Over the past decade, as news on the looming threat from global warming has continued unabated and become increasingly dire, public opinion has stayed static or become more indifferent to the need to take drastic action.
In 2011 the UK weathered the second warmest autumn on record in more than a century, while land surface temperatures were the seventh warmest on record across the globe. Even the mild-mannered David Attenborough could not conclude Frozen Planet without warning of the dangers of global warming.
But who was listening? Most polls paint a worrying picture for scientists, environmentalists and activists: that attitudes have not just remained static over the past decade but in some cases actually worsened. Increasingly, these groups are left preaching to the converted rather than winning the battle for public opinion.
The annual British Social Attitudes survey released last month said public support for tackling climate change had declined dramatically, as the Guardian summarised. By contrast, the Daily Mail triumphantly applauded the "rise of the climate change sceptics".
Asked if we worry too much about the environment and not enough about prices and jobs, a decade ago 50% of Britons disagreed. Now that number is down to 34%. "People may be less likely to change their behaviour for the sake of the environment if this will cost them money, time or effort," said the BSA report.
The change in attitudes has been starker in the US: the percentage of Americans who believe climate change is taking place has plummeted from 71% to 51% in recent years.
This failure to connect with the public is already having a dire effect on political will to deal with the problem. How should they do things differently?
First, the economy matters. With economic stagnation, scarce jobs and squeezed incomes predicted for several years in western countries, people will increasingly ask whether they can afford policies to deal with global warming. Public opinion could turn sourer if claims that jobs must be prioritised over global warming start to resonate wider.
This approach has become increasingly popular on the right. Secretive thinktanks are starting to bombard the press with research claiming it's too costly to deal with the problem. The Daily Mail has had to repeatedly apologise for exaggerating the cost of "green policies" on energy bills.
Scientists and environmentalists need to place a greater emphasis on the economic dangers of not dealing with the problem: household bills will rise exorbitantly if we don't invest in alternative energy; dealing with disruptive climate change will cost us billions and drive up food prices across the world.
Second, the language needs to change. Phrases such as "climate justice", association with anti-capitalist messages and a focus on living like a hermit are part of the problem. These approaches may be right and have appeal to some groups of people but not only reach the already converted: the drop in support for action on global warming is more on the right (especially in the US) than the left.
Studying the polls closely, blogger Leo Barasi makes another point: while many people sympathise, they're reluctant to associate themselves with the views of green activists and turn away.
Half the population doesn't need more convincing – it's the other half that isn't susceptible to traditional messages.
This means talking about the potential for future innovation, that countries like China and India are investing billions into alternative energy as a key future technology, and how it offers us security from war and disease and a better standard of living.
Talk about solutions rather than focusing on doom. A recent paper, titled Fear Won't Do It, by the Tyndall Centre found that sensational representations of climate change "can successfully capture people's attention" but also disengage them and "render them feeling helpless and overwhelmed".
While most people still recognise it as an important issue, they aren't clear how to put that into action. Inevitably, if that involves spending money then support drops sharply. The mainstreaming of recycling is one of the few bright spots of the past decade, but it clearly is not enough. The challenge is to be clearer on how governments and companies could do more to help beyond global carbon emission targets.
While it didn't come as a surprise the Conservatives went from being the "greenest government ever" to: "we are not going to save the planet by shutting down our steel mills, aluminium smelters and paper manufacturers", the scale of the abrupt U-turn should serve as a warning to campaigners. Relying on politicians to lead on tackling global warming is a dangerous strategy since most will prefer to follow public opinion.
And yet it is the area where scientists and campaigners are comprehensively failing to advance their cause. It's time to rethink strategy.
• Follow Comment is free on Twitter @commentisfree
Comments
5 January 2012 11:57AM
Sunny
I'm sure even Deaf people understand environmental concerns - couldn't you do without using hackneyed disablist terms like "falling on deaf ears"?
5 January 2012 11:59AM
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
5 January 2012 12:03PM
Sunny,
For once a CIF AGW article I agree with.
