 |
Offside Set
Welcome to Offside Set
|
Home | Forum | Arcade
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
GweedsOSS
Joined: 15 Oct 2006
Posts: 553
Location: Northcote
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 5:05 pm Post subject: The psychology of global warming |
 |
|
I am sitting here on one of my favourite days. It is a real Melbourne winter's day. It is currently eight degrees outside and a few flakes of snow have been sighted in the outskirts of the city.
On a day like today global warming may be the furtherest thing on people's mind. However with the release of the Garnaut Report climate change is the topic of the week.
There are many currents of debate going on. There is a lot of discussion is about the political implications of implementing the recommendations of that report. This also translates in the enthusiasm of the media in finding unions or Labor politicians poo pooing the it and the glee of some commentators and blog respondents that this issue will make the Rudd Labor Government a one term wonder.
One of the major issues is the short term pain for long term gain issue. The government has to hope that enough people out there are ready to experience some pain in terms of higher fuel prices in order to create a situation where the benefits to the world climate can be seen decades in advance and won't be dramatic.
The opposition has gone for a populist approach. Guy Beres comments on Nelson's approach to this issue.
| Quote: | Brendan Nelson’s populist response to the draft report indicates that he either does not understand this point, does not really accept mainstream scientific opinion, or otherwise (most probably) has decided that there is more to gain politically from opposing any climate change policy that might involve short-term economic pain:
“It will be an act of environmental suicide, an act of economic suicide, if Australia were to be so far in front of the world implementing an ill-considered, not yet properly developed and tested emissions trading scheme if we haven’t got a genuinely global response,” he [Nelson] told journalists. |
Whether this will benefit the Coalition in the long run remains to be seen. I know for one that it seems to me that there is more cynicism and more of 'this is going to stuff Rudd up' commentary than the GST when it was introduced by Howard, where many commentators hailed as one of the most courageous policies since federation. Lots of talk about 'conviction politician' there. I don't seem to hear much of that about Rudd. Maybe the jury is out.
However the determining factor is whether people see a link between their actions and global warming. This is a hard sell, because I believe that while most people believe generally that 'something must be done about global warming' and probably Rudd got some votes because he was perceived to be more effective in this area, I wonder what the opinion will be when it comes to the crunch and energy prices are affected.
The other factor is that emission trading is a complex issue that cannot be explained in a quick easy to digest method. As polls have shown while there is a general support for something to reduce global warming, many people don't know much about what is being proposed, and I don't blame them, because it is not an easy policy to grasp. I for instance haven't fully understood it. Maybe the government should all get us a copy of this.
I believe that the danger here is that many are unaware of any connection between their behaviour and global warming.
In the mid 80's I completed a Masters thesis titled: The relationship between planning and the environmental perception, attitudes and behaviour of residents in the Dandenong Ranges: a case study approach
I devised a questionnaire which tested how residents living near Sherbrooke Forest in the Dandenong Ranges viewed their environment and whether their behaviour was consistent with those attitudes.
While almost all respondents were very positive about their environment, there was a dissonance about how their behaviour and living styles impacted on that same environment.
Many disliked power lines citing them as unsightly and a fire danger. But their lifestyle included dryers, multiple TVs, etc. which required plenty of electricity. They bemoaned that there were weeds in the forest when in their gardens they had plenty of exotic plants that could propagate into the forest by wind or by birds. They were unhappy that lyrebirds numbers were not what they were but left domestic pets out at night to roam at will.
I wonder whether this disconnection is present in the Global Warming debate. The fact that they may want the government to 'do something' about the drought, or the fact that dams are drying because the rainfall has diminished so much, but are unaware that their actions are partly responsible for these events and therefore may react negatively when energy prices are increased to reflect the real cost to the environment.
The Journal Climate Change (vol. 77 (1-2): 1-6 JUL 2006) titled this edition as "Global Warming: The Psychology of Long Term Risk" where the perceptions of global warming were examined.
