Best way to fight climate change is to stop talking about it
Jeanwah
Posts: 6,363
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/energy ... g-about-it
Is the best way to fight climate change to stop talking about it?
Climate change threatens the planet — but don't tell anyone. That's one possible takeaway from a new study that found some people were more willing to accept new, environment-saving technologies when they were told that they would save money or energy rather than save the planet.
The study, published April 29 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, focused on political ideologies and how that affects people's willingness to accept certain forms of environmental messaging. The researchers from the Warton School at the University of Pennsylvania and the Fuqua School of Business at Duke University found that more conservative consumers would not buy energy-saving CFL light bulbs if there were labeled as eco-friendly. However, if the message was that they would use less energy and save money, they would be more inclined to make that purchase.
"I think we've shown the negative consequences of environmental messaging," lead author Dena Gromet told National Geographic. "In particular, you can lose significant portions of people who would otherwise be interested in these products when you use that environmental labeling. So it indicates that different messages can reach different groups."
Gromet called environmentally-themed labeling "polarizing" in these cases, as conservative consumers actively avoided the CFL bulbs bearing a "protect the environment" sticker. But their research showed that all consumers accepted the other messages and chose to buy the energy-efficient bulbs as long as the pricing was not different from other options.
Other studies have shown that people want to be energy-efficient regardless of their political affiliations. Edward Maibach, director of the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University, told NBC News that "Conservatives are as likely as liberals to take a range of energy-saving actions, such as buying fuel-efficient cars and energy-efficient appliances, but they are less likely to take certain energy-saving actions that are symbolically associated with environmentalism, such as installing CFLs."
The authors of the new study say their results "highlight the importance of taking into account psychological value-based considerations in the individual adoption of energy-efficient technology in the United States and beyond."
Is the best way to fight climate change to stop talking about it?
Climate change threatens the planet — but don't tell anyone. That's one possible takeaway from a new study that found some people were more willing to accept new, environment-saving technologies when they were told that they would save money or energy rather than save the planet.
The study, published April 29 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, focused on political ideologies and how that affects people's willingness to accept certain forms of environmental messaging. The researchers from the Warton School at the University of Pennsylvania and the Fuqua School of Business at Duke University found that more conservative consumers would not buy energy-saving CFL light bulbs if there were labeled as eco-friendly. However, if the message was that they would use less energy and save money, they would be more inclined to make that purchase.
"I think we've shown the negative consequences of environmental messaging," lead author Dena Gromet told National Geographic. "In particular, you can lose significant portions of people who would otherwise be interested in these products when you use that environmental labeling. So it indicates that different messages can reach different groups."
Gromet called environmentally-themed labeling "polarizing" in these cases, as conservative consumers actively avoided the CFL bulbs bearing a "protect the environment" sticker. But their research showed that all consumers accepted the other messages and chose to buy the energy-efficient bulbs as long as the pricing was not different from other options.
Other studies have shown that people want to be energy-efficient regardless of their political affiliations. Edward Maibach, director of the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University, told NBC News that "Conservatives are as likely as liberals to take a range of energy-saving actions, such as buying fuel-efficient cars and energy-efficient appliances, but they are less likely to take certain energy-saving actions that are symbolically associated with environmentalism, such as installing CFLs."
The authors of the new study say their results "highlight the importance of taking into account psychological value-based considerations in the individual adoption of energy-efficient technology in the United States and beyond."
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
I have always thought the worst mistake the climate change community made was allowing it to be branded Global Global Warming.
I have always thought that if they hadn't said that Man was the cause but that man could simply be the solution they would have been better off as well. It is like the old idea, 'you tell me what to do I tell you to go fuck yourself, you ask me for help I am all in'...humans are strange
Pretty interesting article
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
you may be right ... but it does show how stupid people are ...
I don't mean to disparage any efforts to improve our environment but this is the part that really gets to me:
The researchers from the Warton School at the University of Pennsylvania and the Fuqua School of Business at Duke University found that more conservative consumers would not buy energy-saving CFL light bulbs if there were labeled as eco-friendly. However, if the message was that they would use less energy and save money, they would be more inclined to make that purchase.
If this is, indeed, the only way to make changes, maybe that's what we need to do. But it strikes me as absolutely ludicrous that we have to pretend it's not happening to make a difference. Maybe its just me but if I see a rock about to fall on your head I'm going to say, "Quick! Move! A rock is going to fall on your head!" not, "Say, wouldn't you like to come over here for a second, I have a treat for you."
