Clear and Present Danger: A Conversation With Nobel Laureate Steve Chu on the Risks of Climate Change
By The Climate Community | November 3, 2008 | In: Business, Science, Policy, Media, Social & NGOs
(Page 2 of 8)
Ready to Be Convinced, But Not to Act
Of course, this sets up the next important question: Why aren't people listening? Alternatively, why aren't they acting? This is one problem to which Dr. Chu can't seem to find an answer. He knows that the magnitude of the crisis we are headed into is overwhelming. Yet despite all these daunting problems, we are not helpless in the face of climate change.
There are a host of steps we can take today that could make big differences in the coming decades, such as investing in infrastructure changes in developing countries and building more energy-efficient buildings. Long-term measures suggested by the IPCC include investment in research and development for clean energy, information campaigns and financial incentives for energy efficiency. Tradable permits, taxes and regulations and carbon pricing policies can all create incentives for producers and consumers to invest in low-emission products and technologies. But governments around the world will not take these steps unless they can be convinced climate change is a clear and present danger, one that demands immediate action.
Dr. Chu reminded us at this point that there are some countries currently taking steps to be green without compromising their livelihood. There is no reason to believe that decreasing greenhouse gas emissions must stunt economic growth. Europe and Japan have had great success with energy efficiency and emissions stabilization without suffering reduced levels of well-being.
Still, containing climate change will require a level of global political will that we have not yet achieved. While many countries have begun taking steps to remedy climate change, those steps are not yet widespread or aggressive enough to actually turn the tide. And while it is critical that developing countries follow more developed countries in this effort, developing countries quite reasonably ask why they should have to take on the technological uncertainties of moving to a green economy when many rich nations refuse to do the same. Informed experts like Dr. Chu have puzzled over this: If we believe in global warming, why aren't we heeding the IPCC's warning and rushing to do something about it?
He raises an important question: Why has political will been lacking? The United States has been particularly disappointing in this respect, so it's reasonable to look there first for the answer. The frustrating lack of interest in climate change that we see in the American population doesn't appear to be a problem of basic knowledge. Despite the controversy that has often surrounded climate change and its reporting, polls show the American public coming around to the belief that climate change is real. If these polls are accurate, the populace understands that climate change exists.
What they don't appear to know, and what experts like Dr. Chu want to make more visible, is how devastating and personal the effects of climate change could become. In a recent poll, 71% said there is "solid evidence" of global warming, but only 44% called it a "very serious problem." When asked to rank global warming against a range of other policy priorities, 47% of Democrats, 38% of Independents and just 12% of Republicans rated it a top priority.[1] So their basic knowledge isn't translating into the kind of political drive needed to push fast policy action, or the personal motivation needed to change individual behavior. Consumers in the United States have the least "green" habits in the world in terms of energy use, transportation, travel, and goods, according to National Geographic and polling firm GlobeScan.[2] And if this is how Americans are thinking, polls show that many in developed countries are right there with them. A recent online study of 46 countries by the Norwegian University of Science and Technology found that the bigger a nation's wealth and carbon footprint, the less its residents care about global warming.
The logical conclusion seems to be that developed-world publics believe in man-made global warming, but aren't yet personally scared. They know it is happening, but they don't yet know the magnitude of the problem – how bad it could be for them. On the face of it, this seems reasonable. Very few people have the time or energy to read the IPCC's thousand-page tome; even if they did, droughts, storms, and floods are unpleasant, and may threaten individual livelihoods, but humanity has suffered them throughout history. In the context of a daily weather report, an increase of 2-3°C (3.6-7.2°F) in average temperatures may not sound like much. Moreover, the time scale is the wrong one to inspire anxiety: People are much more likely to respond to a clear and present danger, which global warming does not necessarily seem to be.
