8 In 10 People Now See Climate Change As a 'Catastrophic Risk,' Says Survey (trust.org) 384
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the Thomas Reuters Foundation: Nearly nine in 10 people say they are ready to make changes to their standard of living if it would prevent future climate catastrophe, a survey on global threats found Wednesday. The survey of more than 8,000 people in eight countries -- the United States, China, India, Britain, Australia, Brazil, South Africa and Germany -- found that 84 percent of people now consider climate change a "global catastrophic risk." That puts worry about climate change only slightly behind fears about large-scale environmental damage and the threat of politically motivated violence escalating into war, according to the Global Challenges Foundation, which commissioned the Global Catastrophic Risks 2017 report. The survey, released in advance of this week's G7 summit of advanced economies in Italy, also found that 85 percent of people think the United Nations needs reforms to be better equipped to address global threats. About 70 percent of those surveyed said they think it may be time to create a new global organization -- with power to enforce its decisions -- specifically designed to deal with a wide range of global risks. Nearly 60 percent said they would be prepared to have their country give up some level of sovereignty to make that happen.
But President Trump goes (Score:4, Funny)
Fake News. La-la-la-la-la-la I can't hear you.
Re:But President Trump goes (Score:5, Interesting)
Trump, plus a good percentage of the US population, which means the ratios must be much higher in the other countries surveyed in order to average out to 80% overall. According to Gallup, [gallup.com] just 42% of Americans "Think global warming will pose a serious threat in their lifetime." Obviously that's not exactly the same thing as "catastrophic risk" with no time constraint, but it's frankly lower than I expected.
Pew has a more lengthy survey [pewinternet.org] which does a detailed breakdown of views by political affiliation. Here's one aspect I found intriguing:
One thing that doesn’t strongly influence opinion on climate issues, perhaps surprisingly, is one’s level of general scientific literacy. According to the survey, the effects of having higher, medium or lower scores on a nine-item index of science knowledge tend to be modest and are only sometimes related to people’s views about climate change and climate scientists, especially in comparison with party, ideology and concern about the issue. But, the role of science knowledge in people’s beliefs about climate matters is varied and where a relationship occurs, it is complex. To the extent that science knowledge influences people’s judgments related to climate change and trust in climate scientists, it does so among Democrats, but not Republicans. For example, Democrats with high science knowledge are especially likely to believe the Earth is warming due to human activity, to see scientists as having a firm understanding of climate change, and to trust climate scientists’ information about the causes of climate change. But Republicans with higher science knowledge are no more or less likely to hold these beliefs. Thus, people’s political orientations also tend to influence how knowledge about science affects their judgments and beliefs about climate matters and their trust in climate scientists.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Let me help (Score:4, Interesting)
Most political AGW "fixes" involve taxing CO2, not methane. Methane produced mostly by farmers, who lobby heavily, and are in Iowa the first presidential caucus. If you are interested in winning elections and don't care about solving AGW you need to not admit methane is a bigger problem, which is what liberals do.
Taxing CO2 is taxing the middle class, which to liberals is perfectly acceptable. As the DNC has shown, screw the middle class and lose the "blue wall". Instead of admitting they hate the working class they come up with "Its the Russians" when they lose.
Now that the reason they tax the wrong things is covered, lets see what happens with that tax money... It goes to Solyndra, which ended up producing nothing of value and was split up and sold off in pieces. However they did donate heavily to Obama's election. Along with Fisker Auto (not even an American company, but owned by Al Gore), and A123 again who heavily donated to the DNC and was sold off to China.
So looking at how the DNC deals with AGW, they tax people who they think aren't likely to hurt them in elections, and give that tax money to people who help them get elected and don't seem to care if it helps with AGW at all.
Put me down as the guy who looked at the solutions put into place to solve AGW and noticed it doesn't actually help but is a money scheme for the DNC instead.
Re:Let me help (Score:5, Interesting)
Methane is a hugely valuable resource. What blows my mind is how many people are leaving that money on the table. Methane from farms is zero-impact, because it comes through a renewal cycle, not from fossil fuels. If you put all your manure in methane digesters, you can generate a fuck-ton of power from it, and as a bonus, what comes out of the digester is a lot less nasty to dispose of.
