Climate Week 21 - 27 March

Joe Smith, Senior Lecturer in Environment at the OU believes more people now doubt that climate change is caused by humans.  The term Climate sceptics’ applies to us all but he suggests that the phrase ‘Climate Dyspeptics’ would be better used because it describes not a position but a condition – rather than dividing into believers and deniers it suggests a feeling of discomfort about climate change instead.

Strange but true: the number of people who doubt that climate change is human-caused has, if anything, increased in the UK and US over a period when uncertainties in the science have been narrowing. However to think that this is all down to radical libertarian thinktanks like the Heartland Institute or energy industry lobbyists is a dangerous distraction. Attempts to spin climate change have been going on so long they have their own historians: Oreskes and Conway’s Merchants of Doubt shows the similarities – and links – between the tobacco and climate story. But this is of the ‘Pope is Catholic’ category of news. To think that lobby groups and think tanks are the reason that plenty of people are at best ambiguous about climate change is to fail to understand how many of us feel about relatively new and demanding ideas about humanity’s relationship with its environment.

Globescan, Eurobarometer or recent Yale/George Mason University studies show polling that offers fairly consistent accounts: somewhere between 15 and 35% of people are not convinced climate change is happening and/or don’t believe it is human caused depending on the framing of the question. These can be read as ‘glass more than half full’ results, but it is impossible to build robust international political support for mitigation and adaptation policies without engaging more people with a good sense of the best available scientific thinking on the topic. But the words that are used to describe the negative feelings that a substantial minority of the population have about climate change science and policy may be part of the problem. Terms like sceptic, denier and contrarian are not just inaccurate, but more to the point, create a stark and false binary of ‘believers’ and ‘deniers’.

One of the most widely used phrases is climate sceptic. But scepticism is a part and parcel of any good research and journalism. Indeed we need all the scepticism we can get from researchers, policy analysts and journalists if humanity is going to do a good job of responding to new knowledge about the world. So let’s just say we’re all climate sceptics now and leave that phrase alone.

'There are many climate dyspeptics who are fearful about or irritated by the way climate issues have been presented in the media and with some good cause'

I’m mostly serious in suggesting a new term: climate dyspepsia. An ugly term for sure, but it is useful because it describes not a position but a condition. Certainly this seems to capture the anti-science, crotchety and closed-minded attitude of some sour cherry-picking bloggers and pose-striking journalists. But it also suggests much more widespread feelings of discomfort. It summarises the state people are in when they find all the talk about climate change science, policy or politics difficult to digest. I come over climate dyspeptic myself fairly often – probably because I spend quite a large proportion of my life working on the topic.

There are many climate dyspeptics who are fearful about or irritated by the way climate issues have been presented in the media and with some good cause. The climate research and policy communities need to be more considerate about how people feel about new knowledge about climate change. They also need to be more willing to trust people’s capacity to cope with more open accounts of complex long-term problems. Often this will not be about doing things differently but about naming them differently. There are three things that could be presented in a new way.

First the science of climate change needs to be told as a broad and unfolding process rather than a fixed result. People have a good nose for authenticity and know that over-hasty phrases like ‘the science is finished’ misrepresent the work. And what work it is: climate science includes some of the most ambitious questions that humanity has ever set itself – why is it so rarely experienced as such?

'It is remarkable, but too rarely noted, that almost all of the extraordinarily broad range of policy, business and community responses to climate change carry other benefits'

Second the policy response needs to be framed not as the pursuit of a single final UN agreement that arises out of a great big finished fact, but rather explained as a long term collective risk management process. Everyone who drives a car understands the need for rules about car insurance; everyone in a country with a health system understands the principle of collective risk burden sharing. In fact we tend to do more than tolerate these responses to risk: we treasure them. Climate change policy is no more than an extension of these principles. It is an idea that almost everyone can get behind. Politicians need to inhabit climate policy and not palm off their job on researchers who have a different job to do. Elected politicians have the legitimacy and responsibility to make decisions about the most substantial risks facing their societies and need to step into these big shoes.

Thirdly it is remarkable, but too rarely noted, that almost all of the extraordinarily broad range of policy, business and community responses to climate change carry other benefits. This is the fact that will make the political task achievable. Some of the most compelling developments in design and engineering of our age are at least in part catalysed by knowledge of climate change. Furthermore they are delivering improvements in the quality of everyday life and the long-term profitability and sustainability of business. So here’s a cheering thought: the things that people are actually doing about climate change can overcome the sickly feelings that can be brought on by all the talk of it.

For a follow up post to this one, see here.

