[Oz-envirolink] [energyresources] Re: 'eco-fatigue' - comments

[hugh spencer]

This very inciteful comment by Phillip Sutton on the eco-fatigue article

H

.............................

       Hi Murray,
       The article by Leo Hickman  (Canberra Times - below) that you sent
to Greenleap is interesting.  But  I have a feeling that Leo has
misdiagnosed the problem.
   
       While it is true that some people are jumping straight from "aware"
to "despair"  and are suffering from "eco fatigue", I don't think the
solutions offered in the  article are really all that helpful - in fact I
think the proposed 'solutions' will  actually make the situation much worse
by blocking needed awareness raising  and by blocking effective action.
    
       The article says that:

       > Professor Mike Hulme, then director of the Tyndall Centre for
Climate         > Change Research, warned scientists and the media against
the use of         > hyperbolic language when speaking about climate change
scenarios. In         > particular, he warned against using the words
"disaster",
         >"apocalypse"  and "catastrophe". 

His own research showed that such terms generated apathy among the intended
audience.
    
       My guess is that Mike Hulme has not looked at the interplay between
leadership, the  'message' and effective action.

       Let's take a scenario where leadership is equivocal - claiming that
the issue is important but  not really following through with actions that
match the claimed severity of the problem.  If  you then dump more
'disaster' talk on people in the community then people have a double  blow
to their morale. Firstly they are being asked to believe that things are
disastrous. Quite  understandably that is a worry (it should be a worry!). 
But there is an additional  subconscious problem.  Anyone with any
experience with the real world of people working  together knows that we
are enmeshed in a complex system with a huge amount of inertia. It  is
(objectively) very difficult to turn bits of this system around, let alone
the whole system.

       If the leadership of our organisations/society are not engaged or
are not engaged fully and  effectively enough then when we dump a disaster
message on people we are implicitly  saying that we want people to
individually solve both the leadership problem and the  environmental
problem as well.  This is simply too big an ask for most people.  And they
very  reasonably try to minimise their psychological pain by disengaging.


       But to jump from this insight to saying that we must therefore 'soft
peddle' the problems does  not follow logically.  There is at least another
strategy that can be applied.

       If people are facing a disaster (tsunami, fire, war, pandemic,
massive climate change, etc.) it  is not 'alarmist' to draw this to
people's attention to the problem.  To be alarmist means to  alarm others
needlessly.

       In times of crisis the alarm bells are rung to alert not only
everyone but critically to also alert  leaders.  If the crisis is one that
people are well prepared for then there will be leaders who  know what they
should do - the floor or area captains for building evacuation, the SES
volunteers, the regional and head office emergency administrations.  Once
the leaders are  engaged they can help an alerted citizenry to take action
in a calm and effective way.

       In a well rehearsed emergency, even if the normal leaders are not
available, people generally  know what to do and people can step forward
spontaneously to fill any leadership gaps.

       But what happens if the crisis is novel, no one knows what to do and
the normal leaders are  not engaged or are engaged ineffectively?

       In this situation the purpose of ringing the alarm bells is to find
spontaneous leaders  wherever whoever they might be.  A person who suspects
that the community faces a  disaster cannot know by telepathy who is going
to be willing and able to play a leadership  role.  The only way to find
such people is to ring the alarm bells generally and see who  responds.  In
a novel and challenging situation the leaders need to be flushed out.

       In the bigger scheme of things it simply doesn't matter if
broadcasting the alarm causes  some people to withdraw.  It wouldn't even
matter if most people became disengaged.  The  crucial things is to find
people who are willing to provide leadership in a very confusing,
ambiguous situation.

       Once a critical mass of de facto leaders has been found, they can
start to develop some sort  of plan of action.  They can work to engage
people who wear the official badges of leadership  and in the worst case if
the formal leadership cannot be engaged despite vigorous efforts to  get
them involved, then those alert to the problems simply have to find ways to
provide the  needed leadership themselves.

       Once some form of effective leadership is in place, then the
withdrawn and disengaged can  be encouraged out of their despondency and
these people who earlier appeared to have  been lost from action will, in
the vast majority of cases, find their morale rising dramatically  and they
will reengage.

