Skip to main content
Read page text
page 20
Analysis CLIMATE CHANGE DENIAL spending money on climate solutions, saying that it might not be as bad as we think. The problem with this argument is that we do know it’s going to be bad. We know because it’s already bad – people are suffering in floods and droughts, we’re losing species left, right and centre, and over 300,000 people are dying every year as a result of climate change.21 We don’t need the models to tell us that if we keep on pumping out the polluting gases that caused this mess, things are going to keep getting worse. Other distraction tactics ‘It’s too late, we need to adapt to climate change instead’ We’re already committed to a certain level of climate change, and so some adaptation will be absolutely vital. If we’re serious about climate justice then the nations most responsible for causing climate change should be providing funds and technology to the people on the receiving end, to help them cope with rising sea levels and more serious floods, storms and droughts. However, adaptation cannot be a replacement for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. ‘Adapting’ to more serious levels of climate change would involve coping with mass food shortages, the loss of dozens of major cities, finding new homes for hundreds of millions of people and countless deaths from starvation, conflict and disease. Runaway climate change could leave us with a largely uninhabitable planet. Even if it were possible, adaptation on this scale wouldn’t be cheaper or easier than cutting CO2 emissions – even conservative estimates like the British government’s Stern Review place the costs of climate impacts far higher than the costs of prevention. It’s like saying ‘it’s just too much effort to hit the brakes, I’m sure my car can adapt to that brick wall’. Leading climate scientists are telling us that we still have a decent chance of avoiding runaway climate change, but only if we act fast. Telling ourselves it’s too late is just another form of denial – an excuse to avoid action. ‘It’s all about population growth’ It’s true that the more people there are on the planet, the fewer resources there are to go around. However, birth rates in most Northern nations are low; most population growth is occurring in poorer countries. The current per capita consumption rate in these countries is very small – for example, the average Canadian uses the same amount of energy per year as 20 Tanzanians. The wealthiest 20 per cent of the world’s people use over 70 per cent of the energy. With regard to climate change it is far more urgent How to talk to a climate change denier If they’re just misinformed, or don’t want to believe it for personal reasons, then you may have a chance of changing their mind. Don’t expect to win them over all in one go – be sensitive, explain the facts as simply and clearly as you can and try not to get frustrated. Remember that the reality of climate change is a huge and scary thing to get our heads around – it’s a complex, decentralized and enormous threat that can’t be easily blamed on any one single organization or person. Accepting it fully means we need to make genuine changes in our lives and start working actively to stop it, which is a significant responsibility to take on. Try being gently challenging rather than staying on the defensive – do they have a coherent argument as to why climate change isn’t happening, or isn’t serious? Most people don’t – they have a collection of soundbites or excuses that they use to justify not thinking about the problem properly. Don’t be too confrontational though – the aim is to make them seriously think the matter through and change their minds by themselves, rather than for you to ‘win the argument’. Be sympathetic rather than accusatory – make it to reduce consumption levels in the North than birth rates in the South. High birth rates are strongly associated with poverty, hunger and a lack of access to healthcare. They are also connected to a lack of women’s rights and restricted access to health information and contraception. If we want the world’s population to stabilize sooner rather than later, we need to support people around the world – especially women – to claim more rights, greater dignity and full control over their lives. However, we also need to urgently reduce emissions in the North! ‘Scientists exaggerate the risks of climate change to get more funding’ This is completely back to front – if a scientist found real evidence that contradicted the Quick snippets of falseness #4 ‘CO2 makes plants grow faster, which will slow down global warming’ There’s no sign of this ‘fertilizer feedback’ actually taking place on any significant scale. This is probably because CO2 only speeds up plant growth if the plant also has everything else it needs to grow bigger – water, soil nutrients, light, space etc. Plants are the size they are probably because they’re lacking one of these other factors, not because they don’t have enough CO2 (and climate change is likely to make things worse by reducing the amount of water available to many plants). 2 0 ● N ew I n t e r nat i o nal i s t ● MAY 2 011
page 21
