Hi Jim,

The research question conservation psychologists have addressed is not about 
individual anecdotes.  The question is something like: "In what ways do 
people who believe in anthropogenic climate change behave differently from 
people who don't hold this belief?"

It appears that, by themselves, these two contrasting beliefs don't often 
lead to markedly different behaviours.  For examples of a disjunction 
between beliefs and behaviours, we know about climate scientists who fly in 
airplanes to attend conferences and about Amish farmers who have lived very 
low-carbon lives without a belief in climate change.

A change in belief is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for a 
change in behaviour, although it certainly makes a small contribution.  It 
is important to focus on beliefs as one way to influence people, but if we 
want real change it is also important to consider many other factors --  
incentives, social support, removing practical barriers, emotional and 
spiritual commitment, etc.

I am not suggesting that we abandon cognitive methods, only that they are 
not enough and that some useful answers to the question in the subject line 
can be found in the research being done by conservation psychologists.

John
=========================
John Scull
www.naturecowichan.net
"I believe a leaf of grass is no less than the journey-work of the stars."
                                                    --Walt Whitman

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Save our World" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 9:22 AM
Subject: Re: Why people don't act on climate change- New Scientist Opinion 
Piece


Sorry to join in so late, but I have only just come up for air.

We don't need to get into whether beliefs are rational or not.  People act 
on them, whichever they are.  Whatever the psychologists agree, they are 
very powerful.  Try persuading someone to go downstairs if they are totally 
convinced there is a wild tiger down there!  It is also extremely important 
ot take them into account.

For example, you express a belief, Brian, that 'that the resulting universal 
shift in living patterns (from climate change) would plunge the world's 
economy into a depression the like of which it has not seen before, 
resulting in chaos,
death and human-caused destruction which climate change won't induce for at 
least another 20 years'.

And yet there is already a highly constructive counter-movement happening 
alongside the present system.  See Paul Hawken's video 
http://www.blessedunrest.com/video.html   As Joanna Macy says in a preview 
for http://www.thegreatturningfilm.org 'people are beginning to build the 
new in the shell of the old without destroying our world'.

I am not saying one is 'right' and the other 'wrong' but that if you hold 
the one or the other belief you will take completely different courses of 
action.

That's why it is so important, as George Marshall first wrote, to widen the 
range of voices that can reach those of a huge variety of values and 
beliefs.

Best wishes from Jim Scott

Visit: http//:www.save-our-world.net (global) and www.save-our-world.org.uk
Registered charity no. 1111210 in England & Wales

 Please note new e-mail address [log in to unmask]







----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Brian Orr" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2009 11:04 AM
Subject: Re: Why people don't act on climate change- New Scientist Opinion 
Piece