Drop the Hysteria and focus on costs. Excellent. As long as you are honest, there should be no problems.
5 January 2012 12:04PM
Apologies, Pagey. I hadn't considered the disabilism of the phrase. Sunny did not write the headline so please don't blame him. Now changed.
5 January 2012 12:06PM
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
5 January 2012 12:09PM
There are only three messages that we need to get across, and indeed implement:
a) Carbon taxes are not just taxes - they are ring fenced and will not be spent on anything except renewable energy
b) Our money (from said taxes) will not be shipped abroad to help our industrial competitors
c) It is being done because weaning ourselves off oil and coal is necessary for energy security in future
5 January 2012 12:09PM
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
5 January 2012 12:13PM
A friend of mine had a 'green' consultant on a site he managed and wasn't particularly welcoming. He changed his tune when the consultant identified a £20k cost saving within two hours of having walked through the door!
5 January 2012 12:14PM
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
5 January 2012 12:14PM
What is not settled is how much is attributable to us. The consensus seems to be "most", but the exact percentages are not finalized AFAIK.
5 January 2012 12:17PM
TheExplodingEuro
"For once a CIF AGW article I agree with."
I second that.
Dropping the hysteria cannot be done fast enough. In addition to the "normal" hyperbole about hyper-mega-global-catastrophic-chaos-... just yesterday in a CIF here "enslavement" was added to the shrillness too.
Separating environmental issues from the anti-capitalism rhetoric often thrown in with the above hyperbole would also help a lot. Some say that the two are linked, but this is only in the "joined-up thinking" that exists in their own mind and is in fact "jumbled-up thinking".
A solutions-based approach goes much farther.
5 January 2012 12:21PM
A cold wet spell has affected Northern India. Freezing fog and smog has delayed travel, and every house within 250 kms is burning wood in traditional stoves,
The demand for energy in this country is insatiable, with India now buying foreign coal companies, so supply side can be increased.
There is very little climate change awareness in India, despite the writers mention of alternative energy.
India is trying the nuclear option, but since Fukishima, attempts at opening new reactors, are met with huge numbers of demonstrators, who can effectively shut the plant down. This is happening today in Tamil Nadu.
In the Himalayan state of Himachal, gigantic and medium size hydro projects have sprung up all over the state, with local people seeing the environmental damage these projects cause, thousands of trees felled for each project, and the destruction of natural waterways. After a dozen years, the people do not want any more. The politicians do though.
The argument in India is that the West created most of the green house gasses up to this moment, and that India should not have to restrict emissions, until it has reached a satisfactory level of development.
China is refusing to pay the EU emissions levy, and is also a huge emitter.
it is not about climate deniers, or doom mongers, but simply an awareness of the effect an ever increasing number of humans is having, and what if anything can be done about it.
5 January 2012 12:22PM
Here's one that's paid for itself.
5 January 2012 12:22PM
Second, the language needs to change. Phrases such as "climate justice", association with anti-capitalist messages and a focus on living like a hermit are part of the problem
I quite agree, along with ideas that somehow the earth is a single living organism that is expelling the poison (us). Some morons might agree with such ideas and participate in such quasi-religious rituals as 'earth hour' but others are more sceptical.
The problem now is that the environmental movement has cried wolf a few times, and as we know from the story of the boy that cried wolf, there actually was wolf.
I believe that that humans can and probably have influenced climate but there is a need for rational analysis of the extent of the change balanced against the cost of mitigation. That some have used environmental concerns as a vehicle to attack capitalism (which they hate anyway) doesn't help.
5 January 2012 12:22PM
Politicians follow public opinion? Have you told them? Have you told the banks?
5 January 2012 12:22PM
The economic case was made in the Stern report. It was ignored. Dropping the activist talk and engaging with corporations has only lead to greenwash, while talking about solutions has mainly fallen on deaf ears.
As for doom, most of the scare-mongering is done by nimbys blocking renewables.
Finally regarding politicians: We don't have any leaders who lead inspite of fickle public opinon. Instead Britain has elected the nasty party thanks to Thatcher's legacy of promoting greed and a lack of viable alternatives.