After the Warning = Was Re:Let me help (Score:3)
James Burke (creator of the "The Day The Universe Changed") covered a lot of the issues with methane back in a 1990 TV program called "After the Warming:"
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/11... [nytimes.com]
which the farming and petroleum industry worked vigorously to discredit because both create or leak large amounts of methane into the environment as side-effects/externalities/pollution of their profit making businesses.
Looking up info on that program now provides more links to FUD spun by industry groups than accurate inf
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Where is this liberals don't care about methane BS coming from? I remember the Obama admin creating regulations to force frackers to capture methane venting during drilling operations while I saw that was quickly undone by Trump. Most people I know are ready to take on Climate Change from every angle necessary, no golden cows.
Let's be honest with ourselves, democrats aren't the problem with Climate Change. Al Gore and every destroy the middle class type argument are just more fake news frothing up from t
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
And here is the anti-science, increase middle class taxes, liberal. Every scientific study says methane is a massive problem, but since the "regulators" set the rules to measure over 100 years instead of 20, they can ignore methane and the dreaded taxing people that help me get elected.
Methane - 8% of greenhouse emissions, x86 times the impact of CO2 (Yes, that makes is a significantly bigger problem than CO2). Completely ignored by anti-science DNC who sets taxing policy based on who they don't like, not based on science.
Just look at proposed solutions and what has been done or is proposed and you QUICKLY see that they don't see it as a problem. They see it as tax revenue to give to people who help them get elected. They don't care about AGW in the least.
And here is the anti-truth, twist the words of the person I'm quoting typical american political partisan. I did not say that methane is not a "massive problem", I said it is not as big a problem as CO2. Methane levels are 1080 parts per billion above pre-industrial levels. CO2 levels are 140,000 parts per billion above pre-industrial levels. Since you object to 100 year measurements, lets just go with the difference it makes RIGHT NOW, and we come up with CO2 having a 50% larger impact than methane, in ter
Re:Let me help (Score:5, Informative)
Methane - 8% of greenhouse emissions, x86 times the impact of CO2 (Yes, that makes is a significantly bigger problem than CO2).
Methane induced warming is measured by "CO2 equivalence", so the number you are quoting is already multiplied by the potency.
There is 200 times more CO2 than CH4 in the atmosphere.
Methane has a much shorter half-life in the atmosphere, so it is not as much of a long term problem. Methane is 86 times as potent, but has a potency factor of 34 over a century.
Last year, the world emitted 36B tons of CO2, and about 0.25B tons of CH4, equivalent to about 8B tons of CO2 in 100-year warming potential. So methane is a serious problem, but far less than CO2.
Methane emissions are declining in most 1st world nations, mostly because of better wellhead equipment, but also because of declining beef consumption.
Methane emissions are rising in less developed countries, mostly because of rising meat consumption. Taxes on beef may be able shift consumption to chicken or pork, but are unlikely to be politically feasible on a wide scale.
Methane emissions by country. [wikipedia.org]
CO2 emissions by country. [wikipedia.org]
Disclaimer: I don't eat meat, so don't blame me.
Re:But President Trump goes (Score:5, Interesting)
I would avoid jumping onto the conclusions that Conservatives are less educated than Liberals. The larger correlation is that liberals will live more in Urban Areas, while Conservatives live in Rural areas. In these different areas, their world view is different. In Urban areas, a strong government is an overall positive, as there are services that need to be provided, and with a lot of people working closely together, a strong rule of law and regulations is needed for that area to function. In rural areas they are more left to fend for themselves, there tax money is going to places where they will see no benefit, and there is a culture if you have a problem you need to solve it yourself. So such regulations proposed by the government seem like an overall negative.
Now both areas have highly educated people, and less educated who will vote for whatever party. In urban areas the Poor are often under educated and vote liberal because government is trying to prevent them from dying, as the city environment can prevent them from living off the land and being able to fend for themselves. In rural areas, the poor who have resources to fend for themselves, doesn't need rules and regulations trying to stop them from doing what they need to do to live.
Conservatives seem to rule corporate higher management, and even modern farmers you need to be just as technical savvy as a Silicon Valley tech worker. These people have those degrees, but because they are working commercial they tend not to flaunt them as much. While in urban areas, there are more colleges and universities, and government agencies, where people will need the education status to help push their agendas.
Now in terms of Science. Liberal groups have seemed to reject science that says "This product is safe" (GMO, Vaccines...) because they expect government to make sure what we do is safe. While Conservative groups reject science that says "This product is dangerous" (Global Warming, Fracking...) because they are afraid that government will take away necessary tools for them.