:fp:
My point is two fold:
1. We're adults. Let's face reality like adults.
2. If we keep treating ourselves with kid gloves over environmental issues, the changes come too slowly and our kids and grand-kids will have to pay for our head-in-the-sand selfishness.
Maybe I'm looking at this all wrong but if so, it will take a good strong argument to convince me otherwise.
It's a matter of immediate priority sometimes. Not saying environment shouldn't be considered - it should - but for me (and yes, I'll own the selfishness in this statement), I'm more concerned about having our mortgage, insurance, electricity, etc. covered by us before eco-friendliness.
(this isn't intended to come off as harsh, but honest)
We're all (well, at least most of us) concerned with making ends meet, Hedonist. In my business- the dying business of selling used books- getting by is a major priority. But I do believe making ends meet and taking care of the environment can and should work together. For example- I spend more on food that I have to because I buy organic produce. But I also eat much less meat that most people and eating well keeps us healthier and keeps medical costs down. Spending more money on a better quality, durable products- like one well made $20.00 dollar tool that lasts a lifetime as opposed to three $8.00 tools over the same period of time- will save money and impact on the environment as well. If I'm worried about paying my electricity bill it makes more sense for me to use less of it and when I need to replace something- an appliance or light bulb, say- if I buy one that is energy efficient and more durable and long lasting my electricity bill will go down as will my impact on the environment.
I also believe we should be careful about squandering our resources as if we only need to make them last as long as we live. Some resources may be in shorter supply than we care to acknowledge. And if we want to be selfish about it, think about this: How our kids will feel toward us when we are old and they have little to live on? Soylent Green, anyone?
As to your last question...I can reverse it - how do I feel toward my parents? Honestly (yet again, dammit!), I look at their character and not their conservation efforts - kinda goes hand in hand, but maybe not actively. Living a decent life, the best one able to be provided, surpasses that for me.
Just offering another perspective. Sometimes - and this isn't toward you or Jeanwah; I like and respect you both - but sometimes I feel like I'm being scolded by some other side for not living up to some standard.
And really, we're all in the same boat.
(paddle, please!)
Hedonist, I must sincerely apologize here because I feel like I've fallen short in my above post. When I read over my initial post (I use the "preview" button frequently and edit from there) what I had written did, indeed sound rather scolding and maybe even a bit self-righteous so I re-wrote a lot of it with the hope of sounding neither scolding nor superior (in general, I am rather self-critical of my own short comings). But obviously I did not fully succeed in that attempt.
Remember the now long-locked "hypocrite" thread started by DS1119? I sometimes wondered if that thread was meant for people like me. In fact, I'm pretty sure it was- and I bear DS no ill will in saying this- he was calling some of us on our shit- maybe in a way that was a little over-the-top- but calling us out on it anyway- and besides that, he made possible my one PJ concert experience which was awesome and I very much enjoyed getting to meet him!
So thanks for being honest and forthright. I won't back down from my convictions, but I'll try to chose my wording more carefully!
The thing is, I guess, it WAS a trend in products to be environmentally friendly, because several companies were jumping on the green bandwagon because it became "the thing" people were looking for, not necessarily because they were becoming green in their practices. (See "greenwashing") So, now, being green is becoming a dirty word? Eh? :eh:
Pending on the damage done by the time our generation is in our 80s and 90s, who's to say what damage that will be done by then, and the young adults by that time will be forced to deal with a realization that may have been prevented by us. So by that time, who's to say if they will be looking at character over solutions based action toward global climate shift or collapse. The thing is, we don't know, but doing nothing isn't exactly a solution is it?
And you mention money. It costs nothing, to be aware of the problem and to be green-minded. I'm sorry that you feel as if you're being scolded, but I could easily say that that sort of feeling comes from the other side too. Maybe if we met half-way...
We are all hypocritical in some way or ways. Such is the price being a human being
...and so you see this catastrophe happening in slow motion and you want to yell, "HELP, HELP!" but you know that will have little positive effect even though what you really want is just to get a few more people motivated to help do some of the paddling and bailing.
So for right now- what to do? Have a drink maybe?
Hmmm- ok, I think I will. Join me for a drink and tomorrow we'll take up the fray. :P
http://www.refugeforums.com/refuge/show ... p?t=920726
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-205_162-4651448.html
The climate is always going to change.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
it was a trend in marketing because they will always try to grab onto 18-34 year old dollars...I think they just overestimated how many dollars people that age actually have to spend now.
the economy crashing hurt the "green" movement of products significantly...when you don't have a whole lot of dollars to spend upgrading to a different more expensive light-bulb can be off putting no matter the benefits of everyone switching.