The sunny side of all this is that Thatcher's policies are bankrupted, no one believes the government and some are quitely getting involved in transition projects instead of resigning themsleves to doom and gloom.
We could do much more by taking positive action: Get the GWPF stripped of its charity status. This would be a moral booster for all of us. We need to show our determination to see positve change happen. Small goals like exposing the funding of lobby groups, demanding transparency and getting it are all needed.
Small steps that lead us all to posituve outcomes. If we really want change, we must focus on getting rid of the rot on the way to tackling the bigger challenges of achieving a sustainable society.
5 January 2012 12:25PM
I think this is because the story Peter and The Wolf is a familiar story. People shout "wolf" but no wolf is seen.
But remember that in the end there was a wolf!
5 January 2012 12:25PM
Could it have anything to do with the fact that folk are pissed off looking out of their window and seeing a few windmills in the UK (usually paying enormous rent to the already rich), whilst the rich switch to filling their shops with "goodies" to buy from those countries spewing out more CO2 in a week than the UK will produce in a decade? And the rich show no signs whatsoever of changing?
5 January 2012 12:26PM
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
5 January 2012 12:26PM
Good Article. too often those who belive in AGW come across as strident and dare I say "swivel eyed" messiahs who will not admit that the message or even the method of delivery could be better.
5 January 2012 12:28PM
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
5 January 2012 12:28PM
Where does it say that?
In the link you provide, someone is demonstrating they have cut their energy costs by 38% rather than seeing them rise by 17%.
What it doesn't show is how much it cost to do that, and if this was more or less than the saving.
5 January 2012 12:28PM
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
5 January 2012 12:29PM
And that's part of the problem. There's some big money behind the denialist campaign which is doing its best to distort and confuse.
5 January 2012 12:29PM
The planet's resources are being used up at a frightening rate and last year's global warming was part of a continuing trend.
But we don't have anything to do with this. CO2 emissions are nothing to do with man - nor is the chopping down of the rain forests in Brazil, Indonesia and all over the place. It's the fish who're polluting the oceans and have turned to cannibalism, hence their dwindling number. And the rhinos are biting each other's horns off, the elephants tearing out each other's tusks and heaven knows what the tigers are getting up to.
5 January 2012 12:30PM
True enough, but not so easy to remedy when the denialist/pseudosceptic side has so much money and grubby PR expertise behind it. Professional liars, not to put too fine a point on it.
The majority of reasonably honest scientists are babes in the wood when it comes to countering deliberate and expertly promulgated misinformation.
On the other hand, professional "campaigners" have tended to resort too readily to sensationalism and gimmicks, and it's wearing a bit thin even with many who have some sympathy for the causes in question.
5 January 2012 12:30PM
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
5 January 2012 12:34PM
Not necessarily "anti-capitalism" per se, but surely the idea that our current economic system is running into enormous roadblocks is the idea of the day. Surely even many on the right are starting to realize that we're headed for a kind of permanent economic crisis that benefits very few of our citizens. So why disassociate cimate change from it?
Two months ago in The Nation, Naomi Klein made the most powerful argument yet that the two are inextricably linked.
Klein looked at the arguments of the more erudite climate-change deniers, and realized that they make a coherent case that climate change can't be prevented with the current economic system. It can't be done. The smart "deniers" do not actually deny that the climate disaster will happen, they argue that we can't do anything about it without junking the capitalist system in its current form, without turning back privatization thrity years, without abandoning the constant-growth model, etc.
For the "deniers", this is a reason to do nothing, because they refuse to give up the current economic system, because they are ideologically attached to it. For Klein and those of us who genuinely want to tackle global warming, this is just more proof that we have to tackle capitalism simultaneously in order to achieve anything at all.
5 January 2012 12:35PM
What do you mean?
5 January 2012 12:35PM
The climate change message is not being heard
It is, but has been found wanting by many
5 January 2012 12:36PM
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
5 January 2012 12:37PM
One thing the Green Lobby could do would be to understand the science.
