Awareness vs personal threat re: climate change

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I was reading 538 and in one post there was a mention on a gallup poll made globally about both the awareness of climate change and the perception of personal threat on the topic.

One of the things that surprised me is that despite having a very high awareness many in European countries don't consider it to be a personal threat including low coastal countries like the Netherlands (57%), or the Nordic countries (Sweden 56%, Norway 43%, Denmark 40% Finland 39% and most incredibly Iceland 33%).

Is it because it's bloody cold and people think its going to be more balmy and comfortable (as opposed to having to move out of coastal cities due to rising sea levels) or there is an [unknown to me] cultural war* in Northern Europe denying the potential effects of GW?

Can any of the European siblings enlighten the apparent conundrum?

*Heck! Even here in the states where the right has gone out of it's way to demonize and discredit the science the personal threat perception is higher (64%).

[beagle]

Is it because it's bloody cold and people think its going to be more balmy and comfortable (as opposed to having to move out of coastal cities due to rising sea levels) or there is an [unknown to me] cultural war* in Northern Europe denying the potential effects of GW?

Can any of the European siblings enlighten the apparent conundrum?

Some of us are a bit cynical because:

We can remember the 70s when climatologists claimed we were on the brink of a new ice age. It's hard not to speculate climatology is a bit dull without a bit of disastering, and a bit underfunded without it too.

The climate models aren't good enough to predict the current deserts, let alone conditions in fifty years.

There are some dodgy statistical practices and careful data selection going on in the GW campaigns.

Probably what you say about cold applies too. It's hard to treat getting the climate of the South of France as a disaster on the same scale as, say, Gordon Brown.

[Lindorm]

I'd say it is a case of classic "disasters only happen in Further Farawayistan and other remote places"-thinking. Most of the more spectacular effects of climate change have taken place or are takign place in other corners of the globe, so it's not immediately felt for most of us. Likewise, a lot of Swedes are doing at least symbolic stuff on a personal level -sorting garbage, recycling stuff, buying low-emissions cars and so on which probably contribute to a general feeling of "it's not going to happen here". Climate change and global warming is very much a daily feature of news reporting and other public discourse here in Sweden.

We also have the dubious distinction of being the home of a few of the earliest and most succesful companies acting as brokers for emission quotas and other trading in indulgencies.

It's interesting ot see how quite a few of Sweden's largest and most internationally active companies are doing their best to turn environmental concern into a business opportunity, sometimes being more proactive than the government itself. The company I work for, Green Cargo, bases a major part of its' corporate image on being the most environmentally friendly transportation and logistics company in the business -from only using low-emission lorries, hydroelectric power for the trains, down to having garbage sorting and recycling at all crewing bases and a course in environmental ecology as part of the basic induction for all employees.

I think I have found a summary of the Gallup poll you mentioned; if it is the one, I do wonder about their sampling methods and how the questions were designed -it does seem quite sketchy in places. Likewise, data collection for the poll seems to have been done in 2007, which is a while ago, so I wonder how much attitudes have changed since then.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Some of us are a bit cynical because:

But isn't healthy sc(k)epticism something of the 90s? If the news for the past summer include an opening of the northern route through the Arctic, a bigger loss of the Ross Antarctic shelf and the increased speed of glaciers everywhere isn't enough what is, sea water in the living room?

(or am I being overtly sensitive because the R. Murdoch henchmen are hell bent in proving on printed media & TV that GW isn't real?)

[Swatopluk]

Possibly Norwegians don't see rising sea levels as an immediate threat since there is not that much flat coastline, so a 1-2 m rise would not lead to that much lost property (also wooden buildings can be moved or replaced more easily than skyscrapers). A few of the smaller Northern harbours might even welcome it since it would allow ships with higher draft to use them (with rocky sea bottom deeping by digging is often not feasible).

Berlin can't wait to be a coastal city at last, so people don't rush anyomre to the Baltic Sea in summer to spend their money there instead of here. The sea would also be shallow enough not to molest us with storm surges 

[beagle]

Some of us are a bit cynical because:

But isn't healthy sc(k)epticism something of the 90s? If the news for the past summer include an opening of the northern route through the Arctic, a bigger loss of the Ross Antarctic shelf and the increased speed of glaciers everywhere isn't enough what is, sea water in the living room?

(or am I being overtly sensitive because the R. Murdoch henchmen are hell bent in proving on printed media & TV that GW isn't real?)

It's a bit like the O.J. Simpson trial.  However much the evidence might seem to point one way those presenting it have been so inept that I wouldn't trust them to present the weather now, let alone predict it for decades to come. From the famous hockey stick, via reliance on faulty sea level sensors to the sudden recognition of the importance of medium term oceanic circulation to explain inconvenient cooling trends, data seem to be pulled in or left out in order to get the expected result, rather than because it was deemed relevant a priori.


