Watch the streets around you - do you see a concerned populace, driving little, walking lots, happily queuing for buses, fighting for renewable electricity, demanding local produce? 

Of course not - the general public really don't care about the climate. Campaigners can try and make themselves feel like they (we) are in touch with the population, but this will not happen unless they feel like the population - like they feel they don't need to care. Campaigners are, and always will be, in the minority - the public look after number 1, occasionally numbers 2, 3, 4 etc. in the form of family (although the numbers driving their kids around smog ridden streets, unsecured, chatting on their mobile phones, or slumped in front of the TV while the kids learn about the wonders of the XBox, make me doubt this) - they are not interested in saving the planet.

So don't waste time - it won't happen, it's not human nature. In the complex, many layered society we live in, salvation lies in the TV picture, the heated SUV interior, the padded envelope of comfortable living. The nasty world outside is all but cancelled out, so what does it matter if that world is turning against us?

In 40 years, the modern environmental movement has singularly failed to engage the public in having an awareness of environmental issues beyond that which stirs their interest in the short term.

Witness the concern for the River Thames Whale; how many of those concerned people are now campaigning against Japanese whaling? The link is not made, not because the environmental groups do not exploit the moment, but because it is not in the public's interest to make the link. What is in it for them?

We should look at 3 of the highest profile popular protests in the last 5 years - they are very different:

- The Stop The War marches were orchestrated on a global scale, had a lot of media interest and a tremendous number of supporters on the day, and there is still a sustained opposition to the war in Iraq. But what does this demand of the public? A day out in a party atmosphere (would there have been half as many if it had rained?) and some banner waving, with no follow up required and no change in lifestyle demanded. It is easy to oppose a war on an individual basis - you have to do very little. Notably, the Iraq war still went ahead (Exactly the same applies to the G8 protests : G8 decided not to change their policies. The public had a nice day. The government didn't feel threatened.)

- The UK Countryside Alliance marches were different, and required more personal involvement. There were many levels of concerted campaigning by people at many levels. The reason was that the Countryside Alliance made people think that the fox hunting ban would directly affect their livelihoods, so were able to string it out all the way until the vote to ban hunting. Once the vote had taken place (which it did, despite the protests), and people realised that the impacts on them directly would be minimal, support for the CA dissipated very quickly.

- The Campaign Against Climate Change marches were organised in an almost identical way to the Stop The War marches - on a global scale. On 3rd December in London it rained. Despite quite wide publicity in the media, but notably not the tabloids (they do reflect what the public are interested in), only about 3000 people marched in London. Virtually all of these people were activists or people related to environmental groups.

So what can we learn from this?

The public are prepared to take part in popular protest if (a) they feel they are directly affected, or (b) it doesn't require significant effort. From this we can quite confidently conclude that if the direct impacts of an issue on an individual do not outweigh the amount of effort required by that individual (e.g. changing lifestyle, drawn out campaigning, making financial sacrifices) to support it, then most individuals will not make the changes required for that issue to be resolved. 

There are three ways we could look at this:

1) Not enough resources have been put into engaging the public?

From the above, we can see that this is difficult to argue. Furthermore, the pool of resources from which the campaigns can be drawn is finite : only those actively engaged in the issue are willing to engage the public themselves or commit to helping the campaign in other ways, and there are clear financial constraints without a great deal of philanthropy. Environmental issues have not been self-sustaining, they have only become accepted through political or commercial change, e.g. the Montreal Protocol in 1986 (governments accepted ozone depletion was taking place), the global ban on DDT in the 1970s (corporations had many alternatives already in the bag and wanted to look like they cared); but notably nothing effective against climate change - that requires a perceived impact on global economic growth, not acceptable to either politicians or corporations. 

2) The issues are not interesting enough for the public to be engaged in?

Environmental groups have tried shock tactics for decades - they have an immediate impact which is a combination of surprise and revulsion. Some people become engaged, others retreat further. It seems that a significant proportion of the population when made aware of the issues do not wish to accept them for the reasons I argued above, and also, for some, because there is a natural fear that acceptance will make the promise become reality, i.e. people will crawl into their shells for protection. Making an issue vivid and interesting has very mixed results, but no wide-scale, long term impact.

3) The public do not wish to make any changes that will directly impact their lifestyle?

Lifestyle is a political buzzword, but it reflects reality. People become accustomed to both their current existence, and the belief that they must aspire to material comfort. Anything that threatens that comfort is an unwelcome intrusion, so is unacceptable.  

Given finite resources, clearly only the third statement holds true, so we must conclude that public engagement is doomed to failure.

 

Sorry.

For the most part, I'm afraid you've hit the nail on the head with #3 above.
The question is "Why?"

I suspect it's because first-world society is continuously innundated with messages saying "BUY!"
Not messages saying "Reduce!"

Imagine you're at a rock concert and nearly everyone's screaming "Yeah that's great!" How much attention is given to the few people who say "That's terrible"?

I think you're saying the right things, but your voice is lost in the din. :-(

Don't give up though.
Everything's at stake! Things do catch on!

Cheers,

Derek

hello

I just wanted to help with the empathising bit. I'm by no means out there putting the planet first and myself second. I am grateful that there are people like you out there but I must tell you, self centredness is a rational response to a world in which no-one is likely to help you if you're in need. I myself pursue wealth, not for material comfort, but to console myself that I'm doing everything in my ability to ward of the spectre of homelessness, starvation, and the likely harm this would have on my mental health and abiltiy to exist in the world with dignity and a sense of independence not possible when begging others for mercy. Some overconsume, others like me are just scared of falling through the cracks in a society where no-one cares.

Hi Maria

If only we could all change and make things easier for everyone. Community, real community, where people actually care for each other, is missing. It's very easy to feel lonely in a world of greed. If everyone who felt lonely tried to change things together then we would be getting somewhere. Places like this site are not just for educating but for finding similar minded people. You have visited - you are not alone.

thanks

Hi,
I want to make a small documentry on Global warming. I am reading all these wonderful passages and I would like to use some if I may, please get back to me if I have your permission to use them. The short film is non profit and I am funding it myself.

Hi Jamie

Anyone using the text is subject to a Creative Commons License - you are free to use the words so long as you say where they came from.

I will e-mail you separately.

Best wishes

Keith

101 Ways to Help Planet Earth
free ebook -that may help with some of the problems

christmas words yourself merry a christmas have little i for all want christmas celebrate christmas traditions christmas england in christmas animated christmas christmas wish

Good point keith, the problem is lack of community, connection on a real level outside the virtual world. If small communities learned to become self sustainable, maybe break away from the grid, society might be more stable, more able to adapt to changes in the economy. Maybe entire cities self powered by wind or solar technology? Or even towns which farm for themselves only........this will create a more independant community that is more elastic to changes in the outside world. (not sure how this would be possible, government and corporations would definately object, but it's an idea.)

[Hi Anton, I don't think we need worry about the economy - it is irrelevant to the solution. Your ideas are very close to mine; if you want to know how to get there, read www.amatterofscale.com.

Keith]

:-? Hi, the showing of 'The Age of Stupid' at the Film Theatre in Stoke-on-Trent was profoundly thought-provoking. Our use of the world's energy resources is a matter of ethics as well as a matter of strategic planning. I don't have any answers but I am willing to listen to all who are prepared to explore the options.