> John,
>
> I don't believe what you say below really adds up.
>
> It seems to me that people actually 'swim in a sea
> of beliefs', an obvious one being that the sun will
> rise tomorrow even though it might be shrouded
> in dark grey clouds.
>
> I believe I will wake up tomorrow i.e. I have a very
> high degree of certainty this will happen even though
> I'm long in the tooth. I reckon the odds are at least
> 1000 to 1 in my favour according to the actuarial
> tables. (i.e. of every 1000 people of my age going
> to bed tonight only one will not wake up in the morning.)
>
> I believe my partner is not cheating on me. This
> influences my outlook on life pretty profoundly and
> as a consequence influences my behaviour pretty
> fundamentally. If I had strong doubts here I reckon
> people would soon be asking "What's up, Brian?"
>
> I believe climate change is happening and will lead
> to extremely damaging consequences in but a few
> decades from now. This has influenced what I do
> with my life to a noticeable degree, particularly in
> terms of trying to edge people towards my belief system
> - with disappointing results, in the main.
>
> I think the apparent gulf between us can be resolved
> by recognising just how hopelessly the word 'belief'
> has been overloaded. Do we believe what we read in
> the papers? Do we believe that science is the only route
> to material truth? Do I believe anybody will bother to read
> this piece to the end? Do I believe the Sun will engulf the
> Earth one day? Do I believe in a God?
>
> And even more importantly is the question of doubt or
> conviction here? How strong are my beliefs? Some are
> so strong my life is predicated on them - like I 'know' I'm
> going to wake up tomorrow. Others - like there's got to
> be 'something out there' that is totally beyond comprehension
>  - affects my life not one jot.
>
> If nearly everybody was as convinced as I am that climate
> change is happening, is man-made and is very, very threatening
> then I'm 'convinced' i.e. believe very, very strongly, that the
> resulting
> universal shift in living patterns would plunge the world's economy
> into a depression the like of which it has not seen before, resulting
> in chaos,
> death and human-caused destruction which climate change won't induce
> for at least another 20 years.
>
> But I also firmly believe that this catharsis will be infinitely worth
> the price,
> for there will be every chance homo sapiens will be able to save a
> civilisation
> worth sustaining after the mayhem - in contrast to it 'probably' being
> blown back at least a million years by climate change.
>
> Do you still think, John, that I should get hold of "The Power of
> Sustainable Thinking"?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Brian Orr
>
> On 24 Jul 2009, at 15:44, John Scull wrote:
>
>> Hi George and everyone,
>>
>> I agree with everything you say, but it doesn't go nearly far enough
>> in
>> exploring why people don't act.  Psychological research indicates that
>> "belief" has a very weak influence people's behaviour, as does
>> "information."
>>
>> Climate change is quite distant and impersonal compared to our own
>> illness
>> and death, yet smoking, drinking, unhealthy diets, sedentary
>> lifestyles, and
>> other high risk behaviours are common.  Ask these people if they
>> know/believe they are taking a risk.
>>
>> For a good recent book on how people can change their environmental
>> behaviour, see Doppelt, B., "The Power of Sustainable Thinking"
>> Earthscan,
>> 2008.  Changing habitual behaviours is a multi-stage, multi-
>> dimensional
>> process.
>>
>> See also the work of Doug MacKenzie-Mohr and his colleagues.  They
>> have a
>> useful website at http://www.toolsofchange.com/English/.
>>
>> There are broader overviews in two textbooks, Winter, D. and Koger,
>> S. "The
>> Psychology of Environmental Problems" and Gardner and Stern,
>> "Environmental
>> Problems and Human Behavior" and a recent review of the academic
>> literature,
>> Nickerson, R., "Psychology and Environmental Change."
>>
>> John
>> ------------------------------------------------
>> John Scull, Ph.D.
>> http://members.shaw.ca/jscull
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "George Marshall" 
>> <[log in to unmask]
>> >
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 11:07 AM
>> Subject: Why people don't act on climate change- New Scientist
>> Opinion Piece
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Why people don't act on climate change
>>>
>>>   * 23 July 2009 by *George Marshall*
>>>     <http://www.newscientist.com/search?rbauthors=George+Marshall>
>>>
>>> AT A recent dinner at the University of Oxford, a senior researcher
>>> in
>>> atmospheric physics was telling me about his coming holiday in
>>> Thailand.
>>> I asked him whether he was concerned that his trip would make a
>>> contribution to climate change
>>> <http://www.newscientist.com/topic/climate-change> - we had, after
>>> all,
>>> just sat through a two-hour presentation on the topic. "Of course,"
>>> he
>>> said blithely. "And I'm sure the government will make long-haul
>>> flights
>>> illegal at some point."
>>>
>>> I had deliberately steered our conversation this way as part of an
>>> informal research project that I am conducting - one you are
>>> welcome to
>>> join. My participants so far include a senior adviser to a leading UK
>>> climate policy expert who flies regularly to South Africa ("my
>>> offsets
>>> help set a price in the carbon market"), a member of the British
>>> Antarctic Survey who makes several long-haul skiing trips a year ("my
>>> job <http://www.newscientistjobs.com/> is stressful"), a national
>>> media