Re: (Score:3)
The urban government useful vs rural government bad thing is one factor probably, but there's definitely an element of tribalism going on in the GOP today that causes some uneducated rural whites to vot
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It is cyclical, but there is nothing in the fossil record showing as rapid an upward cycle as we are seeing now. That's why the worry.
Re:But President Trump goes (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Here's a good graph [xkcd.com] showing warming and cooling.
Re: (Score:2)
Not a Republican. While I do believe that the climate is changing and is affected by man, I do believe that it is also cyclical. These cooling and warming periods come and go over time. Humans have likely accelerated this to the detriment of the planet. Quite a few experts on both sides of the argument believe we are actually headed for a period of cooling.
I know it's a tired meme, but I do think we need a citation in this case.
Re: (Score:2)
Not a Republican. While I do believe that the climate is changing and is affected by man, I do believe that it is also cyclical. These cooling and warming periods come and go over time. Humans have likely accelerated this to the detriment of the planet. Quite a few experts on both sides of the argument believe we are actually headed for a period of cooling.
Earth's climate is dynamic and always the process of change however baring natural disasters such as large meteors or supervolcanos, natural climate change occurs in geologic timescales (at least thousands of years). What we are witnessing is Climate Change occurring practically within a human's lifespan
Re: (Score:2)
Republicans have an ideological opposition to taxation and government regulation, and tend to think of everything in those terms, so naturally when the solution might cost them money or impose some restriction on them they assume it's just a conspiracy.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Survey questions are misleading.
Thinking global warming will not pose a serious threat in their lifetime. is different from being a climate denier.
Science is solid on that Global warming is real and man made and that it proposes a risk. However the science is less solid on the scope and rate. Also depending on the age of person asked a Lifetime would be a decade - 4 generations.
The pooling will need to combine many questions asked differently to really get a good view of the persons viewpoint.
So most peop
Re:But President Trump goes (Score:5, Insightful)
You have been modded "Funny" but I think there is some insightfulness there:
"Nearly nine in 10 people say they are ready to make changes to their standard of living if it would prevent future climate catastrophe,"
Oh really?
Last things first - there's that huge qualification that they would do it "if it would prevent future climate catastrophe". Most of us don't believe we have much if any impact at all. If I do have an impact, it's terribly insignificant.
And we'd make changes to our standard of living? Wait a minute there - are you talking about any major changes?
Because I can only do so much. I already do try to make as little impact on the environment as I can. If someone wants to suggest an easy way for me to do better I'm all for it, but I'm not going to inconvenience myself too much. It's too warm in here right now. I could open a window, but I'm gonna turn on the AC instead! Seriously.
But I recycle every soda can that I buy! Well, that's good but I can only recycle as much as I already am.
So I do think it's at least sort of fake. Most of us aren't going to do any more than we're already doing. I do care about the environment, but to be honest I'm not willing to sacrifice my standard of living. I like my car and my AC and I'm not going to stop buying things because they come with too much plastic packaging. (Would I really refuse to buy a product just because its packaging wasn't eco-friendly?)
Quite frankly, the only things I can think of to do that would be more eco-friendly are too much trouble for me to bother with or would have very little impact if any.
So while it's probably true that nearly 9 in 10 people say they would change their standard of living to save the planet I think it's "fake" to think that nearly 9 in 10 people would actually bother to make any significant changes to their standard of living.
What would I give up? Nothing.
I think it's more likely that nearly 9 in 10 people are either dishonest or aren't seriously considering a lower standard of living.
--
Or to put it in simpler terms....if you told someone they could save the planet if they just recycled their empty soda cans they'd probably do it, but if you told them they'd have to stop drinking soda they would laugh at you - not that recycling aluminum cans is going to save the planet but I do it anyway.
It would probably be better for the planet and definitely better for my health if I didn't drink soda in the first place, but screw that!
Re: (Score:3)
I think there's another interpretation of these facts which you have neglected to consider. Many people might make substantial changes to their lifestyle if they believed that it would do any good. But do you know what happens when individuals make changes to lifestyle? Fuck-all. The majority of people can't or won't make substantial changes, so those people's efforts is just pissing in the wind.
The majority of environmental damage benefits not the poor, but the ultra-wealthy. Most of those people don't giv
Re: (Score:2)
And I bet they were also the ones they interviewed. Damn those foreigners with their crazy ideas.
