CO2 as a gas is invisible, odorless, tasteless (dissolves instantly in water and is one of the deadliest poisons known to man…wait… we’re not in the Princess Bride here.) and by itself is not harmful on an individual scale. As we’ve seen it’s hard for the public to personally connect with the science of global warming.
If carbon dioxide were brown, we wouldn’t have the same problem. But it’s a subtle issue. … The problems are chronic not acute, and it is largely invisible to people unless they’re reading the newspaper or checking the glaciers or going to the South Pole, said Gus Speth.
Many of the impacts of climate change are close to invisible to the (American) public. Sure we can see the effects of coal and oil and vehicles, but because we can’t attribute specifics weather events to climate change, it’s hard to say for sure which impacts are from global warming. However, there is substantial evidence of seasons changing, species migrating and severe weather increase. And yet, our consumer culture has all but removed many people from paying attention to the earth’s systems, so in a way we have made those changes invisible as well.
So not only are greenhouse gases and the changes they cause largely invisible, but many of the solutions to climate change are also invisible. Energy efficiency, smart design, conservation, clean electricity. In a recent conversation with my father, who is an engineer, he said that invisibility is part of why they are good solutions. Well designed solutions should fit seamlessly into their systems. Obviously wind turbines and solar panels are not invisible, but they are about the only symbols of success we have, and they are getting tired.
Given the degree of invisibility of the cause, impacts and solutions to climate change, it’s no wonder that we have had trouble building public demand for action. So where do we go from here?We need to communicate about climate change in a way that is visible and tangible for the public. This means talking about the other impacts of fossil fuel use (pollution of water, soil, air, asthma, cancer); the local impacts (this part could get tricky depending on the region and what it has experienced), like seasonal changes, agricultural impacts, etc; the solutions (saving money in your wallet, the people in your community who are being put back to work, yes the windmills and solar panels, but also the mass transit and urban gardens).
The trick is, we need to discuss the physical impacts of climate change and its solutions in a way that is vivid and emotionally powerful but not exaggerated.
An excellent example is John DeCicco’s (Environmental Defense) description of “clean coal“:
It’s like we’re pushing to invent a better cotton gin as a way to reduce slaveholding instead of just banning slaveholding.
We need to continue to use similar images to build public support and make it climate change an understandable and physical reality for the public. What else have you heard/used like this?
Subscribe by Email!
Subscribe by RSS!
Share on Facebook
I have to say that the issue of CO2 being ‘invisible’ is a small part of the problem and not the main one.
Most transmissible diseases are invisible. A lot of stuff that people are ’scared’ of are invisible.
The reluctance to accept AGW is down to the fact that there are no catastrophic events that are significant enough to change opinion or that can be specifically matched to AGW and nothing else. The other main factor is that people don’t like change, especially if they have to give up something they are addicted to.
The science is fine, the solutions are fine, the problem is politics, personality traits and human behaviour. The same old problems you get wherever humans live.
I agree with gooseberry but would also like to add that the solutions must focus on cutting down “emissions” not energy use. Furthermore, I think it requires a change in the way we operate and perceive society. Unfortunately social change of the magnitude required usually does not lend itself to a seamless transition.
Historically, it is VERY difficult to transition energy sources. To switch to low carbon energy sources would be a cost felt directly by many where the costs (though real) from carbon would be perceived indirectly. It is often hard to make such a large transition without the large commensurate direct effects.
I think it would help if there were better coordination between the environmental groups. When regular folks hear environmentalists talk about the urgency of carbon on one hand, then oppose transmission lines to bring solar power from the desert or similar perceived inconsistencies, it leaves the general public confused.