clear that the fault doesn’t lie with the person you’re speaking to, but the public misinformers and their corporate funders. If you’re debating with a ‘hardline’ denier – someone with a strong vested interest, or who’s being paid to spout an anti-science line – you need to be aware that you’re not likely to win them over! The only time it’s worth doing this is when there are other people watching – for example, at a public debate, on an internet message board, or in a media interview. In these cases, remember that it’s the audience, not the denier, that you’re trying to win over – and so coming across well is just as important as having the right arguments. Stay calm, confident and polite. Counter their nonsense as best you can, but don’t just be reactive – ask them which bits of the basic science they disagree with. Do they not believe CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or that the planet is warming up? Ask them what evidence they have for these extraordinary claims that contradict 150 years of science and tens of thousands of temperature measurements. If they claim it’s not a big problem, give them some reallife examples of what floods, droughts and storms are already doing to people all over the world. Professional deniers love to pick at details but often struggle when challenged on the overall picture, because their cherry-picked criticisms don’t add up to anything coherent. accepted theory of human-made climate change, do you think they’d have any difficulty finding funding? Successful climate change deniers can already rake in hundreds of thousands of dollars just to present their opinions, without the backing of any reputable science.22 A survey of climate scientists by the Union of Concerned Scientists in 2007 found that 58 per cent of respondents had experienced political pressure to water down their scientific findings.23 The 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report was stripped of many ‘undesirable’ passages by politicians before it could be published, including warnings about the likely impacts of climate change on North America and references to the risk of runaway climate change.24 More recently, the outspoken IPCC chair Rajendra Pachauri has endured a barrage of false claims of fraud and corruption from climate deniers.25 There is plenty of pressure on climate scientists to change their research – but nearly all of it is pushing them to tone down their message, and not to speak out. Danny Chivers is a climate change researcher, activist, carbon footprint analyst and performance poet. He is author of the all-new No-Nonsense Guide to Climate Change, published by New Internationalist – a handy pocket guide to the latest climate change science, targets, solutions, politics, activism, and the way forward. To find out more For the latest scientific debunking of contrary climate arguments, keep an eye on www.realclimate.org and www.skepticalscience.com 1 http://nin.tl/gxGtbg ; http://nin.tl/ggpkmK and http://nin.tl/e1rSrU 2 http://nin.tl/fTzx3y 3 Tyndall, J (1861), ‘On the absorption and radiation of heat by gases and vapors, and on the physical connexion of radiation, absorption, and conduction’ Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Vol 151, Part I. 4 http://nin.tl/bk59Hd 5 http://nin.tl/d4vx46 6 Doran, P. T. and M. Kendall Zimmerman (2009), ‘Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change’, EOS, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 90: 22. 7 Murphy et al (2009), ‘An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950’, Journal of Geophysical Research, 114. See also www.skepticalscience.com ‘It hasn’t warmed since 1998’ 8 Domingues et al (2008) ‘Improved estimates of upper-ocean warming and multi-decadal sea-level rise’, Nature, 453. 9 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 10 See for example Stanhill, G. and S. Cohen (2001), ‘Global dimming: a review of the evidence for a widespread and significant reduction in global radiation with discussion of its probable causes and possible agricultural consequences’, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 107. 11 The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (31 March 2010), the Science Assessment Panel (14 April 2010), and the Independent Climate Change Email Review chaired by Sir Muir Russell (7 July 2010). 12 ‘Release of global-average temperature data’, Met Office press release, 5 December 2009. http://nin.tl/dyuKWv 13 Figures from UNESCO/SCOPE/UNEP Report ‘The Human Perturbation of the Climate Cycle’, available at http://nin.tl/bc7rhm. Gigatonnes of carbon converted into billions of tonnes of CO2 by my own calculation (multiplied by 3.67). 14 http://nin.tl/9N4i5B 15 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group 1, Section 2.7. 16 http://nin.tl/ gYpVgj 17 http://nin.tl/ekctai 18 There’s an excellent list of the positive and negative effects of climate change, with links to the relevant scientific research, at http://nin.tl/bBzYPb 19 Global Humanitarian Forum (2009) The Anatomy of a Silent Crisis, available online at http://nin.tl/awh8nC 20 A set of globally-agreed targets to improve health and fight poverty and hunger. See www.un.org/millenniumgoals/ 21 Global Humanitarian Forum (2009) The Anatomy of a Silent Crisis. 22 The Noosa Journal, ‘Global warming skeptic takes his message to Noosa’, 11 January 2010. See also www.prwatch.org/node/8686 23 Union of Concerned Scientists and Government Accountability Project, February 2007, Atmosphere of Pressure: Political Interference in Federal Climate Science. 24 Roger Harrabin, 6 April 2007, The Today Programme, BBC Radio 4. David Wasdell, February 2007, ‘Political Corruption of the IPCC Report?’. 25 J Vidal, ‘If Rajendra Pachauri goes, who on Earth would want to be IPCC chair?’ The Guardian, 3 September 2010. 26 UNEP, www.grid.unep.ch/glaciers/ N ew I n t e r nat i o nal i s t ● MAY 2 011● 21