Call me when... (Score:3, Insightful)
...Algore, Leo, Obama, and all the other celebrity AGW champions jetting around the world Signalling their Virtue are ready to curtail their lifestyles.
Re:Call me when... (Score:4, Insightful)
Please enlighten us. Have these people moved into a two bedroom home and started driving a Prius?
Re:Call me when... (Score:4, Funny)
Regulatory capture (Score:5, Interesting)
While I fully agree with climate change being a catastrophic risk, a global organization with enforcement power will immidiately become the most valuable target for lobbying in the world.
I believe we'd see such an organization effectively ruled by the very interests it's set to regulate within a few years at most.
Re:Regulatory capture (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure some will just claim you're just an anti-goverment nut, but taking a broad view, given we're talking an issue that affects the species, humans have through history gone from small tribes to large empires to nation states, and now we're tipping towards global organisation.
However, there's something very interesting in this sequence, and that's that the shift from empire to nation state was a reduction in authoritarianism, and a move towards more individuality.
Now, individuality is often criticised as the root cause of all the greed which drives overconsumption, which lead many to say we need a sort of Chinese communist regime where a central authority sets consumption limits, but there's an issue around, WHY did we historically move from empire to nation states?
And a simple answer ot that is the empires are unsustainable in the sense that they eventually become too big to govern. Authoritarianism collapses when there's too many people and the system is too complex to manage, whatever someone's best intentions may be.
So here's a thought: the globalised stage will be MORE individual, just that, the individual will be MORE intelligent, and as we continue to develop, the intelligence, knowledge, and compassion of each individual will increase. Just as most ordinary people now realise that racism is bad, and work to eradicate racism from their own minds, so too, gradually, we become more intelligent global citizens.
And the bad news is, there is no shortcut to that. If the world is really about to end in 20 years, well sorry, too late, people can only develop their individual compassion and intelligence at a normal pace, and if that's too late then that's too late. The alternative, as you say, is some sort of global authoritarian genocide, caused either deliberately or inadvertently.
We need to pursue the most effective technology solutions whilst human psychology catches up to a globalised world. That probably means lots of nuclear, whatever best form of tech that may take.
Ya kanny change the laws of physics and ya kanny change the human psychology any faster than it can grow naturally.
So learn to love your fellow dumb human and build lots of nuclear.
Re:Regulatory capture (Score:4, Interesting)
A much simpler and quicker fix is to just shift the subsidies to cleaner energy. Energy is expensive really, it only looks cheap to the end user because much of the cost is either hidden in tax funded subsidy or externalized to someone else.
In the end, people will usually vote with their wallets. Then they bitch and moan that their wallets are being targeted, because it's the only way to save the fucking planet.
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly this.
My position on climate change has always been why does it matter whether climate change is happening and whether it's man-made or not? This planet is the only one we have and polluting it isn't going to get us anywhere. That, and we need to get off fossil fuels as they are a limited resource. So subsidize the shit out of existing green energy tech and triple the R&D money going to new energy tech. Do that enough and the problem will fix itself.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Except that you recommended nuclear, which is one of the most expensive forms of energy we have. The new plant at Hinkley Point C is the most expensive object on earth and is guaranteed way, way above the odds for every watt-hour of energy it produces for its entire lifetime.
They had to promise all that because no-one would build it. In the end, the French are building it with Chinese money. In the UK.
re: nuclear and cost (Score:5, Insightful)
The main reason nuclear has been so costly isn't because the technology itself isn't feasible.
The extremely high costs have historically had a lot to do with politics, fear of nuclear energy, and contractors taking advantage of the fact that it's "scary stuff".
Almost every time a new plant is schedule to be constructed, it turns into a big battle with groups fighting against it and requires expensive site surveys, safety studies and more. (Well, perhaps not in Communist countries where the people don't really get any say-so anyway -- but safety seems to take a back seat to just getting something up and running anyway, in those situations - a la Chernobyl.)