In one of the articles by Elke U Weber titled: "Experience-based and description-based perceptions of long-term risk: why global warming does not scare us (yet)" she writes that
| Quote: | Recent personal experience strongly influences the evaluation of a risky option. Low-probability events generate less concern than their probability warrants on average, but more concern than they deserve in those rare instances when they do occur.
Personal experience with noticeable and serious consequences of global warming is still rare in many regions of the world. When people base their decisions on statistical descriptions about a hazard provided by others, characteristics of the hazard identified as psychological risk dimensions predict differences in alarm or worry across different classes of risk.
The time-delayed, abstract, and often statistical nature of the risks of global warming does not evoke strong visceral reactions. |
And I wonder whether people are that concerned about global warming here in beautifully cold Melbourne, and only another horrible hot, dry, bushfire prone summer will create any 'visceral reaction' to accept higher energy cost as a price to pay to reduce global warming.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Greenwood
Joined: 13 Oct 2006
Posts: 81
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 9:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Irritating to see The Nelson Opportunism, and Howard telling the people Rudd should not rush , but pleasing to see Garnaut replying, to Howard "You should have started 6years ago."
Appreciate you article as usual Gweeds. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rollins
Joined: 13 Oct 2006
Posts: 467
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 12:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As with anything i guess much will depend on support from mass media.
On a side note can someone explain to a simpleton the reasoning behind the baby bonous, the policy sounds environmentally friendly.
I have been told Russia is doing the same only more generous, doe's the capitalist machine require expententual growth??? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Watt
Joined: 14 Feb 2007
Posts: 55
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 6:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rollins wrote: | As with anything i guess much will depend on support from mass media.
On a side note can someone explain to a simpleton the reasoning behind the baby bonous, the policy sounds environmentally friendly.
I have been told Russia is doing the same only more generous, doe's the capitalist machine require expententual growth??? |
Yes it does.
As Murray Bookchin put it in The Ecology of Freedom (1982)
| Quote: |
To speak of 'limits to growth' under a capitalistic market economy is as meaningless as to speak of limits of warfare under a warrior society. The moral pieties, that are voiced today by many well-meaning environmentalists, are as naive as the moral pieties of multinationals are manipulative. Capitalism can no more be 'persuaded' to limit growth than a human being can be 'persuaded' to stop breathing. Attempts to 'green' capitalism, to make it 'ecological', are doomed by the very nature of the system as a system of endless growth. |
Gweeds I think that to a defree the dissonance in people's behaviour mirrors a dissonance at all levels. Rudd suggest a carbon trading scheme, its a good idea imo, but he does not, (and cannot suggest) more radical change, and I think at some level (even if only intuitively) we all know that is what is needed.
Exponential growth in a finite system is impossible, we all know this and nobody (starting from high up) does anything about it there is dissonance there.
Even without enviromental collapse our system is immoral, and maintained by force, once again I believe that at some level everyone understands this, its another dissonance.
There are so many dissonances in our day to day, that it is not surprising to find yet more(the ones you point out)
Doublethink FTW |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Watt
Joined: 14 Feb 2007
Posts: 55
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 11:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
From Possum Pollytics
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TechnicalArea
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
Posts: 49
Location: Unaligned & Disillusioned
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 12:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nelson owes his current (and very temporary) station to the right of the Liberals which Howard cultivated over his reign, so it isn't all that surprising to see Nelson come out with similar thinking. It also explains the confusion over just what the Coalition's policy here is, with some more rational types seeing the writing on the wall and moving on. The new Senate will be important in how far Rudd goes with his ETS (assuming he doesn't squib it). Who knows how Xenophon and Fielding will vote. The Greens will probably want to push Rudd further than the opinion polls would suggest is safe. And Nelson's leadership is so weak, particularly on this issue, that a Coalition senator or two crossing the benches is a real possibility. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rollins
Joined: 13 Oct 2006
Posts: 467
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 11:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