But talking about saving the planet in your marketing statement seems to miss the most basic of human motivation to do anything...immediate self preservation. The now is so much more important than the future to many and it is hard for them to equate better gas mileage with saving the planet...it isn't hard to equate better gas mileage to more money in your wallet. I am seeing that right now and if I told you I bought a hybrid for the environment I would be lying. Just an added benefit that wouldn't have made my decision for me one way or the other.
right now I think most people think about climate change as a tiny chip in a windshield. Most won't get it fixed...but eventually it spiders and cracks all the way through...that's when they get it fixed.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
being environmentally responsible IS SELF-PRESERVATION
do people eat canned food that is on the clearance bin for all their meals? ... i doubt it ... if spending as little money as possible is the motivation - why aren't people eating like that?
Being environmentally responsible can result in preservation of the species, but it will never be seen as immediate self preservation until it literally is self preservation. Most of the negative effects that my/our(not sure how old you are actually) generation will have on the environment will not be felt by me/us. Most people will never look outside their own immediate needs.
If you honestly believe that most people think that being environmentally friendly meets the need for immediate self preservation, this article's findings and the resistance to green living would not exist. as to your example, food is a necessity, being green will never be seen by most as a necessity until it means the difference between life and death for them that minute or day or year.
You are a bit biased in your assessment of being green meeting those immediate satisfaction needs because of your passion for promoting awareness to the reality of climate change. I cannot fault you for that, but unfortunately the perception by most is that they don't. I didn't say spending a little extra money on things was impossible to do. But organic food is just slightly more expensive and doesn't sell as well, correct?. Price and need are huge factors in a product's success. People constantly use the cost/benefit analysis of things whether they are conscious of it or not. If the benefits of a product cannot be seen as outweighing the cost the product doesn't move well.
take a washing machine for example. If a washing machine was great for the environment but cost you 500 dollars more to buy and 200 dollars a year more to operate they wouldn't sell. BUT, if you can show that a WM that costs 500 dollars more now will save you money in the long run, it sells...not because of the benefit to the environment in the long run, but because of the cost savings to the individual. If environmentally friendly actions were seen as meeting the immediate need of self preservation they would sell without the benefit of saving money wouldn't they?
Hybrids don't sell because they are good for the environment. They sell because gas got expensive.
Environmental change is slow, but the other edge to that sword is that the worse it gets the more the desire to preserve one's self will weigh into green decision making.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ten-mi ... 044330.php
April 22, 2013 11:15 AM
Climate Change Is Not an Environmental Issue
By Ryan Cooper
Just downblog, my colleague Daniel Luzer reads some unfortunate polling data finding that only 52 percent of Americans believe protecting the environment is a top-tier issue, which puts it in 11th place, behind “helping the poor and needy” and “reducing crime.” Bad news for climate hawks, one might think.
But this is a good chance to point out yet again that climate change, by far the most important political issue of our time, has little or nothing to do with environmentalism. The classic environmental battles of the 60s and 70s were all about preserving the wilderness, saving threatened species, and generally limiting the damage industry and the government could do to the biosphere. This ranged from keeping dams out of Grand Canyon, to restricting DDT use to protect birds, to cleaning up industrial pollution like smog. Though it is more complex than this, these kind of traditional environmental issues have a strong element of a tradeoff between the environment and industrial capitalism.
Climate change isn’t like this. By far the most pressing reason to deal with it is the simple preservation of human society. This isn’t a clean distinction, of course, unchecked climate change will wreck much of the biosphere as well (and environmental protection rules often brought enormous human benefits as well), but this is qualitatively different from something like, say, rescuing the California Condor. Climate change is not just a case of some corporations profiting from raping the collective commons, it’s our society slowly destroying itself.
This is why I get somewhat frustrated when I hear climate hawks reflexively invoke “the planet” as a reason for strong action on climate. The planet is nigh invincible. We literally couldn’t destroy it if we wanted to. It’s just a big chunk of rock. The Earth’s biosphere, however, upon which our society is totally dependent, is little more than a thin layer of grease between that rock and the void of space. From the perspective of geologic history, during which more than 99 percent of all species have eventually perished, it is precarious in the extreme.