Here in the U.S. - there has often been a lot of poor long-term projecting of energy needs, also contributing to high cost of nuclear plants. For example, the power plant not far from where I used to live in St. Louis, MO, Callaway County Nuclear plant, had a whole lot of issues in the past including no need to operate it at above 50% or so of its generation capacity because power demands just didn't grow as quickly as they anticipated when it was constructed. (I also recall some issues where construction materials for the cooling pipes didn't wind up meeting the promised standards, leading to an inability to run the plant at full power until that was redone.) It received the top safety rating for risk of damage due to an earthquake though, and is apparently running quite profitably today. That didn't stop a lawsuit in 2014 though, trying to prevent it from getting its operating license renewed, over new rules allowing above-ground storage of spent fuel after years of failed efforts to build a permanent national storage site in Nevada.
The people who keep arguing we should use other "renewables" refuse to recognize the fact that wind and solar power aren't "always on" power sources. You generate nothing after dark with solar, and the wind doesn't blow constantly at a good rate of speed. The work-around for that always revolves around ideas of implementing large storage batteries, which greatly increases the cost of those projects and reduces reliability. (Batteries are based on chemical reactions and they wear out. Refurbishing them amounts to gutting them out and rebuilding their insides, making that process almost equivalent to just manufacturing new batteries.)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In the UK the cost has little to do with protesters or politics. In fact the UK government has been extremely generous to nuclear operators - it build all the original plants, then gave them to commercial operators basically for free, with a guarantee that it would pick up most of the cost of decommissioning, plus the usual subsidies like free insurance.
The problem are all to do with the technology itself. For example, the long term profitability of new nuclear is in doubt as renewable energy is replacing i
Re: (Score:2)
A much simpler and quicker fix is to just shift the subsidies to cleaner energy.
That would be nice, but at this point it's not necessary. Renewables are already undercutting the cost of fossil energy in most areas, even without subsidies (and even though most fossil fuels are heavily subsidized). And all indications are that renewables will only continue to get cheaper while fossil fuels will only continue to get more expensive. If we're not already past the tipping point, we will be soon.
Another tipping point in the near future is energy storage. Tesla claims [electrek.co] to have already broken th
Re: (Score:2)
Government has no business telling anyone how to produce energy. Therefore there shouldn't be any subsidies for any specific type of clean energy production.
However, government has every business telling everyone to not pollute the environment. So instead of subsidies there should be extra heavy taxes on anything that pollutes the environment - proportional to the pollution.
Re: (Score:3)
You're absolutely right, of course. The best way to manage this problem is to internalize the externalities; make energy producers pay the full cost of their operations. This would mean either a heavy carbon tax or -- even better -- strict regulation on carbon emissions that require fossil fuel burners to capture and sequester all of their emissions. Burning dirty coal for power is just fine if you don't put anything into the atmosphere.
In practice, subsidizing clean energy is more politically feasible, t
Re: (Score:2)
Energy is expensive really, it only looks cheap to the end user because much of the cost is either hidden in tax funded subsidy or externalized to someone else
You need to be careful with this kind of talk.
It almost sounds like you are suggesting that the rich/corporations pay a lot of taxes that keep the costs of living down for the regular people, and that directly contradicts the consensus that the rich/corporations are nothing but leeches on society.
Something's fishy in Denmark. (Score:4, Informative)
54 out of 100 Senators and 234 out of 435 Representatives, and Twitler don't.
The numbers don't line up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Y The fact that many Senators and Congresspeople don't is to a large extent a reflection of how two aspects of our government system (the ability to gerrymander congressional districts, and the fact that senators are elected by state and many low population states lean right) distort what our elected government ends up looking like compared to what it would on a strict population basis.
You forgot to add that the politicians are paid for their belief by the people that they actually work for.
As the Exxon papers prove, the industry works hard in a "tobacco lawyer" style to sow uncertainty, and pays politicians handsomely to do as the industry wishes.
All while they know, but they simply don't care.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that you are wrong about the cause of US politicians not accepting climate change predictions. I propose the real rea
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't understand that this is the entire source of your political corruption, you're delusional.
Unfortunately the same people also use their money to corrupt our information sources. I chose my sig for a reason.
Re: Something's fishy in Denmark. (Score:5, Interesting)
As a South African - go fuck yourself with your racist stereotypes.
South Africans mostly consider climate change a serious risk to our lives, and one of the nasty impacts of climate change is to raise food prices - by much more than combating it ever could. South Africa has huge investments in renewable energy and these are growing (And make up the ENTIRETY of private sector energy investment).
The only deniers in South Africa are conservatives and they make up about erm 1% of the population - they're a loud minority but they are about as influential on the country's culture and politics as pissing in the ocean is on it's salt level.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
South African is not a race.
