Comments on: THE TERROR OF TOMATOES http://climatedenial.org/2006/06/09/the-terror-of-tomatoes/ Charting the disconnect between climate science and action Mon, 14 May 2012 04:17:52 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.5 By: Fredrick http://climatedenial.org/2006/06/09/the-terror-of-tomatoes/comment-page-1/#comment-48867 Fredrick Sun, 21 Jun 2009 19:10:51 +0000 http://climatedenial.org/2006/06/09/the-terror-of-tomatoes/#comment-48867 Its not only the use of mobile phones that causing climate changes and global warming, what also needs to be thought of the parts of these phones where they are being manufactured. Think of the emissions there? Its not only the use of mobile phones that causing climate changes and global warming, what also needs to be thought of the parts of these phones where they are being manufactured. Think of the emissions there?

]]> By: Andrew http://climatedenial.org/2006/06/09/the-terror-of-tomatoes/comment-page-1/#comment-47 Andrew Wed, 13 Sep 2006 19:13:49 +0000 http://climatedenial.org/2006/06/09/the-terror-of-tomatoes/#comment-47 i answer to the mobile phone vs global warming? it might interest you to know that both global warming and moblie phone growth since the early eighties run hand in hand? a few million moblie phones emiting how many watts of microwaves? i answer to the mobile phone vs global warming?
it might interest you to know that both global warming and moblie phone growth since the early eighties run hand in
hand? a few million moblie phones emiting how many watts of microwaves?

]]> By: Maria Velasco http://climatedenial.org/2006/06/09/the-terror-of-tomatoes/comment-page-1/#comment-22 Maria Velasco Wed, 02 Aug 2006 16:58:09 +0000 http://climatedenial.org/2006/06/09/the-terror-of-tomatoes/#comment-22 Re previous post. Part of risk is the size of the consequence, not only the probability; well I do worry about my children being taken by a sadist from my garden. It is a potentially irreversible and horrendous event if it happens, like climate change (which will happen). However, this paranoia doesn\'t mean I am not rational for some other things or that I don\'t think or act about the global warming issue by decreasing my own emissions...(I live with lots of stress). I remember several years ago when I came to live and work in Scotland I used to like driving in the Dee side, around lovely Ballater, Braemar etc. Now I dislike driving, particularly since I know the emissions from my car (which is quite efficient in comparison but still) I would much rather cycle or walk all the time -train for longer distances. I find the repetitive driving of an average super safe car in the average UK road really dull. The nicest roads are enjoyed much more cycling or walking. But most other mothers in my area (rural) find walking strange or impossible, and cycling unthinkable. It is like an unnecessary effort (perhaps they find it embarrassing to make some physical effort and perhaps even struggle in public). . I think apart from other things also the class stigma could be behind this attitude. \"If you don\'t drive you can\'t afford a car, ie you\'re weak etc you walk or cycle because you have no choice\"? \"You don\'t fly and care about the environment so you really must be \"alternative\" which means you are a kind of loser in the real world (perhaps you are hippie which means you are not to be taken seriously)\". The FT in an editorial recently accused Ken Livingstone of being \"green of envy\" from 4x4 drivers in London. I cancelled our subscription there and then. At my husband\'s work in the \"city\" colleagues say that the global warming issue will all be solved with technology in due course. They don\'t have a clue how, but something will happen. Some ideas: Perhaps new start ups will design and build commercially viable huge compressors that will distill and extract great amounts of CO2 to the outer space or to down the center of the earth, (the issue of who pays and how much is a hurdle that will be solved too in due course) or others may develop high tech air-conditioned (solar powered) plastic bubbles with high SPF for rich people to live and move in, or well there is plenty of possibilities for the wildest imaginations. Re previous post. Part of risk is the size of the consequence, not only the probability; well I do worry about my children being taken by a sadist from my garden. It is a potentially irreversible and horrendous event if it happens, like climate change (which will happen). However, this paranoia doesn\’t mean I am not rational for some other things or that I don\’t think or act about the global warming issue by decreasing my own emissions…(I live with lots of stress). I remember several years ago when I came to live and work in Scotland I used to like driving in the Dee side, around lovely Ballater, Braemar etc. Now I dislike driving, particularly since I know the emissions from my car (which is quite efficient in comparison but still) I would much rather cycle or walk all the time -train for longer distances. I find the repetitive driving of an average super safe car in the average UK road really dull. The nicest roads are enjoyed much more cycling or walking. But most other mothers in my area (rural) find walking strange or impossible, and cycling unthinkable. It is like an unnecessary effort (perhaps they find it embarrassing to make some physical effort and perhaps even struggle in public). . I think apart from other things also the class stigma could be behind this attitude. \”If you don\’t drive you can\’t afford a car, ie you\’re weak etc you walk or cycle because you have no choice\”? \”You don\’t fly and care about the environment so you really must be \”alternative\” which means you are a kind of loser in the real world (perhaps you are hippie which means you are not to be taken seriously)\”. The FT in an editorial recently accused Ken Livingstone of being \”green of envy\” from 4×4 drivers in London. I cancelled our subscription there and then. At my husband\’s work in the \”city\” colleagues say that the global warming issue will all be solved with technology in due course. They don\’t have a clue how, but something will happen. Some ideas: Perhaps new start ups will design and build commercially viable huge compressors that will distill and extract great amounts of CO2 to the outer space or to down the center of the earth, (the issue of who pays and how much is a hurdle that will be solved too in due course) or others may develop high tech air-conditioned (solar powered) plastic bubbles with high SPF for rich people to live and move in, or well there is plenty of possibilities for the wildest imaginations.