Folks who lived through Hurricane Sandy will get this instinctively. Dealing with climate change is about protecting our own. It may sound cold and selfish, but if a polity can’t manage simple self-preservation, then everything else is moot.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
...Self-preservation is behavior that ensures the survival of an organism.[1] It is almost universal among living organisms.[citation needed] Pain and fear are parts of this mechanism. Pain motivates the individual to withdraw from damaging situations, to protect a damaged body part while it heals, and to avoid similar experiences in the future.[2] Most pain resolves promptly once the painful stimulus is removed and the body has healed, but sometimes pain persists despite removal of the stimulus and apparent healing of the body; and sometimes pain arises in the absence of any detectable stimulus, damage or disease.[3] Fear causes the organism to seek safety and may cause a release of adrenaline,[4][5] which has the effect of increased strength and heightened senses such as hearing, smell, and sight. Self-preservation may also be interpreted figuratively; in regard to the coping mechanisms one needs to prevent emotional trauma from distorting the mind (see: defence mechanism.)
Even the most simple of living organisms, such as single-celled bacteria, are typically under intense selective pressure to evolve a response to avoid a damaging environment, if such an environment exists. Self-preservation is therefore an almost universal hallmark of life. However when introduced to a novel threat, many species will have a self-preservation response either too specialised, or not specialised enough, to cope with that particular threat.[citation needed] An example is the dodo, which evolved in the absence of natural predators and hence lacked an appropriate, general self-preservation response to heavy predation by humans and rats, showing no fear of them.
A seemingly paradoxical example of self-preservation is the altruistic behaviour of many animals, particularly eusocial insects, such as ants. Soldier ants will often launch suicidal attacks against predators, apparently in contradiction to normal self-preservation instincts. This behaviour can be understood as a self-preservation mechanism of the colony as a whole. Since the individual ant's reproductive success is entirely reliant on the colony and is only indirectly influenced by the individual ant, sacrificing itself for the colony makes evolutionary sense.
http://switchandshift.com/when-self-pre ... you-and-me
When Self-Preservation Weakens You and Me
A beleaguered reality overwhelming teams during times of constant change is an ever-present reality of self-preservation. The instinct is not bad. It is wired into our brains. Yet, when teams experience the one-two punch of change in a seemingly endless assault, the greater the likelihood each person slowly turns inward. And they stay there. The focus shifts from the team to individual needs.
Symptomatic of such realities is a loud cry of complaints of things broken within the team, the company. Problems fester unresolved or half-ass solutions become tempting to just ease the pain.
In a chorus of complaints we cry out it’s not fair. Rarely do we ask, “How do we make this work?”
How do we make things work in times of change? It’s a question that does have an easy answer. The implementation is what trips us up. The answer? We turn to each other, not inward, to adapt, thrive. I suppose its contrarian for most teams, most people. However, during times of change is when self-preservation surfaces and is offered a comfortable place to stay.
The problem with self-preservation rampant in companies? Obviously trust is depleted. But more concerning is we believe that our need to protect ourselves is the best solution to survive in times of constant change. We begin to believe that community is a threat. We cling to what is familiar. Progress is limited. Happiness becomes a laughable notion. Optimism is depleted. Productivity and efficiencies are hampered. Profits are capped.
Imagine yourself clinging to something dearly. Can you get a clear sense of what’s around you? No. All that is viewable is whatever you cling tightly to.
Self-preservation may save us temporarily. But if we stay stuck in the preservationist mindset, our skills risk irrelevancy, our thoughts become restricted, and our communities suffer. Workplaces become toxic. Silos are fortified.
Self-preservation weakens you and me. It ceases to protect and unnoticeably, at first, unravels the hard work of progress.
the problem with your assessment is that there is one major factor at play here ... corporations and greed ... the only reason why the non-environmental choice is considered the more attractive choice in the short term is because of it's influence on gov't and pr campaigns ... because, in general, we do not pay the TRUE cost of items - the economics is skewed towards the over-consumption of shitty things that don't last and are not good for us ...
if we paid the true cost of oil extraction - there is no way in hell we'd be ever driving gasoline cars ... if we paid the true cost of farming (industrial vs. organic) - we'd all be eating organic ... just because the corporations have influenced gov't to the point of controlling policy to favour their profits doesn't mean that it's the best ...
look at where we are now on a personal and collective state ... mass debt, declining health, unsustainable economies and planet ...
That was my main point of it all. That cost, whether ficitonal, subsidized, or real, is what is driving people's immediate choices. If, for instance, the united states became like the Sahara I guarantee people would be much better at conserving water. But people in MN aren't necessarily going to be motivated to conserve water in the same way right now because every where I look there is a lake full of it.
As the articles Jeanwah posted point out, self preservation is a dangerous thing. For it may trick us into steering away from something that would benefit us in the long run...
talking about economics and all that...it is in your best interest to invest and save money, while planning for their future. How many do that at a young age when it will be most beneficial but the future seems like it will never happen?
