If CO2 was purple, we’d all be scared sh*tless

I've just returned from the Aspen Institute’s Environmental Forum in Colorado, where hundreds of experts on climate change gathered to talk about the future of electric cars, photovoltaic cells and worried over the melting arctic and the death of the world’s tallest trees.

One of the most fascinating discussions was about how – outside of that select group (and, of course, members of Do The Green Thing) – Climate Change has a massive communication problem.  As one speaker pointed out, “99% of the world’s population doesn’t care about it because, frankly, global warming is dull and people don’t understand it.”

MIT’s award winning scientist Dan Nocera said that he wished Carbon Dioxide was visible. “If CO2 was purple we’d all be scared sh*tless”.  In contrast, he said, “have you looked into the eyes of a climate scientist lately? They’re scared.” 

Princeton’s Robert Socolow noted that climate change is one of the few areas where the scientists are far more scared of the problem than the general population. He made the comparison with nuclear power where the reverse is true – scientists are far less concerned about waste/terrorism/radiation issues than the general public. 

Here are three reasons based on the vocabulary of science why climate change is so difficult to communicate: 

1. Susan Joy Hassol pointed out that scientists speak differently than the rest of us.  When scientists use the word 'uncertain', they mean there’s a ‘range’ of possible outcomes. When a normal person hears 'uncertain' they think it means scientists don’t know what’s going to happen.


2. When scientists say that climate change is ‘irreversible’ – to most people means that we might as well just live with the consequences of global warming, rather than try to stop it. What scientists mean is that we can’t go back in time: a certain amount has already happened, but there’s much we can do to stop the march towards destruction. 


3. Finally, when scientists refer to ‘positive’ trends – they mean movement in an upward direction, like rising temperature levels. When people hear ‘positive’ they think good – i.e. there’s no problem with rising temperature levels. 

Clean energy investor Jim Woolsey (and former director of the CIA) pointed out that the science is incredibly complicated and climatologists’ talk of 'feedback loops' and 'regression analysis' leaves people confused.  It’s easier to think linearly – i.e. if it is warmer one year and cooler the next, there isn’t global warming. 

So what do we do about it?  There was a whole range of actions suggested – like changing the nature of the horrid ‘bonus’ scheme.  When the City of Aspen asked its employees to become ‘green stewards’, it got inaction.  When the City linked the financial bonus employees received to the amount by which its new ‘stewards’ reduced their carbon footprint, they got action.  Even if people didn’t buy into the idea, they still recycled, cycled to work and turned off the lights. 

Whatever you think of Evangelical Christians, environmentalists could do worse than look at Jim Ball, the CEO of the Christian Evangelical Environmental Network. He’s turning his followers green because he’s linking climate change with two Christian beliefs– love your neighbour and do the best for your grandchildren.

Finally, Jason Grumet, the guy designing the US’s cap and trade system said:

"thankfully, we won’t have a referendum on climate change.... 
ignore the voters – most of them don’t care.
 In the recent US election, most senators I spoke to 
said they were asked about global warming exactly zero 
times.  Luckily you only need to convince about 3000 
people in Washington to enact legislation in order to 
get something done."  

A bit fatalistic, I’d suggest, but in the end, it's whatever works.

[This Green Thing guest blog is by broadcast and print journalist Edie Lush - a new version of her site www.edielush.com will be live on April 20th]

SHARE THIS