UNDER THE MICROSCOPE:DESPITE REPEATED warnings from the scientific establishment of the disastrous consequences if we don't halt, or drastically slow down, global warming, the public remains surprisingly unconcerned. Nationally and internationally, global warming generates lots of talk but little action. If the public would put upward pressure on governments, we would get more action. Why are people not more concerned?
We all know the lengths to which parents will go for their children’s future success. Not long ago, parents camped out overnight in Tralee to ensure that their offspring were enrolled the following morning in a secondary school which has a reputation for placing students in “desirable” third-level courses, six years down the line. Well, the official scientific prediction is that, unless global warming is controlled, these children will inherit a world teeming with environmental problems and riven with economic and social difficulties that will make many “desirable” careers untenable. Nevertheless, I am sure it never crossed their parents’ minds to camp outside a government or UN office to lobby for action on global warming.
The official analysis and forecasts on global warming come from the UN-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC reviews all ongoing relevant research and feeds the data into computer models to predict future climate. It holds regular conferences and produces up-to-date reports. Why does IPCC have so little impact? One big problem is that its whole approach is entirely impersonal, an issue which George Marshall discusses in July’s New Scientist.
IPCC publishes reports and press releases quoting statistics, probabilities and scenarios, but there is no familiar Dr/Prof IPCC to talk to the public on a human level. IPCC makes it clear that the consequences will be dire if we don’t soon get a grip on things, but the whole approach is so remote and the predictions so awful that people switch off. UK opinion polls indicate that only about 10 per cent of people see climate change as a major problem.
While the IPCC itself is hopelessly aloof, its message is enthusiastically promoted on the ground by green/environmental groups. These groups mean well and are highly motivated, but have not been effective at persuading people. By and large, the public feels uneasy with the Greens because the movement still remains too close to its radical roots. The primary motivation of the official Green movement is ideological and left-wing, and it has been antagonistic to big business, on which, for good or ill, the western economy is dependent. Some environmental groups support various forms of “direct action”, which makes the public nervous. And although the Greens constantly point to the “scientific consensus” on global warming, they cherry-pick science otherwise to suit their various agendas. For example, many do not accept the scientific consensus on GM food and organic food, on the benefits of fluoridation of drinking water, on the benefits of mass inoculation, or on the health consequences of radioactive fallout from the Chernobyl accident.
Unfortunately, too many environmentalists have come across as hair-shirted zealots who want to take away our comforts and who get some issues out of proportion, speaking equally enthusiastically about sensible things such as cycling in cities and bizarre things such as restricting yourself to one leaf of toilet paper per sitting. But it must be admitted that the Green movement is maturing rapidly. The Green element in the Government has put in a creditable performance.
Of course the climate sceptics, who deny that human activities contribute significantly to global warming, make the job of the IPCC harder. The sceptics deliver their message in a personable manner and some of their arguments make telling points (see interview with Freeman Dyson on e360.yale.edu). If they are eventually proved right in their charge that the current “scientific consensus” is based on the false predictions of naive modelling, then mainstream science will be seriously discredited. However, it would be extremely unwise to ignore the massive evidence marshalled by the IPCC and supported by the great majority of scientists.
In my opinion, the IPCC should select a number of spokespeople who can communicate in a personable and trustworthy manner to the public. It should stick at this communication, week in, week out. It should target parents and it should take on the climate sceptics. If IPCC truly believes in its message, nothing less will do.
William Reville is associate professor of biochemistry and public awareness of science officer at University College Cork: http://understandingscience.ucc.ie