Race is a social construct. So it could be if we wanted it to be!
Reality Check (Score:5, Insightful)
It really doesn't matter if 99 out of 100 people see climate change as a real threat. As long as the top 1% keep earning billions of dollars off the status quo, and understand they will be protected from the effects, nothing is going to change.
Re:Reality Check (Score:5, Insightful)
It really doesn't matter if 99 out of 100 people see climate change as a real threat. As long as the top 1% keep earning billions of dollars off the status quo, and understand they will be protected from the effects, nothing is going to change.
You know, that only works as long as that 1% can convince enough of the 99% that it's not really a problem. And really, I don't think the top 1% are actually aligned on doing nothing. Of course, they're divided over the whether to take action, often based on whether or not they are invested in the industries that will be hurt by taking action.
One of the problems of some of this anti-climate change lobbying that people like Rupert Murdoch (owner of coal mines) have engaged in, is that they've spawned groups they can't really control. Trump is the end result of trying to stir up opposition to reasonable policies. If you can't trust the government, can't trust science and can't trust the media, who are people supposed to trust? They set the stage for the rise of Trump and we can only hope that they live to reap the bitter fruits of their labours.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because "fuck you, got mine."
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
no way!! (Score:4)
>"it may be time to create a new global organization -- with power to enforce its decisions[...]have their country give up some level of sovereignty to make that happen."
THAT would be the worst mistake ever, especially for the USA. We have already seen many of the things "the world" would want to do and much of it runs contrary to the Constitution.
Action needed regardless of cause (Score:4, Insightful)
Whether or not you believe humans are responsible for climate change, the evidence is clear that climate change is occurring. A great many of the follow on consequences of climate change are highly predictable and many of them are bad. As such, logically it is almost irrelevant whether or not humans are the driver of the change even though the evidence seems bullet proof that we are responsible. Either way it clear that it is happening and it is equally clear is something we need to plan for and quite likely attempt to mitigate. You don't have to believe humans are responsible for it to be logical for us to take substantial action on the problem. It's really no different in principle than a volcano erupting - we still have to take action to address the consequences.
Of course the sticky bit of the problem is that dealing with the issue requires human action which will come at a cost. The only (sort of) sane reason to not act to deal with climate change is because someone has economic self interest interest in ignoring the problem. It's understandable if not justifiable. There are of course a few illogical reasons why people oppose taking action the most notable of which seems to be tribalism. Thing is that whether people believe in it or not they will end up dealing with the problem sooner or later. The cost of dealing with it sooner is lower but human nature being what it is it's not clear if that will happen before there are some severe consequences.
Tragedy of the Commons (Score:3)
Nearly nine in 10 people say they are ready to make changes to their standard of living if it would prevent future climate catastrophe
Well of course they would. Faced with a clear path to avert catastrophe, people will take it. If you tell people "do this thing, or your life will be ruined", they'll probably do that thing. The problem is that the path to averting climate catastrophe is too abstract from peoples' daily lives. Right now it's more like "do this thing, and depending on whether or not other people do similar things, your life might not be ruined."
Avoiding catastrophic climate change will take a huge collective action. But since each of our individual actions have a small effect on their own, it's hard for our brains to balance the pain/cost of those actions with a benefit. Few people are willing to lower their standard of living without a clear link between their particular sacrifice and avoiding catastrophe.
I'm not sure I'm providing any insight into how to solve this problem, but rather that it's not too surprising to see the results as worded.
Re: (Score:2)
That nearly 9 in 10 would make future changes means they don't believe that there is a current problem. Or in other words as long as you talk the talk on climate change that is all that matters.
8 in 10 people see climate change news on Slashdot (Score:2)
Elites should put up or shut up (Score:4, Insightful)
I’ll believe global warming is a crisis, when the people who scream it’s a crisis start to act like it’s a crisis themselves.
The real solution may be dirt cheap... (Score:2)
From MIT's Technology Review:
https://www.technologyreview.c... [technologyreview.com]
So why aren't we talking about spending a few hundred million into engineering R&D to come up with this potentially real and very inexpensive kind of a solution as quickly as possible? Why are we instead talking about huge bureaucracies and trillions of dollars in carbon taxes for forever? That's because we're allowing politicians etal come up with the solution, instead of engineers and scientists.
