Under the MicroscopeThere is now no doubt that the world is warming and there is a solid scientific consensus that this is primarily driven by human emission of greenhouse gasses, writes Prof William Reville.
There is also scientific consensus that, if we don't stabilise and then start to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we will precipitate disastrous global climate change with disastrous consequences - worldwide flooding of coastal regions, changed patterns of human disease and widespread general ill-health effects; disruption of agricultural food production, increased desertification in sub-tropical latitudes; alarming loss of biodiversity, and more.
If we do nothing these awful consequences will not kick in next year, they will gradually develop over decades, but come they will and our children will certainly inherit them. The only sane reaction to this situation is to make reduction of greenhouse gas emissions a top priority both at Government and individual citizen level. But, the reality is that while we hear much concern expressed about global warming, that seems to be largely theoretical and is not being translated into gut-level feelings that would motivate effective action. There is a big job to be done to motivate people to take this action on climate change.
Most of the global warming is caused by emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas and peat) to generate electricity, to power transportation and for other residential and commercial combustions - together these constitute 86 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions in the US , of which 34 per cent comes from electricity generation and 26 per cent from transportation. Specifically under the heading of transportation, passenger cars account for 35 per cent, trucks for 45 per cent and aircraft for 10 per cent of the emissions respectively.
It is clear therefore that reduction in carbon dioxide emissions will require both Governmental regulation and policy regarding how we generate electrical power (ie replacing fossil-fuel burning power stations with a mixture of nuclear power and sustainable energy options) and action at individual citizen level (reducing dependence on motor car and airplane, cutting back on general usage of energy).
Taking effective action will bite on a personal level. Take air travel as an example. We have all become addicted to unlimited cheap air travel. Passengers through Dublin airport doubled between 1977 and 2006 and the plan is to double the figures again by 2030. However, all of this air travel is entirely incompatible with the actions we must take in order to tackle greenhouse gas emissions. The experts tell as that we cannot expect developments in energy-saving technology to compensate for huge increases in air travel. If we go ahead expanding air-travel we will use up most of our national quota of greenhouse emissions on air-travel alone by 2030. We must cut back on air travel, not expand it.
So how are people to be motivated to take effective action in this and in a myriad of other areas? A recent Swedish study published by Eva-Lotta Sundblad and colleagues in the Journal of Experimental Psychology (vol. 27, pp. 97-106, 2007) suggests that spreading the word about how climate change will damage human health could be the key.
The Swedish psychologists put 44 statements to 621 participants in the study and asked whether they were true or false. The questions were grouped into several different areas - facts about climate, causes of climate change, consequences of climate change for weather, sea levels, glaciers and human health.
For example, an untrue statement about human health consequences stated "An increasing amount of greenhouse gases will cause more UV radiation and therefore a larger risk for skin cancer".
The results of the study showed that participants' worry about climate change and how likely they thought this change would have serious negative consequences was most strongly predicted by their knowledge of the consequences of climate change for human health. Knowledge of the causes of climate change was not associated with concern about the consequences of climate change.
Women were generally more concerned about climate change that men but most demographic factors did not predict worry or sense of risk surrounding climate change. For me, one big surprising result was that parents were no more concerned than non-parents.
This type of research is essential if campaigns aimed at motivating people to take action on climate change are to have any effect. It is very difficult to persuade people to change their behaviour. Look at the limited success of no-smoking campaigns where the risk is undisputed and the consequences could not be more serious or personal. I am amazed the study showed that parents are no more concerned about climate change than non-parents and I would like to see that result replicated in further studies.
For me, the thought of bequeathing a sick planet to our children is the single biggest factor motivating me to take some action on climate change.
I am pretty sure that sermonising about our wasteful, slothful habits and pointing out how these habits are not only damaging the planet for ourselves but impinging even more heavily on poor people in the developing world will not motivate people here to take action.
Unfortunately such an approach is already under way. Some commentators are audibly smacking their lips visualising the hair shirts we will all be soon forced to wear.
It would be much better to concisely explain the causes and consequences of climate change, highlighting the ill-health effects, and then appeal to people's finer nature to take positive action to accept and support the necessary regulatory controls that government must introduce.
William Reville is Associate Professor of Biochemistry and Public Awareness of Science Officer at UCC - www.understandingscience.ucc.ie