]]> By: Alex Kent http://climatedenial.org/2006/06/09/the-terror-of-tomatoes/comment-page-1/#comment-18 Alex Kent Thu, 27 Jul 2006 07:42:25 +0000 http://climatedenial.org/2006/06/09/the-terror-of-tomatoes/#comment-18 This is the problem in a nutshell. What becomes apparent if you have a life that steps in and out of modern Britain is that there is a continuing selective risk-aversion. That risk aversion is driven by a number of short, high profile campaigns in the tabloids and whatever TV programmes there are that support their views. When I talk to otherwise normal adults I get this picture: - A paedophile will break into a tent in my back garden and steal my children (HIGH RISK) - Mobile Phone mast (HIGH RISK) - Diseased chocolate (HIGH RISK) - Paedohpiles will leave prison and immediately adbuct my children (HIGH RISK) - Terrorists are going to blow me up if I go to London (HIGH RISK) - Failure to wear a cycle helmet (Tantamount to suicide) - Going out without suntan lotion (Immediate cancer) However the flip side is: Climate change - it's not real and even if it is someone will sort it out for me. Four by Four driving - it's not me it's them that gets hurt Walking down the road (Low Risk) It seems that one quasi-scientist attached to one tabloid journalist can build a campaign. A campaign can cause fear, which can cause action. Of course we can do the precentages and show people the chance - but the point is that people associate a tiny risk with an event they can't accept. Although the total number of paedophile incidents is probabyl the same as it has always been in percentage of population terms people can't conceive of anything causing it to happen to their child or another child that reminds them it could happen to theirs. So, we have to find identifiable, real, examples that drive people's fears. I guess I'm talking about winning the battle to frame the argument. The deniers framed the argument as poor science, people getting in the way of better living conditions, difficulty to make changes, moaning greens - and of course people lapped it up. Of course, most of these other problems require little personal lifestyle change which is also a fundamental challenge. If we want to get over the challenge we need real examples that somehow people can identify with. We need to make it personal. Then we need to bring the problem down to an understandable and manageable scale. Then we need to tell people it's ok to start making cuts in a small way and to help them plan change. After all, if we could get everyone to make a 10% cut this year that would achieve more than Kyoto and will be a good first stepping stone. THe first 25% is going to be easy if we can get people moving. Meanwhile, we need to hammer government and industry to solve some of the problems to make it easier for people to adapt, then we need to put laws in place to drive change. We don't have time to overthrow capitalism to stop climate change so we'll have to try and mould it to minimise damage and see if we can't unhook apparent economic growth from actual resource consumption growth. We have to find momentum. A lot has changed in the press and radio in the last 6 months and even parliament is making sounds of change, and America may change despite Bush and co. But the point is we have to get beyond the liberal press and nature programmes. I think we have to find a positive spin as well, we need to frame the opportunity for people and we have to frame those of us who camapign to raise awareness as not being moaners but people who care about future generations. In round 1 we lost to the paid deniers, in round 2 you might declare a draw, in the next round - the most vital one as it's probably the last chance - we have to win and through that drive the change. To do that we must frame the discussion and we must talk to people about things that matter to them, that they can comprehend and we have to offer them the chance to make small changes to get used to the idea. This is the problem in a nutshell. What becomes apparent if you have a life that steps in and out of modern Britain is that there is a continuing selective risk-aversion. That risk aversion is driven by a number of short, high profile campaigns in the tabloids and whatever TV programmes there are that support their views.

