Part of the blame lies in lack of resources for understanding the impact properly. This article is a good example - it includes an infographic (https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/5c1a989924000019008c883...) listing vague global effects such as "Heavy rainfall up 7%" or "sea level rise 50cm" or "Crop yields in tropical regions down x%". That's not anything that's going to get a common person to think "oh, that's absolutely horrible" - 7% of heavy rainfall or 50cm sea level rise doesn't sound scary, and they don't care about crop yields in tropical regions if they don't live there. What is needed is publicly available information on how climate change is going to affect them - not global averages, but local impact. If you just say "oh, it's going to be vaguely really bad after a long time on the other side of the globe" then people reasonably won't choose to make any sacrifices to prevent that.
Let's assume the currently likely scenario of 4 degree C average warming by 2100. The article quotes Ed Maibach, director of the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication, that he finds it "to be nothing short of terrifying". Okay, let's elaborate and present the actually terrifying predictions to the people - where can I get them? Given that 4 degree global warming scenario, what's the predicted local warming in Texas? Given the global sea level rise, which parts of Florida are going to flood by 2100? Given the predicted changes in rainfall, what is going to be the effect on crop yields in Midwest? 2100 is too far away to be meaningful for most people, what is the realistic bad case scenario by 2050 or 2070, what are the mid-term impacts?
Don't just say "it's terrifying" but actually terrify people with data! And not just any data, but data that's relevant to them personally; a Midwest farmer doesn't care about crop yields falling in tropical regions (or might even prefer it, less competition=higher prices) and vice versa - to meaningfully convince a person living in Florida you need data about how Florida is going to be affected; to convince a person living in London, you need data about the expected impact on London. Is there such data available?
If you want to scare people you can tell them that Phytoplankton is sensitive to ocean warming and has been declining over the last century [1] (and the situation has not improved since 2010 [2]). On land, plants don't really like global heating either [3]. Together these effects directly threaten not only the food chain, but oxygen supply itself.
That's a prime example of what I'm talking about - vague statements ("sensitive", "decline", "threaten") about global effects on complex systems ("the food chain").
What is the expected specific, immediate, local effect of that? Can you tell a particular person (the abovementioned Midwest farmer) some particular clear consequence of phytoplankton decline he's going to personally experience in his lifetime (say, 2070) or the lifetime of his kids (say, 2100) if he doesn't do the utmost to prevent climate change change ?
The articles you quoted make no really scary (to the target audience) claims whatsoever. The third includes an expected impact on agriculture (https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article/figure/image?d...) which shows neutral or even positive effects on agriculture in much of first world (and horrible effects on Brasil and SE Asia, but that's not relevant to the USA consumer whom we're asking to change habits).
Timely data is available for the US. The fourth National Climate Assessment just released its report on impacts last month (https://nca2018.globalchange.gov).
This “impacts” report is based on the science NCA report from last year, so if you want the science drivers, see that one. For the first time, both reports are highly regionally decomposed (again, across the US).
One example if you want alarming:
“Recent economic analysis finds that under a higher scenario (RCP8.5), it is likely (a 66% probability, which corresponds to the Intermediate-Low to Intermediate sea level rise scenarios) that between $66 billion and $106 billion worth of real estate will be below sea level by 2050; and $238 billion to $507 billion, by 2100.” (https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/8/)
The report doesn't seem that scary, actually. The sections on particular impacts list reasonable mitigation actions (that don't have the tragedy of commons problem that climate change prevention does); and the particular impact of sea level rise you quote isn't that large or scary - the listed uncertain, faraway damage is much smaller than the certain, immediate cost of CO2 reduction we'd want. It's large enough to motivate local politicians to plan for mitigation activities - since no matter what they do (and in the absence of global coordination) they'll still be needed, we'll face some global warming and sea level rise even in the most optimistic scenario; but losing 2% of national real estate value over 80 years isn't economic justification for, say, meaningful reduction of consumption; sacrificing 0.1% GDP growth per year (which isn't nearly enough to combat climate change) is a much, much larger cost than the $500 billion tag.
As I skim it, nothing in that report has anything to convince people that "we're all going to horribly suffer if we don't act NOW". Yes, the effects are bad, but any personal impact I can derive from the descriptions in that report are on the same scale as the affected people would see in any major economic downturn.
The regional chapters in particular seem to have very little alarming content; it seems to center on "yep, this area is slowly to get worse, so we need extra infrastructure and preparation" - the described effects sound like sufficient justification for an 1% tax rate hike and doubling of insurance premiums, but not sufficient justification to mandate serious lifestyle change to try and prevent the consequences.
For me, the prospect of $500B costs in just one sector (coastal property damage), which will be in effect transferred to the major stockholders in oil/coal companies, is maddening.
If the prospect of $500B costs until 2100 ($6B/year) in the future seems maddening, then what would people say about an immediate cost of more than $1000B/year, which is what the expected costs of rapid greenhouse reductions (https://www.technologyreview.com/s/527196/how-much-will-it-c... , $13T until 2030 recent estimate) would be, which wouldn't still prevent much of that sea level rise and coastal property damage?