Find out more: 

• The Science behind climate change explained
• Environmental studies at the OU 

 

Following Climate Week, the OU has launched a new initiative which will see waste bins removed from all Open University staff offices/desks on the main Walton Hall campus and in regional centres. These will be replaced with a desk tray for waste paper and centrally located office recycling stations for all other waste.

This scheme was initially trialled in two buildings on the Walton Hall campus – where, during a four-week period, recycling increased from 37% to 71%.

The university is also inviting staff to join its Green Network supporting this and other environmental initiatives.

Robin Roy, Professor of Design and Environment, Design Innovation Group, Faculty of Maths, Computing and Technology, on tackling climate change at home...

Homes are responsible for more than a quarter (27 per cent) of greenhouse gas emissions produced by the UK; mainly carbon dioxide released when burning gas for household heating and hot water and generating electricity for lights and appliances. Here are some of the most important things you can do to reduce your own and your household’s climate changing impacts:

Home heating and hot water

Apart from transport, this represents the largest share of most people’s energy emissions. To reduce the amount of fuel you use for heating, insulate your loft (with 1ft-thick insulation) and walls (cavity filling is easiest, but solid walls can be insulated too). Try to take showers rather than baths to save hot water. Consider upgrading your heating and hot water system, preferably to central heating with a condensing gas boiler that is maybe supplemented by a wood stove. Only then install double glazing and/or insulate floors if your home hasn’t already got these improvements. Finally you might consider installing a solar water heating system, especially as by 2012 there will be a ‘renewable heat incentive’ to pay you for any solar hot water you produce.

Electricity for lights and appliances

On average this represents 12 per cent of household emissions. Reduce your electricity consumption by getting energy-efficient appliances (especially fridges and freezers which consume most electricity) and turn off lights and electronic equipment when not in use. Replace ordinary light bulbs with energy-saving ones – there are now lots of types including efficient lamps to replace halogen spotlights and new LED lamps bright enough for proper lighting.

It’s now becoming worthwhile to consider installing a solar photovoltaic system for generating electricity, as there is a generous ‘feed-in tariff’ to pay you for any electricity you generate at home. A solar electric system (best installed before April 2012 when the tariff may be reduced) can now pay back in about 10 years and earn the equivalent of an eight per cent return on your money. However, a much cheaper and easier option is to switch your electricity supply to a ‘green’ tariff; preferably one that relies on 100 per cent renewable sources such as wind power.


Take it further
Discover your own main sources of greenhouse emissions by using a carbon calculator, developed for module Environment: journeys through a changing world (U116), on OpenLearn.

Watch the video tour of the home of Dr Richard Blundel, a Senior Lecturer in Enterprise Development with The Open University Business School, who has spent years transforming his Edwardian home into an energy efficient one.

For more resources related to the environment and climate change, go to www.openuniversity.co.uk/climateweek
 

Climate change was more frequent 40 million years ago. Expert Phil Sexton, of the OU's Faculty of Science, on Discovery News... Read more here.

Senior Research Fellow of Mathematics, Computing & Technology at the OU, Christine Thomas,  talks about how reducing food waste could make a massive difference to the environment and to your pocket, with wasted food costing the average family with children £680 a year…

“We all know that recycling is good for the environment, or at least we should do, it saves energy, cuts carbon emissions and reduces the amount of waste needed to be processed or sent to landfill. It has been estimated that increasing home recycling by 10% and buying more products with recycled materials content could save the average household 9kg CO2 over the course of a year.

“An increasing number of people recycle but we can do more, in fact we need to do more. Recycling can also be good for us in that it can make us feel better about not taking action elsewhere and also the environmentally damaging things that we may consider a necessity, such as driving instead of using public transport, or just the sheer amount of waste we create.

“Take food, for example: 8.3 million tonnes of food, much of it edible, is thrown away by households in the UK every year. Food waste is also harmful to the environment: when food waste goes to landfill it releases methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Not to mention the waste of energy from producing, storing and transporting the food and dealing with the subsequent waste.

“The startling fact is that if we all stop wasting food, the CO2 impact would be the equivalent of taking 1 in 4 cars off the road – the equivalent of 20 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions every year.”

How you can make a difference
The Love Food Hate Waste campaign was set up by the Government to raise awareness of the need to reduce food waste. The campaign website features a range of tips and tools to reduce food waste, from a portion planner to recipes for leftovers and information on what best before dates really mean.

The OU on iTunes U has created three collections of educational content specifically on subjects related to climate change: www.openuniversity.co.uk/climateweek


 

You can become part of a living archive of Climate Change. Check out Creative Climate, a website led the OU.