I'll believe they are serious when... (Score:3, Interesting)
They demand the end of commercial air travel. After all, it's not necessary to humanity, (we lived without it until less than a hundred years ago), and it puts out a lot of CO2, and it's not possible to electrify in the foreseeable future.
Until then, it's "make someone else change or pay so that I can keep my perks."
Re: (Score:3)
Air travel is not a total luxury. Lots of people have to travel, and if they're traveling alone there's no real environmental advantage to driving. Over long distances, flying becomes more attractive, as aircraft are more efficient at cruising altitude while the delay of driving mounts up.
Moreover, we aren't trying to crash the economy and return to technology that can support maybe a billion or two humans on this planet. It's worthwhile slowing carbon emissions down while we do more research and deve
8 In 10 People ... (Score:2)
Whatever (Score:2)
So, what you are saying is: Nearly 9 in 10 people are complete liars.
Lemmings (Score:2)
Stupid (Score:2)
If you're naïve enough to believe that the world is ready for a global organization that can enforce it's wishes on sovereign nations, maybe you should consider some of the idiocy that's come from the UN previously.
https://www.unwatch.org/from-t... [unwatch.org]
https://www.globalpolicy.org/c... [globalpolicy.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Not a "risk" anymore (Score:3)
A risk is something that has an element of potentiality. In the case of climate change, the catastrophe is already assured. The only question is whether it will be severe, very severe or "collapse of civilization"-level. Calling a "risk" is, once again, making it sound a lot more harmless than it is.
Too late (Score:3)
We had a chance to make a real difference with climate change some 20 to 30 years ago. We chose to argue about it instead of developing the science and executing a plan. No use arguing about it anymore, climate deniers can say whatever they want and I simply don't care. They'll eat their words within their own lifetime, which will be at least something they can eat during the cycles of famine.
Re: (Score:2)
This didn't happen by magic - this happened because the public co
Re: (Score:2)
rules brought in on recycling In other words, people being FORCED to change their behavior. If people were truly WILLING to make changes to their lifestyle, you would not need rules, people would do these things without them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Armchair heroics (Score:5, Insightful)
Right, this survey found that 8 out of 10 people will lie to a surveyor. Everyone SAYS they want cleaner air, less pollution, and to stop global warming. They just want everyone else to stop consuming so they don't have to. It's the same thing with every problem caused by a group. Everyone complains about traffic while moving further away from their workplace and not wanting to ride the bus or carpool.
Re: (Score:2)
They are honest about WANTING those things. 7 in 10 want them until they find out it requires something like changing a lightbulb. 1 in 10 of them are willing to put the effort in and change their behaviour.
Re: (Score:2)
1 in 10 of them are willing to put the effort in and change their behaviour.
And 1 in 1000 are willing to switch to cold showers. But somebody else should make changes.
Re: (Score:3)
Everyone SAYS they want cleaner air, less pollution, and to stop global warming. They just want everyone else to stop consuming so they don't have to.
There is a social psychology where people are only willing to change/sacrifice if people around them are doing the same. This is why we need individuals that will get the ball rolling and why we need entertainment media to put a lot of positive emphasis on things that are good for the environment without being so extreme as to alienate the audience. If every home makeover show included changing homes over to solar and battery then you would have a lot more people doing the same.
Behavior (both social and
Re:eight in ten people believe in ghosts (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, but when was Greenland green?
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but when was Greenland green?
Geez, it ain't hard to find.... [wikipedia.org]:
To investigate the possibility of climatic cooling, scientists drilled into the Greenland ice caps to obtain core samples. The oxygen isotopes from the ice caps suggested that the Medieval Warm Period had caused a relatively milder climate in Greenland, lasting from roughly 800 to 1200. However, from 1300 or so the climate began to cool. By 1420, the "Little Ice Age" had reached intense levels in Greenland.
They took these measurements from ice cores. Does it not stand to reason that the ice in those cores existed at the time being measured? See where I'm going with this?
Re:eight in ten people believe in ghosts (Score:5, Informative)
Glaciers have covered most of Greenland for the past 2-3 million years [greenland.com]. Not hundred.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And while the medieval warm period was, in fact, a thing (with parts, notably the coastal regions, of Greenland being rather greener than today)- it was so incredibly localized that it did not affect global average temperatures at all.