People are strange...most of us know what is best for us, but yet we often ignore that knowledge for some other more immediate perceived need.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
This is a bit tied into the scolding I mentioned earlier...and actually, it's akin to other views too (religious, vegan, off the top of my head) that, whether intentional or not, chide those of another perspective.
We all live our lives as we best see fit. I think I'm mostly a decent person, try not to be wasteful, try to extend courtesies, and on. And yes, my first priority is toward myself, then my husband, then our finances, and the ripple goes on.
No apologies here for that.
Because on many occasions, instant gratification does not exactly gratify, nor save you as much money. It's like buying a Walmart tool that's just gonna break and you'll be spending money on another one in no time whereas if you invest in a well made tool, you actually save money in the long run and you'd own a quality tool that will work for years. Not necessarily shame on you for that, but weighing all the pros and cons get you to the right place. Always buying cheap and cheaply made just gets one to consume more and running out and spending more money. Can you see that?
I see no scolding going on, but if you do... :?
I can understand that you feel the need to justify yourself, hedonist, and perhaps you feel threatened or "scolded" as you put it. How do you feel about the environment, because I feel that as if you are basically uninterested. Which is fine, it's your business, but it's a big topic that a lot of us are involved with.
And I don't feel threatened, nor am I being combative, just throwing my two cents into this topic. Certainly not disinterested otherwise I wouldn't have taken the time to chime in - but admittedly, not as passionate about this as others.
uhhh ... am i wrong to say you are on the defensive here? ... you don't like being told that the planet is going to shits? ... you don't like the undertones of being called selfish when you clearly have no problems admitting as much?
sure ... everyone is selfish ... doesn't make it any more right or wrong ...
we don't live isolated lives ... the decisions of other impacts us directly ... so, i'm sorry if our agenda of getting everyone to look at the bigger picture offends you but that's life isn't it? ...
I can handle information and in participating in this thread, tried to explain - respectfully and not personally - how sometimes this kind of information is shared with the sense of reproaching others.
Anyway, I'm not gonna go in circles here (but happy to further clarify if need be :P )
Hedonist, I don't mean to belabor a point put having read the last half dozen or so posts to this thread I'm still a bit confused by your response regarding feeling scolded. I'm sensing a number of possibilities here:
You are concerned about the environment but you are just trying to get by and can't afford to do any more than you are and don't want to be told (or thinking you are being told) you should do so. Or,
You are concerned about the environment but you place a higher priority on maintaining your life style over being told (or thinking you are being told) you could do more to make a difference. Or,
You don't think the problems with the environment are severe enough to bother with encouraging people to try harder to make a difference. Or,
You don't really care that much about environmental issues and find it offensive that some of us focus a good amount of attention on these issues (but of course, if that is true you know you can ignore this kind of thread).
Please understand, I'm not making any accusations here. I really just don't understand why you have- or at least seem to me to have- taken some of the things some of us (you mention Jeanwah and myself above) personally to the point of feeling scolded.
Believe me, my intention is not to scold. For me its about a feeling of responsibility and caring. Because I've spent a lot of time studying environmental issues, read a ton of material (well, ok, may just a few hundred pounds
The bottom line on the environment to me is this: Human encroachment on environment is causing loss of species habitat. Human activity is pumping an excess amount of co2 into the environment causing climate change which, at this phase, means global warming. Pollution and toxicity in our environment has not abated. Fresh water is becoming more scare. The combination of these factors may likely lead to a major extinction event, including the extinction of our species. These things may happen not matter what we do but to me it makes sense to do what we can to soften the blow so as to increase the chances of our children and grandchildren being able to live in a world without catastrophic and horrific consequences.
That simple. If this doesn't sit well, let it go. As Edward Abbey once said:
"I would never betray a friend to serve a cause. Never reject a friend to help an institution. Great nations may fall in ruin before I would sell a friend to save them."
I hope we're all friends here.
And may I state again, I was not offended. Figured I can toss in a respectful cent or two into any topic.
*lets it go*
ok ... we all have our grown up pants on ...
feel free to continue to offer your insight and truth be told - you really are the people we need to reach ... the people who do care but find it hard amongst everything else ...
as i've said in other threads ... the environmental movement has failed in many regards ... miserably even ... our inability to combat the PR and myths has been a major failure in my opinion ... and it leaves us where we are now ... still having to convince people of the perils of global warming - that in it of itself is a sad reflection of the movement ...