Analysis CLIMATE CHANGE DENIAL

spending money on climate solutions, saying that it might not be as bad as we think. The problem with this argument is that we do know it’s going to be bad. We know because it’s already bad – people are suffering in floods and droughts, we’re losing species left, right and centre, and over 300,000 people are dying every year as a result of climate change.21 We don’t need the models to tell us that if we keep on pumping out the polluting gases that caused this mess, things are going to keep getting worse.

Other distraction tactics ‘It’s too late, we need to adapt to climate change instead’ We’re already committed to a certain level of climate change, and so some adaptation will be absolutely vital. If we’re serious about climate justice then the nations most responsible for causing climate change should be providing funds and technology to the people on the receiving end, to help them cope with rising sea levels and more serious floods, storms and droughts.

However, adaptation cannot be a replacement for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. ‘Adapting’ to more serious levels of climate change would involve coping with mass food shortages, the loss of dozens of major cities, finding new homes for hundreds of millions of people and countless deaths from starvation, conflict and disease. Runaway climate change could leave us with a largely uninhabitable planet.

Even if it were possible, adaptation on this scale wouldn’t be cheaper or easier than cutting CO2 emissions – even conservative estimates like the British government’s Stern Review place the costs of climate impacts far higher than the costs of prevention. It’s like saying ‘it’s just too much effort to hit the brakes, I’m sure my car can adapt to that brick wall’.

Leading climate scientists are telling us that we still have a decent chance of avoiding runaway climate change, but only if we act fast. Telling ourselves it’s too late is just another form of denial – an excuse to avoid action. ‘It’s all about population growth’ It’s true that the more people there are on the planet, the fewer resources there are to go around. However, birth rates in most Northern nations are low; most population growth is occurring in poorer countries. The current per capita consumption rate in these countries is very small – for example, the average Canadian uses the same amount of energy per year as 20 Tanzanians. The wealthiest 20 per cent of the world’s people use over 70 per cent of the energy. With regard to climate change it is far more urgent

How to talk to a climate change denier If they’re just misinformed, or don’t want to believe it for personal reasons, then you may have a chance of changing their mind. Don’t expect to win them over all in one go – be sensitive, explain the facts as simply and clearly as you can and try not to get frustrated. Remember that the reality of climate change is a huge and scary thing to get our heads around – it’s a complex, decentralized and enormous threat that can’t be easily blamed on any one single organization or person. Accepting it fully means we need to make genuine changes in our lives and start working actively to stop it, which is a significant responsibility to take on. Try being gently challenging rather than staying on the defensive – do they have a coherent argument as to why climate change isn’t happening, or isn’t serious? Most people don’t – they have a collection of soundbites or excuses that they use to justify not thinking about the problem properly. Don’t be too confrontational though – the aim is to make them seriously think the matter through and change their minds by themselves, rather than for you to ‘win the argument’. Be sympathetic rather than accusatory – make it to reduce consumption levels in the North than birth rates in the South.

High birth rates are strongly associated with poverty, hunger and a lack of access to healthcare. They are also connected to a lack of women’s rights and restricted access to health information and contraception. If we want the world’s population to stabilize sooner rather than later, we need to support people around the world – especially women – to claim more rights, greater dignity and full control over their lives. However, we also need to urgently reduce emissions in the North! ‘Scientists exaggerate the risks of climate change to get more funding’ This is completely back to front – if a scientist found real evidence that contradicted the

Quick snippets of falseness #4 ‘CO2 makes plants grow faster, which will slow down global warming’ There’s no sign of this ‘fertilizer feedback’ actually taking place on any significant scale. This is probably because CO2 only speeds up plant growth if the plant also has everything else it needs to grow bigger – water, soil nutrients, light, space etc. Plants are the size they are probably because they’re lacking one of these other factors, not because they don’t have enough CO2 (and climate change is likely to make things worse by reducing the amount of water available to many plants).

2 0 ● N ew I n t e r nat i o nal i s t ● MAY 2 011

My Bookmarks


Skip to main content