https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/pete-poovanna/climate-change-debate_a_23643305/
[links in online article]
Pete Poovanna
Scholar, research fellow, engineer and writer
THE BLOG
01/16/2019 11:52 EST | Updated 01/16/2019 12:21 EST
Climate Change Debate Needs To Focus On What People Actually Care About
Let's start relating climate change problems to the shared benefits of
addressing the issue
It's unfortunate that climate change has become a polarizing issue in
Canada. Some panic about climate change and others deny it outright.
People are labelled and stereotyped before they even open their mouths
in climate change matters.
The north-south division of two opposing views of climate change is
quite apparent showing that we have failed in the way we have been
communicating the science of climate change. It is time to stop talking
about the polarizing topic of climate change. Instead, we should start
relating climate change problems to the shared benefits of addressing
the issue, including job creation, health, and safety.
We have been using fossil fuels for quite a long time to build countries
and economies. Accepting the science that climate change is real and
predominantly human-induced means confronting the painful realities of
fossil fuel dependence. If we are serious about avoiding the damaging
consequences of climate change, we need a rapid transition toward a
net-zero carbon economy, where our energy comes from renewable sources.
Transitioning to a net-zero carbon economy means many fossil-fuel
dependent businesses will be shut down and it will be the end of many
people's current jobs. Unless we relate the transition to new
opportunities and job growth, people aren't going to buy into the
climate change story.
Relating climate change to people's daily lives is one of the best
methods of turning the climate conversation away from controversy. We
need to understand that people care more about improving their financial
security and health than reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Fortunately,
the transition to a net zero carbon economy also means more jobs as it
will create a lot of new opportunities in the renewable-energy industry.
The skills and knowledge that are being used in fossil fuel industry are
transferable to the renewable energy industry. Be it skills in
construction, engineering, maintenance or knowledge in project
management, sales, marketing, and human resources; all these skills are
required to produce renewable energy.
It might not interest people if I say in Canada, GHG emissions per
barrel of oil produced in the oil sands have fallen 29 per cent since
2000. If I say the same drop in GHG emissions will save 3,000 Canadian
lives this year by reducing air pollution, people will start to relate
themselves to climate change. Both things are real but the right
messaging is essential in the context of climate change for people to
accept it.
It is easier for individuals to prioritize safety concerns over abstract
climate change issues. When you are in your home and smell a natural gas
leak, you are thinking about safety, not climate. Likewise, in my
opinion, relating global priorities to climate change is the way forward.
If we ask an expert in malaria and a climatologist to prioritize between
malaria and climate change, there would be no consensus. If we want to
know which one to deal with first and ask an economist; I am sure
Malaria would emerge as a priority over climate change. Similarly,
economists will put issues like water, malnutrition and other global
priorities first over climate change. However, if we should correlate
climate change with an increase in malaria transmission, hunger, water,
and other global issues, then we can address the source of many global
health and environmental problems. Such correlations will cut through
stereotypes by discussing what people value.
So, why is it crucial to close the gap between climate believers and
climate deniers?
When public opinion is divided, the climate-related policy takes a back
seat. The consensus in public opinion about climate change is critical
because it plays an essential role in how the government takes steps
towards mitigating climate change.
We should stop demonizing deniers
Sadly, some environmentalists have been guilty of demonizing the people
working in fossil fuel industries and widening the already existing
divide. So it's hypocritical to categorically condemn the industry using
fossil fuel energy we all enjoy through our consumption and lifestyles.
It is time that we stop demonizing deniers and start bridging the gap.
Also, by merely labelling some people who are confused about climate
change as a denier does not heal the divide. We must make an effort by
finding new ways of engaging people and start relating climate change
problems to the shared benefits of addressing the issue. Therefore, in
my opinion, engaging people is an effective way to heal the already
existing divide.