>>> environment correspondent who took his family to Sri Lanka ("I
>>> can't see
>>> much hope") and a Greenpeace climate campaigner just back from scuba
>>> diving in the Pacific ("it was a great trip!").
>>>
>>> Intriguing as their dissonance may be, what is especially revealing
>>> is
>>> that each has a career <http://www.newscientistjobs.com/>
>>> predicated on
>>> the assumption that information is sufficient to generate change.
>>> It is
>>> an assumption that a moment's introspection would show them was
>>> deeply
>>> flawed.
>>>
>>> It is now 44 years since US president Lyndon Johnson's scientific
>>> advisory council warned that our greenhouse gas emissions could
>>> generate
>>> "marked changes in climate". That's 44 years of research costing,
>>> by one
>>> estimate, $3 billion per year, symposia, conferences, documentaries,
>>> articles and now 80 million references on the internet. Despite all
>>> this
>>> information, opinion polls over the years have shown that 40 per
>>> cent of
>>> people in the UK and over 50 per cent in the US resolutely refuse to
>>> accept that our emissions are changing the climate. Scarcely 10 per
>>> cent
>>> of Britons regard climate change as a major problem.
>>>
>>> I do not accept that this continuing rejection of the science is a
>>> reflection of media distortion or scientific illiteracy. Rather, I
>>> see
>>> it as proof of our society's failure to construct a shared belief in
>>> climate change.
>>>
>>> I use the word "belief" in full knowledge that climate scientists
>>> dislike it. Vicky Pope, head of the Met Office Hadley Centre for
>>> Climate
>>> Change <http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/hadleycentre/
>>> >
>>> in Exeter, UK, wrote in /The Guardian/
>>> <http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/feb/11/climate-change-science-pope
>>> >
>>> earlier this year: "We are increasingly asked whether we 'believe in
>>> climate change'. Quite simply it is not a matter of belief. Our
>>> concerns
>>> about climate change arise from the scientific evidence."
>>>
>>> I could not disagree more. People's attitudes towards climate change,
>>> even Pope's, are belief systems constructed through social
>>> interactions
>>> within peer groups. People then select the storylines that accord
>>> best
>>> with their personal world view. In Pope's case and in my own this
>>> is a
>>> world view that respects scientists and empirical evidence.
>>>
>>> But listen to what others say. Most regard climate change as an
>>> unsettled technical issue still hotly debated by eggheads. Many
>>> reject
>>> personal responsibility by shifting blame elsewhere - the rich, the
>>> poor, the Americans, the Chinese - or they suspect the issue is a
>>> Trojan
>>> horse built by hair-shirted environmentalists who want to spoil
>>> their fun.
>>>
>>> Many people regard climate change as a Trojan horse built by
>>> hair-shirted environmentalists
>>>
>>> The climate specialists in my informal experiment are no less
>>> immune to
>>> the power of their belief systems. They may be immersed in the
>>> scientific evidence, yet they have nonetheless developed ingenious
>>> storylines to justify their long-haul holidays.
>>>
>>> How, then, should we go about generating a shared belief in the
>>> reality
>>> of climate change? What should change about the way we present the
>>> evidence for climate change?
>>>
>>> For one thing, we should become far more concerned about the
>>> communicators and how trustworthy they appear. Trustworthiness is a
>>> complex bundle of qualities: authority and expertise are among
>>> them, but
>>> so too are honesty, confidence, charm, humour and outspokenness.
>>>
>>> Many of the maverick, self-promoting climate sceptics play this game
>>> well, which is one reason they exercise such disproportionate
>>> influence
>>> over public opinion. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
>>> (IPCC), on the other hand, plays it badly. Rather than let loose its
>>> most presentable participants to tell the world how it achieves
>>> consensus on an unprecedented scale, it fails even to provide a
>>> list of
>>> the people involved in the process. It has no human face at all: the
>>> only images on its website are the palace or beach resort where it
>>> will
>>> hold its next meeting.
>>>
>>> Since people tend to put most trust in those who appear to share
>>> their
>>> values and understand their needs, it is crucial we widen the range
>>> of
>>> voices speaking on climate change - even if this means climate
>>> experts
>>> relinquishing some control and encouraging others who are better
>>> communicators to speak for them.
>>>
>>> Another key to achieving a widely held belief in climate change is
>>> collective imagination. We will never fully appreciate the risks
>>> unless
>>> we can project ourselves into the future - and that requires an
>>> appeal
>>> to the collective emotional imagination. In the past years I have
>>> been
>>> delighted to observe a growing partnership between scientists and the
>>> creative arts, such as retreats for scientists, artists and writers.
>>>
>>> It is clear that the cautious language of science is now inadequate
>>> to
>>> inspire concerted change, even among scientists. We need a
>>> fundamentally
>>> different approach. Only then will scientists be in a position to
>>> throw
>>> down the ultimate challenge to the public: "We've done the work, we
>>> believe the results, now when the hell will you wake up?"
>>>
>>> /George Marshall is founder of the Climate Outreach Information
>>> Network
>>> <http://coinet.org.uk/> in Oxford, UK/
>>>
>>>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.27/2258 - Release Date: 07/24/09 
05:58:00