What would it take to change minds about climate change?

In the light of polls such as that of The Times, I've asked why parties of the Right might tend to be more sceptical about climate change. And I've asked why parties of the Left might tend to believe in climate change.

What about those people who don't care much about politics? Those who might say, if asked about who they might vote for, "They're all as bad as each other", "If voting changed anything, they'd abolish it", or "Nah, not really bothered, mate"?

I think the psychology is actually fairly trivial here, for once.

My sense is that there's natural scepticism among such people about any new grand claim, especially one where there seems to be loud debate. The effects can also appear a long way in the future, and small in size at first glance. However, the costs of dealing with it are real, now and unwelcome.

So what would change minds here?

It'd be wonderful if it were calm rational assessment of the evidence. That's not going to happen. At least not among the people I'm talking about here who are untrained in scientific method.

Alternatively, it'd be great if what would change minds is listening careful to the arguments for and against, put by experts. However, many sceptics dispute the basic facts, let along the complex models and proxies; and both sides have an arsenal of rhetorical tricks to throw at their opponents, an arsenal that militates against listeners getting closer to the truth.

So in the absence of an inclination to investigate the science more deeply, what would change minds?

Here are some suggestions...

1. If those on one side of the argument started to appear like crackpots. The sceptics had this problem in the early days, now neutralised by the groundswell of right-wing columnists showing scepticism. The climate change believers, though, in desperation at the failure of COP15, are deploying wilder rhetoric, and thus may appear more crackpot-like. Influential columnists and newspapers changing their view (either way), would increase the chances of the other side being seen as crackpots.

2. If one side started to appear self-interested hypocrites. See, for example, the emails of the Climate Research Unit at UEA; Gordon Brown being seen as wanting an excuse to raise taxes; or David Cameron cycling while a car carries his shoes. The astroturfing of the oil companies, airlines and other threatened industries hasn't seemed to have impinged on public perception.

3. If something really bad happened that popular consciousness blamed on climate change or challenged climate change. Hurricane Katrina did this for many Americans. But scientists have been so careful to emphasise that one-off weather events really can't be used as evidence for long-term climate changes that perhaps an equivalent event wouldn't have the same effect in Britain. Nevertheless, there has been a huge number of people (Andrew Neil included) smugly trotting out idiocies such as "If the globe is warming up then where did all this snow come from, eh?" So perhaps a couple of long, parched summers or flooding in London might have the opposite effect.

4. Erm... there must be more... No?

Why do parties of the Left believe in climate change?

A few weeks ago I asked why parties of the Right might tend to be more sceptical about climate change. The flipside of this, of course, is why parties of the Left might tend to believe in climate change.

As with that previous post, this is broad-brush stuff. There are some on the Left who are sceptical to a greater or lesser degree, and some who would might agree that climate change is happening but prefer to give priority to other problems, such as poverty or oppression. And "the Left" is often taken to include also sorts of positions, including those such as Liberals and Anarchists who might reject the Left-Right distinction as unhelpful.

But it is clear that many on the Left accept the scientific consensus on climate change, despite a high proportion of sceptics in the general population of many countries. So why is this?

So here are some suggestions...

• Scientists are more likely to be on the Left than the Right. [I have no idea if this is true. I'd doubt level of education is a factor, but perhaps the well-educated on the Right are more likely to be from humanities backgrounds?]
• Respect for science. The belief that if any authority should be respected, it should be authority derived from study and research, as opposed to authority derived from birth, wealth or power.
• Antipathy to capitalism. The story of climate change fits well with a belief that many of the world's troubles stem from the rampant excesses of unrestrained capitalism, particular burning fossil fuels and destroying forests.
• The need for international cooperation. Coordinated action at international level fits well with a belief that states can do good in a way that can transcend individual actions.
• The focus on helping poorer nations. It is the poorer nations which will typically be most affected in the short-term by the effects of climate change, through flooding, inadequate infrastructure, dependence on subsistence farming, water shortages and disease.

Any other suggestions?

Why are parties of the Right sceptical of climate change?

Scepticism about climate change is said to be growing in the party most likely to win the British General Election, a party of the Right. What drives this scepticism?

Parties of the Right are not necessarily anti-green. While generally avoiding legislation that would impose restrictions on economic growth, they tend to contain a good proportion of people who want to preserve green spaces, minimise pollution, and maximise energy efficiency. There are also some who fear dependence on fuel imports from unstable regimes, and so would favour encouragement of the renewable energy industry.

