When I was a child nuclear war seemed like a
very real possibility if things were to go badly between the powerful nations
of the world. Although I was too young
to understand all the implications of the Cuban Missile Crisis, we all knew something
serious was happening. Throughout the
1960s, 1970s, and into the 1980s, it was a threat that bubbled up regularly
into the public consciousness. Although
there might have been disagreements about the likelihood of nuclear weapons
being deployed, people seemed to accept that if they were, the consequences could
be life-changing and might lead to the devastation of the planet. Would any country take on responsibility for
such terrible actions? The effects of
the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki still resonated and the
Aldermaston marches provided a focus for protest.
When I was at the Living With EnvironmentalChange conference this week on “Supporting the Journey to Adaptation”, I was
struck at how environmental concerns have filled that “fear niche” for some of
us while others seem to remain oblivious. Although more countries now have
nuclear bombs, the end of the Cold War has removed that most immediate threat. Dystopian literature has moved on from nuclear
to environmental disaster. The
difference in the present situation is that perceptions of such a threat, and any notion of
responsibility, vary so much across the population. In the conference hall few would, I think,
have denied the seriousness of the situation.
We saw stark statistics laid out in powerpoint slides by distinguished climate
scientists. Although probably not
everyone agreed on the likely speed of environmental change, there was no
denial of the need for action, for a journey towards both mitigation and adaptation.
However, we also heard from social science researchers
who played us some clips of interviews with “real people”. They were confused, unconvinced, unwilling to
buy into action that the scientists saw as essential. Uncertainty expressed in scientific results,
and taken for granted by researchers as part of the scientific process, is
viewed by the public with frank suspicion.
We see this every day in the media and in
life. Recently I encountered one
obviously intelligent man who maintained that climate change is a conspiracy by
scientists to create jobs for themselves.
It is difficult to counter this kind of world view. So how can we hope to change behaviour and,
as a society, embark on that journey to adaptation, let alone achieve any
mitigation? For me, the most encouraging
session at the conference was a session on digital storytelling. This was a shining example of the benefits of
bringing arts and science together, to tell real people’s stories. By bringing global climate change to a local
level, through personal experience, we might help the wider public to
understand the part everyone plays. I
have not met many farmers, for example, who would deny that the climate is
changing. Even if they might argue about
the causes, they see the consequences in their everyday experience. Personal testimony isn’t just a fluffy and
non-scientific, anecdotal approach. Stories are always powerful and, as
communicators, we could make more use of them.
They make big realities more manageable.
So how can we hope to change behaviour and, as a society, embark on that journey to adaptation, let alone achieve any mitigation?
ReplyDeleteIndeed this is the question, the trouble is this is a little to big. I recently was involved in this debate with a few of the rising generation and they don't see how a polar bear on an ice flow has anything to do with them. I am afraid at present there are alot of older people like David Attenborough and the baby boomer generation of Woodstock time ( I am of this generation) taliking about it and expecting the youngsters to be interested in it. The trouble is the risnig generation have economic problems across the world of getting a foothold and climate change is so far down their list of needs it does not exist.
Until the elites start to consume less and accept zero growth in gdp as sustainability no behaviour change will occur. But when we all understand that zero growth in gdp, which has been the case for 70% of our nation for over a decade but not the elites is alright then we will get it more. Climate change has to be in the price of goods, cheap findus meals come with a price.