When I talk to otherwise normal adults I get this picture:

- A paedophile will break into a tent in my back garden and steal my children (HIGH RISK)

- Mobile Phone mast (HIGH RISK)

- Diseased chocolate (HIGH RISK)

- Paedohpiles will leave prison and immediately adbuct my children (HIGH RISK)

- Terrorists are going to blow me up if I go to London (HIGH RISK)

- Failure to wear a cycle helmet (Tantamount to suicide)

- Going out without suntan lotion (Immediate cancer)

However the flip side is:

Climate change – it’s not real and even if it is someone will sort it out for me.

Four by Four driving – it’s not me it’s them that gets hurt

Walking down the road (Low Risk)

It seems that one quasi-scientist attached to one tabloid journalist can build a campaign. A campaign can cause fear, which can cause action. Of course we can do the precentages and show people the chance – but the point is that people associate a tiny risk with an event they can’t accept. Although the total number of paedophile incidents is probabyl the same as it has always been in percentage of population terms people can’t conceive of anything causing it to happen to their child or another child that reminds them it could happen to theirs.

So, we have to find identifiable, real, examples that drive people’s fears. I guess I’m talking about winning the battle to frame the argument. The deniers framed the argument as poor science, people getting in the way of better living conditions, difficulty to make changes, moaning greens – and of course people lapped it up.

Of course, most of these other problems require little personal lifestyle change which is also a fundamental challenge.

If we want to get over the challenge we need real examples that somehow people can identify with. We need to make it personal. Then we need to bring the problem down to an understandable and manageable scale. Then we need to tell people it’s ok to start making cuts in a small way and to help them plan change. After all, if we could get everyone to make a 10% cut this year that would achieve more than Kyoto and will be a good first stepping stone. THe first 25% is going to be easy if we can get people moving. Meanwhile, we need to hammer government and industry to solve some of the problems to make it easier for people to adapt, then we need to put laws in place to drive change.

We don’t have time to overthrow capitalism to stop climate change so we’ll have to try and mould it to minimise damage and see if we can’t unhook apparent economic growth from actual resource consumption growth.

We have to find momentum. A lot has changed in the press and radio in the last 6 months and even parliament is making sounds of change, and America may change despite Bush and co. But the point is we have to get beyond the liberal press and nature programmes.

I think we have to find a positive spin as well, we need to frame the opportunity for people and we have to frame those of us who camapign to raise awareness as not being moaners but people who care about future generations. In round 1 we lost to the paid deniers, in round 2 you might declare a draw, in the next round – the most vital one as it’s probably the last chance – we have to win and through that drive the change. To do that we must frame the discussion and we must talk to people about things that matter to them, that they can comprehend and we have to offer them the chance to make small changes to get used to the idea.

]]> By: Michelle Holloway http://climatedenial.org/2006/06/09/the-terror-of-tomatoes/comment-page-1/#comment-5 Michelle Holloway Mon, 24 Jul 2006 21:51:37 +0000 http://climatedenial.org/2006/06/09/the-terror-of-tomatoes/#comment-5 Climate change is simply is too big, too scary, and the solutions involve too much personal sacrifice. A mobile phone mast provides a nice opportunity for some righteous indignation at no personal cost. What is the mast was going to provide service for that area, and the alternative was to stick to land lines? Or no phone whatsoever... Our car (or the plane to someplace nice) provides us with service to our area, and the alternative is not to have that provision. We would be stuck with the land-line: The train, our bicycle, our own two feet. I bet you'd be hard pressed to find an angry crowd in a primary school anywhere in the Western world demanding any kind of sacrifice on their own part rather than that of some "other". Climate change is simply is too big, too scary, and the solutions involve too much personal sacrifice. A mobile phone mast provides a nice opportunity for some righteous indignation at no personal cost. What is the mast was going to provide service for that area, and the alternative was to stick to land lines? Or no phone whatsoever… Our car (or the plane to someplace nice) provides us with service to our area, and the alternative is not to have that provision. We would be stuck with the land-line: The train, our bicycle, our own two feet. I bet you’d be hard pressed to find an angry crowd in a primary school anywhere in the Western world demanding any kind of sacrifice on their own part rather than that of some “other”.

]]>