumping on the bandwagon with nary a second's pause; look at the growth of personal electrical goods as an example. It seems that, once we have decided that we want something, and if we have the means to get it, we make a change.

So, one way of approaching the sticky problem of how it comes about that, instead of worrying in an abstract way and doing nothing, we instead realise we want to have a solar panel/lightbulb/Prius, whatever, is to stimulate the desire for the change. If a person is to change something, they must first be aware of the need (for themself) for a change.

***Try this version; the less you spend on your electricity bill, the more money you have to buy beer...

An alternative is to develop a culture where a certain way of being is perceived as undesirable, or even 'taboo'. Very few people advertise the fact if they are unfortunate enough to have an STI (regardless of 'blame'). Why not? Very few people in the UK or USA now wear real fur coats. Why not?

Being a positive sort of person, I am in favour of good reasons to do good things, or the carrot rather than the stick. Beating a child provides no benefit and sometimes does damage; inspiring a child can change their life.

That's enough bizarre analogies for the moment...

:)P

[laserguy]

Trouble is,P3,in this world of relentless 'progress' any change may be regarded as a retrograde step. Everyone wants 'bigger,better,faster,more', not 'smaller,inferior,slower,less'. Trying to get people's heads around that idea is going to be a pretty tall order! I'm not arguing with you,like I said I agree with you and my lifestyle is based on frugality with just one thing some may see as indulgent-my motorbike which is used only very occasionally. Perhaps we're all barking up the wrong tree and the real crisis lies with the world's rapidly increasing birth rate? Now who wants to tackle that one!?

[parmenides3]

I can do the birthrate one if you like, laserguy; done that research...

there's a popular circular argument going around at the moment about which is the 'real' threat; climate change, environmental degradation, ( + pollution and toxicity), population growth, or none of the above.

Is it any surprise that they are all related to one another? in particular, a plan to help deal with one of the problems more often than not helps with one or more of the others.

All of these worldwide issues are important. The implications of getting things wrong on any of them are not nice. I just happen to know a bit more about the climate one than the others.

Perhaps we can summarise this by saying that the real crisis lies in us continuing to stumble without thought into the future, eyes wide shut, rather than actually think about the things which are likely to be heading our way and do something about them. Personally, I think the planning ahead option is the only sensible one.

:)P

[Gray-Wolf]

Being a positive sort of person, I am in favour of good reasons to do good things, or the carrot rather than the stick. Beating a child provides no benefit and sometimes does damage; inspiring a child can change their life.

B) P

I fully agree with that P3 but, as you may well have noted from previous posts in other areas, I believe that there are a lot of 'damaged goods' already in circulation out there and as such the majority of folk may not recognise carrot or stick any more and are only able to follow that that assures them a 'normal appearance' in what they believe it is to be 'living'.

There are some folk out there in Furs but nowadays each and every one will probably have a reason for doing so.....no longer the 'done thing' socially (wearing fur) so the 'sheep' have to follow that 'trend' to feel that they are not going to be viewed as a 'weirdo' or sociably untouchable.

We can do plenty to 'train', or better still to reason the needs for different lifestyles with our younger kids (and the naysayers cry 'foul' , leave them be, their far too young to be laden down with that $hit) but the 'damaged goods'? It'll have to be the 'norm in all the soaps or pumping out of every 'E' buzzing venue in the country......and what about the beer monsters??? how can you get anything into a brain that is slowly dying? (along with the liver, top stomach sphincter, nervous system et al.....)

I love your ideas and , where were we in the world we'd like to inhabit I'm sure it'd do swell but back here on planet plastic bag?

Edited August 28, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[cheeky_monkey]

i just love the way ppl take the moral high ground on environmental issues and patronise the masses by sayin they are thick ignorant and arrogant! because they dont comply with your views or actions.

im just a synic and prolly too old to change..im of the same opinion that if the chinese indians and amercians are gonna sit on their backsides and do nothing why the hell should i?

You need to pass the current and older generations by and educate the children of the world into the concept of a greener planet

[Devonian]

i just love the way ppl take the moral high ground on environmental issues and patronise the masses by sayin they are thick ignorant and arrogant! because they dont comply with your views or actions.

Examples? I can't see any.

im just a synic and prolly too old to change..im of the same opinion that if the chinese indians and amercians are gonna sit on their backsides and do nothing why the hell should i?

Some people drop litter or fly tip, they do nothing to keep the place tidy. Do you drop litter or fly tip? I mean if they don't bin it why the hell should you?

You need to pass the current and older generations by and educate the children of the world into the concept of a greener planet

Fine, how do you suggest that without people coming along saying "i just love the way ppl take the moral high ground on environmental issues and patronise the masses by sayin they are thick ignorant and arrogant! because they dont comply with your views or actions."?

Edited August 29, 2007 by Devonian

[Thundery wintry showers]

I actually think there's a lot behind what VillagePlank says- the 'maintenance of the status quo'. It is generally easier on the mind to stick with what represents the norm, the tried and tested methods, than to delve into the unknown. This applies, seemingly, even when the 'unknown' is practically certain to be better than the current norm. As with many such issues, I like to think that I at least make an effort to embrace change, but I can't deny that I often find change difficult as well.

It is certainly possible to address the tendency of people to resist change, by making change more desirable, socially 'cool' etc, or indeed by educating people from an early age to be less resistant to change.