In the case of nuclear, this is clear. It is clean, inexpensive (after build costs), will run long-term with little need for additional fuel and, even if built in an earth-quake zone and hit by a tsunami, actually didn't kill anyone, neither will it.
It also need not leave lots of long-term radioactive waste if the proper technologies are used.
The science on nuclear really is settled - as Mr Monbiot of this parish will testify - so shouldn't the Green Lobby now be campaigning for its immediate introduction?
Or is the problem not that big in the first place, that actual sensible solutions are vilified?
5 January 2012 12:37PM
Thanks, Nick. I know it might seem trivial to many, but it's something that bears reflecting on.
5 January 2012 12:39PM
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
5 January 2012 12:41PM
You're right, I didn't revisit the steps I have taken to improve energy efficiency in my family home over the past 5 years. This link is focused on the results. The costs to do that are all in the blog, you'll just have to read a few more posts.
I also failed to mention that my house was already classed as energy-efficient at the start of my improvement efforts. It was double-glazed, cavity walls and loft were insulated and a number of energy saving bulbs were in place. That hasn't prevented me from halving my energy usage with simple, non-structural improvements like top-up loft insulation, replacing inefficient appliances and - lately - embracing high performance LED lighting at reasonable costs.
The key message, from these two graphs, is that energy efficiency cuts costs. What's not to like?
5 January 2012 12:42PM
You are suggesting that it is possible for Deniers to have a point or be right about anything! ! ! !
This is CiF - Wash your mouth out.
Not to mention we all live in it.
5 January 2012 12:42PM
We could the change the focus as well. Newer reports indicate that the main difference will be that the weather gets progressively worse, rather than more "natural disasters".
Rotten weather is much closer to the interests of ordinary people. A couple of degrees is not dramatic, Hurricanes or massive drought are.
This has been known for some time - it is not the "average" of temperatures that are the problem, but the extremes.
5 January 2012 12:43PM
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
5 January 2012 12:43PM
It was anthropogenic global warming, caused by CO2.... then it became climate change because the warming bit wasn't happening.
The people who believe that we can reduce CO2 to stop the planet warming are fantasists as none of their dire predictions happened: where are the 50 million refugees from the drying out and warming up of the world predicted by the UN 10 years ago? The warmists have lied and lied and their data when examined is suspect, fiddled to get the "right answers" and they've been found out as hypocrits who jet around the world telling others to do what they're unprepared to do themselves - i.e. live in caves on their allotment and not use any of those awful carbon using products that the rest of use to make the planet too hot. Al Gore's carbon footprint is 20 times the average and he's done nothing to reduce it that I can see as he jets around the world telling us to fly less often!
The problems for mankind are overpopulation, food and energy security. Pollution of the planet by Asian industrialisation is also a problem - a problem caused by us outsourcing our manufacturing so we can have cheaper goods. Taxing western manufacturers and regulating them more has made them move overseas... we now have clean air so the Chinese can have foul air to breathe.
Carbon trading and building windmills are displacement activities that fail to address the real issues. The global warming message didn't offer proper solutions to mankind's desire for more consumer goods and freedom to travel: it just said bad things will happpen.... and when the bad things failed to happen and the Maldives are building more hotels on coral reefs that are supposed to be under water in 2020, you wonder what these folk who cried wolf using falsified data and computer models that predicted stuff that didn't happen have as their agenda. They're not disinterested scientists... they're about as disinterested as drug company researchers who publish data to support their new products and bin everything that doesn't. climate change is a growth industry fostered by governments finding new ways to tax people and to justify those taxes with "scientific evidence".
The sun drives the climate and climate has changed all the time due to solar activity chnages. Ice ages weren't caused by living creatures - the sun caused them by reducing its output of energy. Medieval warming wasn't caused by man either: it can only have been the sun's output that changed as the earth's orbit doesn' t change. The science isn't settled - science never is, and the warmists have lost the argument - we should all move on and address overpopulation instead.
