Comments on: DEATH OF A THOUSAND TIPS

By: Shanti

Shanti — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 06:58:38 +0000

Interesting post. As I usually point out in these types of posts, the IPCC pointed to agriculture (especially livestock) as the biggest contributor of greenhouse gases. So a person changing their lifestyle a little bit (how they eat) CAN make a big difference. But most people aren’t willing to change how they eat, even if it’s just a little bit.

Which leads back to what you were saying, rather than the objective being “let’s get people to change”, it seems like the objective is to get people to want change. So then they start to vote for politicians that will give what they want- aka, one of Obama’s big selling points was his emphasis on energy.

So in terms of awareness raising, I think the little things actually do help, in that they create political pressure to improve things. It also helps to have personal responsibility be a factor. In terms of making a personal difference, ironically, I agree they rarely do (except when going vegetarian, swapping to public transport, etc).

Another interesting detrimental effect of this campaigning is it encourages consumerism- people will buy products they don’t really need because they’re “green.” I can’t tell you how many people I know with dozens of reusable bags, which kind of negates the point.

I think I’m done rambling for now, that last point is probably the most worthwhile.

By: Carbon footprints - what makes the biggest difference? « MAKE WEALTH HISTORY

Tue, 08 Apr 2008 22:21:44 +0000

[...] Plastic bags, for example, keep coming up in the context of climate change. Plastic bags represent 1/5000th of an adult carbon footprint. They need to be banned, but not for the climate. Turning appliances [...]

By: Chris Taylor

Chris Taylor — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 11:23:57 +0000

With mankind’s irresistible desire for economic growth, the increase in demand for fossil fuels is unstoppable. We must look at the other end of the equation, namely fossil fuel supply. If fossil fuels are dug out of the ground, for certain we are going to burn them. Restricting supply could be a winner for everyone. Fuel prices would further soar, increasing profit per barrel for the oil giants, but making alternative sustainable energy an economically viable. It’s so easy for me to say it, sitting on my couch in my personal jet, half way across the Atlantic.

By: Graham Game

Graham Game — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 16:41:15 +0000

Spot on George. My consultancy works soley on the psychology of climate change. Check out my colleague Mary Jane Rusts’ new paper ‘Climate on the Couch’. http://www.mjrust.net/downloads/Nov%2017%2007%20climate%20on%20couch.pdf

Graham Game
Green Futures Consultancy

By: Liz

Liz — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:44:43 +0000

Jeremy – What will it make them stop driving? A very good reason to use public transport instead I should imagine. If the savings of taking a train or bus to work don’t outweigh the comfort and convenience provided by taking your own car then people wont do it. My train journey to work costs me £52 a month, the cost of driving would probably be around £70 at most. For a lot of people the difference is nothing for the convenience. However things would be a lot different if a monthly season ticket cost £10.

I agree with Peter Winters, many things should be phased out, and the government should enforce these sorts of things, such as banning low efficiency light bulbs and taxing air and car travel heavily to fund cheaper public transport.

However, I’m still a great believer in the little things. Drawing attention to switching off items on standby and using efficient light bulbs, even if they don’t have very big emissions savings, change the mindset of a population one small step at a time, which is all we can hope for.

By: Tom Crompton

Tom Crompton — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 17:18:32 +0000

Yes, I agree too. There is growing recognition of the problems of juxtaposing a proper understanding of the gravity of the climate-change problem alongside the nugatory impact of the ‘top tips’ for cutting our own emissions. But this isn’t leading to pressure for more meaningful behavioural change. Rather, it’s leading to the serious business of highlighting the full projected implications of climate change being derided as ‘climate porn’.

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 15:32:56 +0000

What worries me most is that if it takes hollywood blockbusters, the largest concerts ever staged, and millions of pounds worth of advertising to get people to change their lightbulbs, what will it take to make them stop driving?

Martial law perhaps…

By: Ashton Berry

Ashton Berry — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 04:22:16 +0000

I like many of the previous commentators enthusiastically agree with the points raised in this article. As someone who works in an industry that specialises in environmental education and now climate change and also as someone just starting his Masters in Climate Change Adaptation, societies fixation on the ‘easy fix’ is a worrying phenomenon. It doesn’t matter how many times you tell a child not to play with matches, its not until they get burnt that they get the point. The farmers in my area of the world are now feeling the pain of the most severe drought on record. These farmers only now rank within the files of the climate change believers.

My question is, “How do we raise awareness about climate change without the worlds community having to get its fingers burnt?”

By: Thomas Schueneman

Thomas Schueneman — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 18:20:19 +0000

Yes, I concur like everyone else here, and have had similar thoughts on posts on my blog.

The fact is that we have some very hard choices to make – right now. Personally, I thought Live Earth was offensive. We aren’t going to “carbon credit” our way out of the situation, nor is changing a light bulb going to change the world. I also hate it it when the media tells us that some relatively insignificant action will “save the world from global warming”. Yes, we should use high efficiency bulbs (and cars, appliances, etc.) but what will “save the world” is a new mindset.

By: David B. Benson

David B. Benson — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 21:10:31 +0000

Yup. Need BIG steps:

(1) Either forego or sequester the 8 billion tonnes of carbon added yearly to the active carbon cycle.

(2) Begin sequestering, yearly, some of the 500 billion tonnes of excess carbon already added to the active carbon cycle. Possibly 7 billion tonnes per year would be enough.

Sequestering costs are currently estimated to be US $40 per tonne, declining with experience to US $25 per tonne. A BIG step…