However, as I touched upon in my last post, many people are closed to the possibility that they are maintaining a status quo in these situations. It stems from the popular idea that adults are free-thinking individuals who make their own decisions, and peer pressure, the pressure to follow social norms etc, only affects immature schoolkids. So, the argument tends to run like this:

"You say that people are following a convention and maintaining a status quo? People are capable of making decisions for themselves. Therefore, it's their decision to act this way, and therefore there's no social convention, peer pressure or anything like that. It's just some individuals being stupid. Lead your own life and don't bother about them. You can't change the tendency of individuals to be stupid; the problem is just part of life".

It makes it much harder to argue that various social norms, conventions, 'status quos' etc. should be addressed, if many people are blind to the possibility that they affect most of us, or even exist at all!

[Duncan McAlister]

I really think action has to come from governments and corporations in the form of carbon rationing. I'm not usually an advocate of 'nanny state' in fact I'm quite libertarian, but I just don't think people have the motivation to reduce their quality of life to such a degree. Just look at food rationing in WWII, that had to be enforced by the state, because otherwise people wouldn't have 'tightened the belt'. Many people still didn't tighten the belt (buying from the black market etc.), despite any possible ramifications. If the state needs to intervene to coerce people into reducing their lifestyles to fight the immediate threat of fascism, it will certainly need to do the same to fight the seemingly distant (to the average Joe) but actually imminent threat of climate change. People are too busy with their own lives to give it too much thought, apart from a few middle-classes who almost seem to treat it as a kind of hobby.

Switching TVs off standby, not filling your kettle, changing lightbulbs - it's all a load of garbage, not even scratching the surface of the problem. I've read George Monbiot's book Heat and found the arguments very convincing, one central one being that if people save money by turning their heating down a degree, using a more efficient lightbulb, switching off appliances, insulating their houses and so on, they will spend the money they've saved on buying lots more things - iPods, DVDs, clothes, fast-food takeaways, nights at the pub, holidays - which all do guess what? Emit greenhouse gases! For me this is the key issue and it renders the whole 'personal responsibility' argument utterly pointless.

Edited October 25, 2007 by Duncan McAlister

[parmenides3]

Duncan; you seem to have missed the fairly obvious point that, whilst this is probably a fair description of what people actually do, it is not a suggestion that this is the inevitable consequence of having a bit of extra money/ the problem Monbiot is addressing surely is that 'token action' without thought is pointless, as you say, but thoughtful action (including not buying a new iPod) can work.

Do people need to 'tighten their belts'? Do we need to suffer, to prevent climate change? No. We live lives of incredible comfort and preposterous waste and excess. What we do need to do is think a bit more about our choices, and get out of the consumer mindset that has been brainwashed into us for decades now. I agree with you that little things on their own are not going to be enough, but they can draw our minds to the bigger picture, and contribute to an understanding of what sort of world we have come to live in, and what sort of world we want our chidren to live in.

:)P

[Mr Sleet]

I agree with a lot of what you say P3. Regarding friends and sex, one must be careful not to come across as a "tree hugging nutter" or it will have the opposite affect

My wife calls me Meldrew as I keep the central heating thermostat down to 17 C and can't wait to get the heating off altogether ! Reason - I don't like throwing money away. Although there are 6 in my family we produce less than 1 bin bag of rubbish per week, the rest is recycled/composted- reason I don't like waste. I drive an old diesel to work which churns out 55 mpg- reason, I don't like throwing money away, and it never breaks down! I am a bit of a sceptic when it comes to AGW but we can do the above without really trying that hard.

Out of interest P3 what job do you do ?

Edited October 26, 2007 by Mr Sleet

[BrickFielder]

I would like to pick up on two points made and explore them a little more.

I just love the way ppl take the moral high ground on environmental issues and patronise the masses by sayin they are thick ignorant and arrogant! because they dont comply with your views or actions.

An interesting idea and something I have seen in other avenues of life. Particularly with city planners who education chiefs who think they understand people and their requirements in run down areas with crime problems. Quite often a lick of paint and counselling facilities are offered where actually the people just want the small minority of transgressors to have a proper deterent to their actions.

In my previous house I caught someone (young adult) throwing litter into my front garden and I asked them why they did it. The simple answer was not that they did not understand, but it was easier, it was then someone elses problem, everyone does it and well usually there was no consequences for their actions. I concluded that we tend to have a society which concentrates on selfishness rather than team work. When a crew of young kids came round the next day off their own accord picking up litter I saw the other side of the coin.

The truth is that people do deep down understand that if you mess the environment up you have to live in your own mess. They would just rather life remained a little easier with someone else cleaning up after them. We could blame consumerism and fashion trends and rightly so, but perhaps we should look at the whole lifestyle complex. People don't have a lot of time, both male and female adults need to work and as such the right environmental choices can be just be the tipping point between a bearable and miserable life.

I guess what I am saying is that we should understand and respect peoples views.

Do people need to 'tighten their belts'? Do we need to suffer, to prevent climate change? No. We live lives of incredible comfort and preposterous waste and excess. What we do need to do is think a bit more about our choices, and get out of the consumer mindset that has been brainwashed into us for decades now.

Interesting probably true and tantalisingly impossible to escape that mindset. When I was at college I had the fortune to share accomodation with a young man from Jordan. His view that England was a nice place to get educated but in many ways so barbaric that he could never live here quite shocked me. Part of what he felt agrieved about was the sense of consumerism and how it pervaded everything. Even our childrens TV programs ,all forms of advertising and even our books. I am reminded of my partners grand daughters refusal to stay in the house while repairs were carried out to the electricity supply to our house. The genuine fear of having no electricity , with no phones ,computers , cd players or television really brought home how the next generations are becoming so reliant on technology. Engineering society or even trying to guide it seldom works so the runaway train of consumerism is unlikely to be derailed any time soon.