All the warmists are consumers and part of the problem, so why aren't they practising a low carbon lifestyle - Attenborough (and all the camera / sound crews and researchers) has in his various nature programmes used more jet fuel than tens of thousands of ordinary people whose energy costs have risen to pay for windmills to compensate for his profligate use of fuel- he's part of the problem and until he and those like him repent, none of us will believe they are serious about what they claim to believe. The Tokyo, Copenhagen and Durban jamborees didn't help the planet one bit - all could have been done on video links involving no foreign travel at all.
5 January 2012 12:44PM
The source of the statement is me.
If you mean the source of the assertion then as you well know there is no one source that proves climate change is man made. Just as there is no one source that proves climate change is man made.
You're question is therefore a tedious attempt to dismiss an opinion formed from observation of all the conflicting information available that is impossible to summarise in a forum like this.
Try harder.
5 January 2012 12:45PM
Yes, and we we were living in agrarian feudalism until we stopped living in it.
Also, Euro still not exploded, I must observe...
5 January 2012 12:45PM
If the climate change messengers weren’t such an arrogant, self-righteous, patronising, ignorant, confrontational, lying and generally irritating lot – well, maybe more people would be inclined to listen to them.
Btw - if anybody and I mean ANYBODY is offended by the phrase 'falling on deaf ears' then they should be locked in a dark room. Forever.
5 January 2012 12:47PM
I didn't say I didn't like it, I said that the link you provided did not prove the claim you said
I pointed out the page you linked to did not prove that claim.
It may have done, that is not on that page.
5 January 2012 12:48PM
I've not seen much focus on living like a hermit - in fact, I've not seen any, but then maybe I'm not looking in the right place.
I don't like the term "climate justice" but I think people's sense of justice or fairness is one that can be appealed to. We're not all entirely self-centred, and I think people can and do respond to the idea that those who are going to be hit hardest by the effects of climate change are those who are least responsible for it.
As for the anti-capitalist messages, to fundamentalists like the Koch brothers and their vocal followers any kind of environmental regulation, government action or inter-governmental cooperation is going to be characterized as anti-business or anti-capitalist. We need to distinguish their characterization of the message from the actual message.
5 January 2012 12:49PM
vrager
Sigh
When was the IPCC so named?
5 January 2012 12:50PM
I still consider myself a bit of a climate change expert after 5 years of campaigning for to "stop climate chaos" with a coalition of groups including the Green Party, Lib Dem activists, RSPB, World Wildlife Fund UK, Operation Noa, Greenpeace UK, World Development Movement, FoE, Airport Watch, People & Planet, Oxfam, Sustrans, the ctc, Christian Aid, Speak, Cafod, ujs, New London Synagogue, Moishe House London, and many more.
Can I suggest a few new tactics:
1) We have got people's attention. Now we need to start being sensible about solutions and suggesting them to the media.
2) Agreed, opinion is moving towards concern about the recession. Let us make the link with our solutions to sort out the economy and save the environment.
3) As someone who is quite involved in the process, I propose to wait until after the USA elections. Regulation is unpopular and lobbying for it can wait a few months. Then let's show USA politicians the way forward.
4) the "Climate Justice" movement must be anti-hierarchical to work. This means that the few people who originally started the campaign should not take ownership of the issue so that many other people can input.
5 January 2012 12:50PM
Climate Apocalypse still not happened yet I must observe
5 January 2012 12:52PM
Bamboo13 has hit the nail on the head. It is not about one element of "green-ness" but about the unsustainability of an overpopulated planet.
ALL resources are running low, there are too many demands on the remaining resources and the human race is genetically programmed to ignore these things and procreate.
"Saving the Planet" is pointless, the planet will heal itself and the honest approach by environmentalists must be "Save the Humans" otherwise it is just hypocrisy.
5 January 2012 12:52PM
Point taken, but a succinct comment in this column is better than a balance sheet analysing ROI.
5 January 2012 12:54PM
That's called weather
Yes.
.
In other words, ignore the suggestion in the article and carry on failing as before.
The business earlier, acidic oceans and so on. How much will it all cost me personally, and is this more or less than the cost of mitigation?
There's the approach