But it is clear that many on the Right are vehemently against the scientific consensus on climate change. The blogosphere is full of fierce attempts by those who aren't climate scientists to dispute the evidence, without any apparent awareness that these arguments have already been examined in great detail by researchers over several years and using multiple sources of evidence. Which is why there is now a scientific consensus. Of course all knowledge is open to question; but we have to make decisions on the best-tested knowledge, and rehashing old arguments without engaging with the actual evidence is not the way to proceed.

These people are not stupid. So why is there such fervour against climate change, on the Right specifically?

Here are some suggestions (from a British perspective, although perhaps similar suggestions might apply to the US, Canada, Australia and elsewhere)...

• Fear of costs. Fear that action to combat climate change will be very costly in the short-term. There are much larger costs if climate change turns out as science predicts, but labelling the science as uncertain, exaggerated or bogus means these costs can be ignored. It may not happen, so why take the hit? And even if it does happen, how do we know that we could prevent it?

• The Left are loving this. Fear that there is a left-wing agenda afoot to use climate change as an excuse: for creating greater EU & UN powers at the expense of national governments; for re-shaping the economy along anti-capitalist, statist lines; for undermining the oil, nuclear and airline industries specifically; and for greater taxes on the rich and technologically adventurous.

• Britain will be overtaken. Fear that Britain will be out-manoeuvred by developing countries into accepting restrictions on its economic activity that will allow (for example) China, India and Brazil to overtake.

• Opposition. Those on the Right have been out of power in Britain for over 12 years, and are now accustomed to opposing the agenda of the current left-leaning government. Moreover, there is a strong tradition of muscular contrarianism amongst opinion-forming columnists and bloggers.

Are there other reasons?

Vote to save the planet

The British General Election in 2010

Dear Voter

You lucky thing. Not so long ago, you would have had no say in who made the decisions about your country. In 2010, your vote could decide the future of the entire world.



OK. Perhaps that's putting it a little dramatically. But look at the facts. The best scientific evidence we have suggests that without massive and sustained global action on carbon emissions starting now, our world will change quickly and irreversibly for the worse.

Maybe you think there's some uncertainty about the science. Maybe you think it'd be better to wait until the evidence is clearer. Maybe you think little old Britain shouldn't act while America and China are dragging their feet. Maybe you think it's all fine and dandy being concerned for the environment when times are good, but what about jobs? Maybe you think new technologies will solve the problem. Maybe you think climate change might at worst bring Mediterranean weather to our cold damp country.

If you believe any of these things, search Google. You'll find plenty of people who will agree with you. But also take a little time to hunt down the counter arguments (e.g. the Met Office, the Royal Society, New Scientist, and the IPCC), and decide for yourself. If afterwards you still believe these things, I doubt there's anything I could say to change your mind, so goodbye, bonne chance. I hope in the end it'll turn out you were right after all.

If you're still reading, then the question is: Who should you vote for to do what's needed to fight climate change?

At election time it's easy to be fooled into thinking that you should be voting for the politicians with the best sound-bites, the best put-downs, the best haircuts. Despite all the fine words, though, neither Labour nor the Conservatives are prepared to do what's necessary to fight climate change, if that means compromising on the economy.

Why? Because they know that the economy is the most immediate issue that most voters care about. They know that saying they're against new roads and runways would be unpopular. They know that taxing carbon emissions would be unpopular with motorists, holiday-makers and consumers of gas and electricity. They know that tightening regulations on energy efficiency would increase the costs of building new homes, hospitals and schools.

Labour and Conservative politicians are going to tell you grimly and sincerely that tough measures are needed in order to sort out public debt and so build a strong economy. And they're right. But they are placing economic prosperity above the fight against climate change, because they think that's what you want.

Is that what you want? Is it?

Who's going to do the right thing on climate change?

Politicians want our votes. They tell us that only they care enough to be trusted to sort out schools, hospitals, crime, terrorism, the economy, and tax cuts. And somehow, magically, only they and their friends are competent and honest.

But climate change is different.

If the government screws up education, the NHS, the economy and so on, it can all be put right sooner or later. But if politicians get it wrong on climate change, our planet is wrecked for good.