Re:eight in ten people believe in ghosts (Score:4, Informative)
And while the medieval warm period was, in fact, a thing (with parts, notably the coastal regions, of Greenland being rather greener than today)- it was so incredibly localized that it did not affect global average temperatures at all.
Research is indicating that the medieval warm period was much more global than those with financial interests in it being regional will admit.
Humans, Human Civilization and the environment all did much better at warmer temperatures.
Re: (Score:3)
"Green" land was an example of medieval marketing BS. The reason it is called "Green" land was the same reason almost every state in the US has a city called "Mount Pleasant", "Greenville", and "Springfield".
It's to make the place sound inviting. Norsemen were trying to establish permanent colonies on Greenland, and wanted to attract people with the prospect of a green fertile island. (it was in reality, a cold frigid place)
Yes, there was a few hundred years in the medieval period where the earth warmed
Re: (Score:3)
Except we've hijacked that cooling period and are very quickly warming. https://xkcd.com/1732/ [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:2)
If you would be patient, we're almost done with that. Autonomous electric vehicles will be hitting the streets in the next two years, and they will be so cheap that no-one will ever want to own a car again
LOL, so they have global warming on your planet too?
Re: (Score:2)
But humans have done stupid things for 20K years and we are still here
I have been alive my whole life, and therefore will never die. I mean, death has never happened to me before, why should I think it would in the future?
20,000 years ago we had no technology and our impact on our environment was minimal. Over time our tools have grown more powerful, extending our impact and capabilities. Since you seem to be an investor, you should know that past performance is not indicative of future earnings.
Re: (Score:2)
No, but I'm OK with hunting thousands of millions of people trying to escape the waters for fun and profit!
Re: (Score:2)
I think I have the perfect guy [cdn.meme.am] for that job. He's experienced with delivering, spreading and repeating that kind of information.
Re:Actually the earth has been cooling! (Score:4, Funny)
Yes, but for the vast and clear majority of earth's history, humans didn't want to survive on its surface. Including 50 million years ago.
But then again, we also have not even been around for even a sliver of geologic time. Like the old joke says
Planet 1: Dude, you look horrible, what's going on with you?
Planet 2: I have homo sapiens
Planet 1: Ah, don't worry. It will pass.
Re: (Score:2)
I also recommend reading about what levels of CO2 are toxic to humans, because I don't give a fuck what plants need if I'm dead.
Re: CO2 is good for The plants (Score:2)
At atmospheric concentration of several percent CO2, our lungs can't perform gas exchange to move CO2 from our blood to the air, and we die. That is about 100 times as much as is in the air right now (~400 ppm), and many times the point at which we have other things to worry about.
So don't put "CO2 levels that are toxic to humans" high on your priority list of things to worry about.
Re: (Score:2)
So ... kill all Muslims to fight global warming? Is that your message? Or why do you conflate them?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As soon as liberals evacuate Florida, New york city, and coastal California due to rising oceans I'll believe they are serious about global warming.
Until then they are full of shit.
So, they're full of shit until the effects of what they've been warning of get so bad they have to evacuate their homes? Really, that's your bar?
Re: (Score:2)
Also, they could lead by example. Ride the bus, get your tubes tied (and your kids' & grandkids' tubes tied if you have them) and start paying an additional 20% income tax to combat climate change. No more private jets. Do that for a year and the rest of us might be willing to go half as far.
Let me guess: You think Al Gore is a hypocrite because he flies on planes.
It's not about the science (Score:4, Insightful)
The percentage of believers doesn't prove facts. It proves belief.
Missing the point. The point is that when enough people get behind an idea it becomes possible to take meaningful action. This is a political survey regarding the effectiveness of scientific communication. The science is what it is and this survey does not deal with the science. The debate is largely a political and economic one and this seemingly is ammunition in that debate.
Re: (Score:2)
I took a Pole once and got charged with the federal crime of kidnapping.
A poll of 10 people revealed 9/10 thought taking a Pole was a bad idea.
Re: Warming? (Score:3)
You forgot to pole Poll-land.
Re: (Score:2)
Look up the sunspot cycle and you'll have your answer, if, you are willing to be open minded and believe it!
It sure likes you are ready to believe just about anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Cool. Looks like the number of rational folks out there is up to 2 out of 10 now.
That sounds like that joke about a guy listening to the radio in his car:
Announcer: Warning: there is a car going the wrong way on the I666, near exit 42.
Driver: One car? I see dozens of them.