A long-term disaster that needs massive short-term action to avert is really kind of a perfect storm for killing humanity.
You are absolutely right that the discussion needs to be far heavier on what the concrete consequences will be, not in abstract numbers, but in how it will actually affect the lives of their children and grandchildren.
The messaging needs to be ubiquitous. Climate change should be the main topic every single damn day.
What can one individual do when 25 corporations worldwide are responsible for 51% of carbon emissions, and 100 corporate entities are responsible for 71% of emissions? [0]
Live a non-car-oriented lifestyle in a city, show up to zoning/land-use hearings to support buildings that will enable as many others as possible to do the same.
The auto and energy industries don't pollute because it's fun. They do it in the course of fulfilling our demand for suburban lifestyles.
You asked what an individual can do, not what an individual can do with zero sacrifice, activism, or lifestyle change.
Commuting from the countryside is one of the things that'll have to go if we are to eliminate emissions. (Farmers and residents of traditional small towns are generally already pretty close to where they need to be when they wake up in the morning).
It's nonsensical to say something like "how do you expect me to give up my car?" with incredulity, and then blame the energy sector for supplying its fuel.
How much do you expect the 57% of Americans who have less than $1000 in savings[0] to sacrifice? My point is that most people simply aren’t in a position to do what you suggest.
——
You're right, most people aren't in a position to "just move," but the constituency fighting to keep cities exclusive is not that large, and it won't take many to overpower it. Then, with easy access to urban apartments, people can free themselves from the expense of owning and maintaining cars.
The changes to infrastructure can eventually be carbon positive or at least carbon neutral with improved quality of life. Properly designed cities have less energy consumption and co2 per capita because of economies of scale. Consolidating people encourages that behavior.
Well you can lower your own consumption as much as practical, vote for politicians who care about climate change, and show up for local council meetings to make your area more walkable. You can also try to convince other people to do the same.
Those corporations have owners, stockholders and customers.
The problem is that climate change requires substantial sacrifice from everone. And everyone tries to twist things in such way that the others will do the sacrificing.
Or, if you live in the US, you could lower your lifestyle to European, say an UK citizen. That would cut your CO2 footprint more than in half and buy some precious years to roll out more sustainable technology.
As a conservative American (who believes the climate is changing), I don't think the key to greater awareness is to make things seem more dire.
IMHO, the key is to ensure that every bit of news about climate change is validated by unimpeachable sources. There have been more than a few incidents where claims about the amount of damage coming have been exaggerated-- this feeds doubts.
News sources (Fox included) regularly carry items that describe the problem. If everyone believed what was written (even if they are only looking at Fox, nowhere else) I really believe there would be more concern.
As Americans, what can we really do? China's emissions dwarf our own[0] and the same is generally true for other kinds of pollution (plastic in the ocean comes largely from China, etc).
The entire country of America could disappear tomorrow and it would not be of huge consequence to climate change.
You could try making the dirty tech economically inferior on its own terms. Then the clean will be adopted with blazing speed. Nobody burns oil and coal because they like the smell.
Lower EV prices to $10k with a 250 miles range and refill time below 10 minutes (pretty much the standard european/asian small car) and I'll buy one right now.
This article, given the option of describing temperature increases as from "3 degrees to 7 degrees F", chooses to report them as "1.5 to 4 degrees C". It's as if the thinking is, "Yeah, Fahrenheit makes these numbers look bigger and almost every American is thinking about the heat on a hot summer day in Fahrenheit, and would love to avoid adding another 7 degrees to a 100-degree day, but ..."
I hadn't considered that the point of this article was to communicate outside of the U.S. Sure. For the rest of the English-Speaking world, use Centigrade.
For the U.S. market, Farhenheit works better. At first look to an American, 104 is SEVEN greater than 97; 40 is only four bigger than 36; 36 is slightly over freezing; and 40 is noticeably more comfortable. You might think that Americans are going to think about ratios and worry that 40/36 might be greater than 104/97, but 1) calculating ratios like that is not a common U.S. thing, and 2) by using an arbitrary end point, Farhenheit discourages applying ratios to temperatures.
On second look, for an American, those numbers should not be attended to at all, because they are shrouded in the ambiguity of what you will get after you do the math. About half of Americans can't do multi-step math even with pencil and paper (according to the National Adult Literacy Survey of the National Center for Educational Statistics in the U.S. government).
There is nothing misleading in translating to to Fahrenheit. Why sacrifice rhetorical advantage by trying to make Americans more "civilised"? (Mind you, on that front we're already doomed, spelling it "civilized".)
What this brings up is endowing Huffpost with automated localization.
> I hadn't considered that the point of this article was to communicate outside of the U.S. Sure. For the rest of the English-Speaking world, use Centigrade.
