According to many commentators the recent weather in Australia cannot be linked to climate change.
So check out this weather map… (caution, contains strong language)
This is an article “We Cannot Fight Climate With Consumerism” by George Monbiot from his ZSpace Page, Monday, November 09, 2009 http://www.zcommunications.org/we-cannot-fight-climate-with-consumerism-by-george-monbiot.
It outlines and gives examples of the ‘licensing effect’: Researchers have found that buying green can establish the moral credentials that license subsequent bad behaviour.
“How many times have you heard the argument that small green actions lead to bigger ones?”
“I’ve heard it hundreds of times: habits that might scarcely register in their own right are still useful because they encourage people to think of themselves as green, and therefore to move on to tougher actions.”
“A green energy expert once tried to convince me that even though rooftop micro wind turbines are useless or worse than useless in most situations, they’re still worth promoting because they encourage people to think about their emissions. It’s a bit like the argument used by anti-drugs campaigners: the soft stuff leads to the hard stuff.”
“I’ve never been convinced by this argument. In my experience, people use the soft stuff to justify their failure to engage with the hard stuff. Challenge someone about taking holiday flights six times a year and there’s a pretty good chance that they’ll say something along these lines:
I recycle everything and I re-use my plastic bags, so I’m really quite green.”
“A couple of years ago a friend showed me a cutting from a local newspaper: it reported that a couple had earned so many vouchers from recycling at Tesco that they were able to fly to the Caribbean for a holiday.”
“The greenhouse gases caused by these flights outweigh any likely savings from recycling hundreds or thousands of times over, but the small actions allow people to overlook the big ones and still believe that they are environmentally responsible.”
“Being a cynical old git, I have always been deeply suspicious of the grand claims made for consumer democracy: that we can change the world by changing our buying habits. There are several problems with this approach:
• In a consumer democracy, some people have more votes than others, and those with the most votes are the least inclined to change a system that has served them so well.
• A change in consumption habits is seldom effective unless it is backed up by government action. You can give up your car for a bicycle – and fair play to you – but unless the government is simultaneously reducing the available road space, the place you’ve vacated will just be taken by someone who drives a less efficient car than you would have driven (traffic expands to fill the available road-space). Our power comes from acting as citizens – demanding political change – not acting as consumers.
• We are very good at deceiving ourselves about our impacts. We remember the good things we do and forget the bad ones.”
“I’m not saying that you shouldn’t always try to purchase the product with the smallest impact: you should. Nor am I suggesting that all ethical consumption is useless. Fairtrade products make a real difference to the lives of the producers who sell them; properly verified goods – like wood certified by the Forest Stewardship Council or fish approved by the Marine Stewardship Council – are likely to cause much less damage than the alternatives. But these small decisions allow us to believe that our overall performance is better than it really is.”
“So I wasn’t surprised to see a report in Nature this week suggesting that buying green products can make you behave more selfishly than you would otherwise have done. Psychologists at the University of Toronto subjected students to a series of cunning experiments (pdf). First they were asked to buy a basket of products; selecting either green or conventional ones. Then they played a game in which they were asked to allocate money between themselves and someone else. The students who had bought green products shared less money than those who had bought only conventional goods.”
“The researchers call this the “licensing effect”. Buying green can establish the moral credentials that license subsequent bad behaviour: the rosier your view of yourself, the more likely you are to hoard your money and do down other people.”
“Then they took another bunch of students, gave them the same purchasing choices, then introduced them to a game in which they made money by describing a pattern of dots on a computer screen. If there were more dots on the right than the left they made more money. Afterwards they were asked to count the money they had earned out of an envelope.”
“The researchers found that buying green had such a strong licensing effect that people were likely to lie, cheat and steal: they had established such strong moral credentials in their own minds that these appeared to exonerate them from what they did next. Nature uses the term “moral offset”, which I think is a useful one.”
“So perhaps guilt is good after all. Campaigners are constantly told that guilt-tripping people is counterproductive: we have to make people feel better about themselves instead. These results suggest that this isn’t very likely to be true. They also offer some fascinating insights into the human condition. Maybe the cruel old Christian notion of original sin wasn’t such a bad idea after all.”
I disagree with the last sentence, and I feel that the research suggests striving for continual balance of “telling it like it is” in appropriate doses that won’t overwhelm and cause inaction, with giving hope when these new realistic actions are done.
There was a tremendous build up to this international climate conference. There was lots of anticipation by the public. It was declared to be the ‘most important international gathering of our time’. Peaceful public demonstrations all around the world intensified as the date of the conference approached. People in numerous countries publicly declared that they want change to avoid a global disaster due to greenhouse emissions. They clearly indicated that they’ve had enough of talk and wanted action, now. So did the climate conference live up to the expectations?
The following statement by Yvo de Boer sums up the outcomes succinctly:
”The Copenhagen Accord, which was expected highly to lead to a legally binding treaty, aroused opposition from several developing countries, who said the emission reduction targets were not ambitious enough and refused to adopt it. Yvo de Boer, the Executive Secretary of UN Framework Conventionon Climate Change said at his closing press briefing that the Copenhagen Accord not only failed his hope of achieving a legally binding treaty, but also failed the hope of an agreement for such a treaty. But he still believed that countries should strive for such goals at the next UN climate conference in Mexico in 2010.”