For what it's worth I think there is some effect from our activity. but no-one has yet proved whether it's a needle in a haystack, or a tractor in a haystack.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

For what it's worth I think there is some effect from our activity. but no-one has yet proved whether it's a needle in a haystack, or a tractor in a haystack.

If sea levels raise does it matter if it's anthropogenic or not for those of us living in coastal areas?

In my case south FL is on porous rock so making dams and levies will not prevent the water from coming in. Now, I live on a 3rd floor so I can argue that I have ~5mts before the water comes into my flat, but not only would I lose my parking spot, but probably have to buy a boat to move around and the maintenance of those is a killer.

[Swatopluk]

You could caulk your car and attach a screw to the crankshaft.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

You could caulk your car and attach a screw to the crankshaft.

Anyone remember the old Junkyard Wars TV show?  In the UK, it was called Scrapheap Challenge.

That show was amusing, but one thing it proved several times:  with enough flotation thingies, you can float anything-- one show, they floated a land rover, with empty oil barrels.   Lovely conversion, too-- the landy in question was one of those ancient all-mechanical diesels-- no electrics anywhere, except for the starter motor.  So these enterprising mechanics simply cut out the radiator, and plumbed the water pump directly into the lake...  that old venerable diesel running 1/2 submerged didn't even slow down the "cooling" fan they left attached... those clever boys welded a propeller around the rear driveshaft, too.  Such that, when the rear wheels had power, the propeller spun..... lovely.

As for me?

I live in Oklahoma.  I'm seriously looking forward to Texas being fully submerged, and southern Oklahoma becoming ocean-front beach property.  Those stubborn Texans won't migrate, you see-- most of'em would sooner drown than move... 

I'm also looking forward to a general rise in the regional average IQ when that time comes...

[Swatopluk]

Amphibious cars must have been the dernier cri in the late 70ies. I remember seeing those around in these parts. But I hear they were very unreliable, always rusting through or having 'tightness failures' (usually far off the shore ).
The ones I remember had two propellers at the lower back but I hear there were also those that used their wheels (paddle steamer fashion?).

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Perhaps that is why most small to medium size boats have off-board engines?
--
Meh, I'll get a hovercraft and use pressured air for breaks.

[Griffin NoName]

I don't think there needs to be any discussion of climate change per se. It has got hotter and ice caps melting and so on. Therefore it is prudent to make contingency plans for if this continues and/or gets more extreme. So on that basis, it is merely an argument between boy scouts, be prepared, and optimists, do nothing.

The real argument is IF there is climate change have we caused it? Because if we have and our continued actions will increase warming, then we might need to stop doing stuff that causes it. But since it looks as if China will continue to belt out increasing climate pollution (if science is correct on this), then anything we do is probably pointless.

What we should be doing is working out where will be viable for human life and organising mass population moves to those areas.

There's a lot to be said for Noah's Ark (in fact has anyone ever considered that it might have been biblical Sci-Fi about some future event?).

[Swatopluk]

There's a lot to be said for Noah's Ark (in fact has anyone ever considered that it might have been biblical Sci-Fi about some future event?).

I think that has been done several times already (e.g. by E.v.Däniken clones) and also been used for movie plots.
The modern Ark model has also been the basis for movies, e.g. Silent Running.

[Aggie]

The real argument is IF there is climate change have we caused it? Because if we have and our continued actions will increase warming, then we might need to stop doing stuff that causes it. But since it looks as if China will continue to belt out increasing climate pollution (if science is correct on this), then anything we do is probably pointless.

China, at least, has been making an effort to keep their emissions densities down (absolute values are still huge). Certain other countries (provinces!) have been doing anything they can to NOT make an effort.

I don't think that we will be able to cut emissions enough to remove the anthropogenic effect completely.  But by making a proper effort, we might be able to take the edge off it, as it were.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

But since it looks as if China will continue to belt out increasing climate pollution (if science is correct on this), then anything we do is probably pointless.

While China is #1 right now and 80% of its energy comes from coal it's approach to shift to renewables has been far more aggressive than many countries in the west (notoriously #2 ), and they have become #1 in wind turbine production. Besides, per capita emissions, are significantly lower than Europe, the US and Australia.

But the point isn't one of blame but risk, sea level has been rising at 1.8mm per year during the past century but in recent years the level has gone up to 3mm and growing. If I live in the Alps (or in the Andes as I used to) the risk is one of change in precipitation patterns, but if I live in Amsterdam or Miami having higher surges more frequent flooding and potential loss of real state in the medium term. Perhaps that reality hasn't arrived yet?