The article started with “Americans” and not “We” so I assumed it was written for an international audience. I think the general theme of the article is pretty global and not just applicable to Americans. I can see the same thing happening here in Australia.
A small temperature change won’t have much affect on anything, really, except where it does. Those places will be where the temperatures hover around freezing point of water (in whatever units you choose). Regions that usually have mild frost or snow in winter won’t get that any more. That will have a huge change on the flora and fauna. Plant species that cannot tolerate frost will invade and displace the natives.
In Australia the warming effect is being felt already by wine growers. Regions previously too cold for grapes are being converted to vineyards. Regions currently growing cold-climate grapes are being replanted to warmer climate varieties.
Half of US-Americans voted Trump and there’s a bigger than 0 probability that they will, again. Whatever the result will be, the leading role the US had for many countries is gone and will not be restored.
All hope is lost for that country, somehow the rest of the world will have to figure out how to avoid the worst in climate change without the US.
Requiring people to be responsible for their impact on the world? Incorporating externalities in prices so products are accountable and not subsidized by the public through their health, cleanup, and environmental costs? Clear labeling on the total lifecycle impact of a product? Banning harmful hazardous chemicals with impact lifecycles in the tens of thousands of years?
Is this the dreadful fascism you speak of?
Even the fiercest AnaCap doesn't think products should be intentionally deceptive and lie to the consumer on the assumption collective society will pay for the harm...
When you say "requiring people..." you prove my point.
--
I don't own a car, avoid plastic, avoid amazon, eat organics, often shop local, used, etc, etc. But not because the government tells me, but because I feel compelled. Of my own accord.
Yes. I would love labels that gave full provenance of an item. Your list is great. But I see, like what we saw in France, the government justifying more taxes in the name of saving the earth.
Again, great intentions. Just not the people I trust to handle my money, or really anything for that matter.
Holding people accountable for their actions is hardly a form a fascism.
On the contrary it's frequently argued as one of the cornerstones of civilization.
If someone is knowingly harming others, most people would probably agree that activity should be curtailed. That's not really authoritarianism, it's securing a prosperous future.
Freedom to destroy the commons, lie to people, poison the population, swindle the community, and offload your trash onto others?
Really? That's what your stand for?
I'm not familiar with any doctrine of individual freedom that holds sacred dumping garbage into a river which everyone relies on and treating our atmosphere which everyone uses like a giant toilet while flipping everyone else the bird as some inviolable right.
That's one of the real world issues with the property based libertarian philosophy. Nature, animals, plants, fires, pollinating insects, floods, the weather, none of these give a damn about who owns what property on paper. We have to treat it and care for it all collectively, there's no other way. I know it's hard but it has to be done.
Tell me, you really think alacombe wants these things? 90% of the population would agree with you. That those things are to be avoided. Myself included.
Unfortunately you've been brainwashed into thinking the government is the only entity equipped to fix these problems. When in fact they're the ones ensuring the problems continue. And idiots like you continue to support these false choices given to you by the government. And you probably continue to pay for it with ridiculous taxes. Thinking 'yea, they'll fix it'.
Get over yourself. And your virtue signals. Realize 90% of the population wants the same things as you.
To my knowledge, the recent French protest wasn't quite as black and white as that.
The fuel tax Macron was planning was going to hit the rural middle/working class and the poor the hardest.
On average, many of these people have to commute around 30 miles to work at low paid service jobs. So their work commuting costs are a big part of their monthly bills.
And then Macron came along and asked them if they'd kindly help with paying some of the costs of climate change.
The proposed fuel bill didn't hit the people living in the cities as badly, because, on average, they're better paid, have better public transport options and live closer to their workplace.
You can understand why people living in rural towns and outside the cites got a little-pissed off and decided to protest. The increase fuel tax was going to hit them way harder than those living in the cities. And those poorer people are being squeezed already, due to having a longer work commute, crap work pay, crap job options, and worse public transport options.
Anyway, if you want more info on this listen to this video by the Mark Blyth. He can explain it better than I ever can: https://youtu.be/Sk87JHTyozo?t=641
Let's assume the currently likely scenario of 4 degree C average warming by 2100. The article quotes Ed Maibach, director of the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication, that he finds it "to be nothing short of terrifying". Okay, let's elaborate and present the actually terrifying predictions to the people - where can I get them? Given that 4 degree global warming scenario, what's the predicted local warming in Texas? Given the global sea level rise, which parts of Florida are going to flood by 2100? Given the predicted changes in rainfall, what is going to be the effect on crop yields in Midwest? 2100 is too far away to be meaningful for most people, what is the realistic bad case scenario by 2050 or 2070, what are the mid-term impacts?
Don't just say "it's terrifying" but actually terrify people with data! And not just any data, but data that's relevant to them personally; a Midwest farmer doesn't care about crop yields falling in tropical regions (or might even prefer it, less competition=higher prices) and vice versa - to meaningfully convince a person living in Florida you need data about how Florida is going to be affected; to convince a person living in London, you need data about the expected impact on London. Is there such data available?