Unfortunately lots of the sceptics predicted this result (and I’m not talking about climate change sceptics either but sceptics who don’t believe that we should place our faith in governments and leaders). Respected climate scientists are urging for immediate cuts to GHG emissions to prevent a more than 2C increase in global temperatures. Well-known international economists are insisting on allocating more funds towards low carbon technologies but again without support from the top people are cautious about investing in the renewable energy market. The fossil fuel market must become non-profitable to drive investments in the low-carbon economy.
Another statement by Monbiot again summarises where we are at: “The longer a comprehensive agreement is delayed, the steeper the emissions cuts will have to be if we are to avoid climate breakdown. Beyond a certain point the scale of the cuts becomes politically, economically and technologically infeasible. That point must already be close”.
So we will have to wait another year to see whether the international leaders can agree on some sort of binding treaty instead of everyone doing their own thing without any scrutiny. In the mean time you don’t have to wait to make a change. Start living a more sustainable lifestyle and support renewable energy and companies that are genuinely trying to make a difference to our planet.
(Ref: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/30/stern-monbiot-copenhagen-deal/print)
Following the day of action I was looking forward to reading about this world-wide rally in the newspapers but I was quickly disappointed to discover that it only got a short mention on page four of one of the major weekend papers. Likewise the major TV channels only dedicated a newsflash type of segment to this news.
After learning about this international action day coordinated by 350.org (see blog on 20th Oct) I decided to attend the local rally in the Dandenongs. Despite the best efforts of 350.org I believe that this climate change day was not getting enough attention in the main stream media. Most people would only have found out about it through alternative sources, such as the internet and perhaps from the banners and placards strategically placed by passionate environmentalists.
Nevertheless, a large number of grass root groups joined forces to take part in this campaign and it is believed that around 5,400 events in 180 countries took place all around the world. According to Bill McKibben, a writer and environmentalist who founded www.350.org:
“We had no idea we would get the overwhelming support, enthusiasm and engagement from all over the world that we’re seeing. It shows just how scared of global warming much of the planet really is, and how fed up at the inaction of our leaders.”
Let’s hope they will get the message before the Copenhagen Conference .
While back in the Dandenongs on Saturday the local chapter of 350.org managed to get around 150 people to take part. It was good to see the range of people who came to support this movement. There were the elderly, the mums with prams, school kids, quite a few young people and of course the more alternative types. Overall a good cross section of society was represented by this small group who marched up and down in the main street until arriving at the local MP’s office. Speeches included the discussion of Climate Change and our future.
The rally culminated in the passing of judgement on the current Labour Government’s policies on Global Warming. The list was long and the final verdict on all their policies so far was ‘GUILTY’. This list was mounted on the side of the MP’s office and the crowd continued to enjoy the day with a BBQ and live music. Local Councillor Samantha Dunn then handed out 350 native plants for the participants to take home and plant in their gardens to help reduce CO2 in the atmosphere.
According to dire news reported in the media last week Australians are losing interest in Global Warming. While in 2007 this issue was ranked as the equal most important foreign policy goal for the Federal Government the most recent polls indicate that out of ten possible goals it is in seventh place. Now fewer people see Global Warming as a threat to Australia’s national interests and it is perceived as the fourth most critical threat facing us out of twelve possibilities.
The fact that the current government was delaying action and the fact that the opposition party still hasn’t resolved its position on emission trading and the global financial crises have all been blamed for the loss of interest in Climate Change. The good news is that 76% of those surveyed in the annual Lowy Institute Poll still rated Climate Change as a problem and want some action. See full article here: (http://www.theage.com.au/environment/global-warming-drops-down-list-20091012-gu1w.html)
For those who still think that we should do something about Climate Change, this weekend is an important day. This Saturday on the 24th of October it is the ‘International Day of Climate Action’. This is an international movement and people from many countries around the world will join in some form of protest to send a message to government leaders around the world. The message is clear: people want action on Climate Change. It is expected that thousands of images of people gathering in many cities and remote areas will be projected to the UN Headquarters and to Times Square.
The aim of this action -organised by www.350.org worldwide- is to focus the attention on the science and the citizens to remind world leaders that they need to take physical reality into account when they are making decisions about our collective future at the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference in December. People are not interested in backroom business deals and political interest groups but in one united goal; that is to reduce greenhouse emission and to ensure that the CO2 remains below 350 ppm in the atmosphere. Saturday’s campaign is expected to be the most widespread day of environmental action in the planet’s history with over 3000 events in 160 countries. 350.org will assemble all the photos for a gigantic, global visual petition and present to the UN before the conference.
If you want to get involved visit this website for nearest location: www.350.org/map#/map/-25.274398/133.775136/4
: Where you refer to "psychometrics", surely you mean "psychrometrics".
: Refer to an excerpt off your website. We are discussing potential energy asvings with a large secondary school. It would be useful for them to [...]
: I do feel you article is somehow biased. Single LEDs are commonly exceeding 80-100 W/l @ 400-700 lumens. Add to that the lacking mercury present [...]
: I really like your blog and i respect your work. I'll be a frequent visitor.
: Hot water storage tanks are grossly under insulated. Mine has 2.5 cm. around the tank, when a minimum of 10 cm required. This on leaks [...]