In reality, however, climate change amounts to a significant shock to ecosystems around the world. The ramifications of increasing temperatures will be felt at home as well as abroad, but if we wait until then it will be too late. Experts such as Dr. Chu tell us - indeed, they're desperate to find ways to convince more of us – that climate change carries with it an incredible, unstoppable momentum, and we must convince people to act now.
 |
 |
 |
| 6 - 7 April, 2010 | Chicago | From Shop Floor to Top Floor: Best Business Practices in Energy Efficiency |
| 15 - 16 April, 2010 | Washington, D.C. | Energy and Climate Ministerial of the Americas |
| 1 May - 31 October, 2010 | Shinghai | World Expo (Shanghai) |
| 7 - 10 May, 2010 | Paris | 5th Global Conference on Oceans, Coasts, and Islands: Ensuring Survival, Preserving Life, and Improving Governance |
Key Websites & Blogs
Key Media Sources
Key Policy Documents
Key Climate Agencies
Key International Organizations
Key NGOs
Key Science Reports
Key Business Networks
Key Research Centers
Key Clean-tech Companies
Comments feed@Fiona Smythe:
It is funny to note, that those who believe, that the climate crisis springs form overpopulation always seems to think that it is somebody else, who is in excess...
Reducing population is not a project by itself. All studies have shown, that population will regulate itself on basis of the social conditions present, the access to abortion and contraceptives and other demands long advanced by the progressive womens movement.
In Denmark the largest emitter Maersk Aps is accountable for the same emissions as the rest of the country in total. It is obvious that people feel alienated by suggestions, that the climate crisis is their personal fault.
What puzzles me is that a summit like this one is promoting business-based solutions to climate change. Big business have known about these problems for years, but have not changed, politicians have known about this for years but have not reacted. How can we be amazed, that the public seems to view this problem with an apathetic stance?
This is not the time for promoting business based solutions, but for arguing, that the affected parties - the social movements and unions - should take a leading role in the restructuring of society in order to move towards a society not based upon the exploitation of nature.
I implore researchers like Chu to turn their attention towards the movements against climate change, the ordinary people organizing in order to call for a sustainable solution and offer their support to these movements instead of trying to affect politicians and businessmen (and -women) who care only about the profits, that can be reaped from this crisis.
The largest corporations have driven society into a major economic crisis. We can not trust them to solve the climatic crisis, which is just another face of the global crisis of society.
This is an enlightening and disturbing report. I'm pleased that Dr. Chu will be put in a position to address these problems. I'm always surprised, though, that one of the immediate and obvious solutions to the future increase in carbon levels is not mentioned. It seems obvious that reducing the number of people we add to the feedback loop will concurrently reduce the production of greenhouse gases. In addition to technological and behavioral solutions, we should be calling for an immediate, voluntary reduction in the number of children families are having.
We do not, as some people say, need more studies to determine if global warming due to human activity is a reality. Nobody who is not suicidal would seal themselves in their garage with their car running. Why? Because you are introducing toxic compounds into a closed system at an accelerated rate which would result in your death. Our planet is a closed system. A sealed garage. We are introducing at an accelerated rate several compounds that, while not all toxic, could ultimately have a toxic effect if not checked. This is junior science.
We don't need studies, we need action.
Converting to a less toxic economy doesn't mean we need to live like barbarians. We can have all the mod-cons and a healthy planet. There is no harm in this.
On the other hand, the potential harm of the route we are on could spell the demise of nearly all the life on this wondrous planet. Is it worth the risk when all the alternative will cost is cooperative effort?
The reason that many people do not believe the "climate change story" is because many people on the climate change band wagon have twisted the facts and have out right lied about the potential effects of climate change in order to scare them to obtain their support. The fact of the matter is nobody on this plant is really sure what increased CO2 levels will or will not do to our planet's environment, and the truth of the matter is it is the uncertainty that bothers people.
We need to put our efforts in to the science and stop all of the speculation. We need to migrate from I "feel" climate change is going to happen to using the available data for developing our understanding of the potential problem. We can not debate the historical knoweldge that significant climate change has occured on our planet in its history long before humans came along or even existed in large numbers.
There may be natural forces at work in our planets' and/or sun's systems that have nothing to do with us and will occur with or without us. We just need to understand the difference before we start making policy. Scientist have been wrong many times before. Are they right this time? Rarely do we get it right on the first try.
Thanks for this post. I'm reading this after I heard Dr. Chu was appointed head of the DOE by Obama. I'm glad to see Dr. Chu understands global warming so well. A great darkness is lifting in Washington. Obviously, Obama and Chu will need more support from the general population in the US than has been observed to be there so far to do much, but what a difference from anyone in the Bush administration.
The recent reports of methane boiling out of Siberian lakes and methane clathrate outbursts in wide swaths of the Arctic Ocean indicate things may be even worse than Dr. Chu thinks. Methane releases of this type may be kicking off a feedback loop that will make rising carbon dioxide levels look insignificant.