       With this alternative model for handling alarming situations, it is
possible to productively use  the words "disaster", "apocalypse" and
"catastrophe" without permanently causing apathy.

       But it is important to recognise that it is desirable to do more
than just raise the alarm.  It is  much better to also engage in dialogue
with the formal leadership to assist these people to  be come engaged. 
This might require an active problem-solving stage, where efforts are  made
to find out exactly what is blocking effective action by the official
leadership and to  actively develop solutions to these blockages. And in
addition, effort needs to be put into  finding and facilitating action by
any informal leaders who might emerge to fill the leadership  vacuum.

       Cheers, Philip
       Greenleap Strategic Institute      http://www.green-innovations.asn.au/



 This piece from the Canberra Times 15 November 2007  makes a very
important point.    (listening David??).

Modern  fables and eco fatigue

Leo  Hickman

Aesop  would have had little trouble seeking inspiration if he were writing
his fables  today. "The Tortoise and the Hare" might have become The
Hamilton and the  Raikkonen. The "Goose That Laid the Golden Eggs" might
have been known to us as  The Fisherman and the Cod. And parents might now
be reading The Sub-Prime  Mortgage and the Investor instead of "The Wolf in
Sheep's  Clothing".

 But  one moral tale that certainly isn't lacking any inspiration today is
"The Boy Who  Cried Wolf". We live in an age where we seem to revel in the
scare story. Some  would argue that climate change is just such a story.
Day after day we read  scientific reports pointing to an ever worsening
outlook for our species. But  the law of diminishing returns says that no
matter how pressing or compelling  the message, the more we hear it, the
less impact it has on us over  time.

Rather  predictably, talk of "eco fatigue" is beginning to surface. An ICM
survey of  2000 British adults found recently that 23 per cent of those
surveyed admitted  they were "bored with eco news". You could say 77 per
cent are still engaged,  but it would be a mistake to ignore the fact that
some have gone from "aware" to  "despair" in a very short period of time.

 What  has caused this? Earlier this year, Professor Mike Hulme, then
director of the  Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, warned
scientists and the media  against the use of hyperbolic language when
speaking about climate change  scenarios. In particular, he warned against
using the words "disaster",  "apocalypse" and "catastrophe". His own
research showed that such terms  generated apathy among the intended
audience. "Sod it," people would conclude,  "we all might as well live for
the now, then. What time does Top Gear  start?"

 Another  factor I sense playing its part in generating "eco fatigue" is
that some people  clearly see it as a passing fashion. Our "build 'em up,
knock 'em down" culture  demands that we constantly check the shelf life of
any trend, and now the  environment has gone "mainstream" many
instinctively want to retain their cool  by getting off this carousel.
Tellingly, the ICM survey found that 18 per cent  of those surveyed
admitted to exaggerating their commitment to environmentally  friendly
lifestyle choices because it is "fashionable".

 Or  is "eco fatigue" just a classic symptom of denial? The alarm clock is
buzzing  away, but we'd rather hit the snooze button than face the day
ahead. All the  classic signs are evident: transference ("our emissions are
tiny compared to  China's"); minimisation ("personally, I can't wait till
it's 2C warmer");  falsifiability ("you can't prove 100 per cent that we're
to blame"); false  memory ("summers were always much hotter when I was a
kid"); diversion ("there  are far more pressing things to worry about in
this world than climate change");  and rationalisation ("I work bloody
hard, so I damn well deserve my long-haul  holidays").

 Whatever  is driving "eco fatigue", however, it clearly needs to be
tackled. The messaging  about climate change needs attention and overly
emotive headlines are not  working but maintaining a sense of urgency is
crucial. Maybe Aesop can provide a  steer?

 In  "The North Wind and the Sun", the eponymous characters argue over who
is the  strongest. In an attempt to make a traveller take off his coat
first, the North  Wind blasts the man with a strong gust. It fails. In
contrast, the Sun takes the  honours by casting warm rays on the traveller,
who immediately takes off the  coat. The North Wind is perplexed. "It was
easy," says the Sun. "I lit the day.  Through gentleness I got my way."




Leo  Hickman is author of The Final Call: In Search of the True Cost of Our
Holidays



-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner 
at http://lists.altnews.com.au/MailScanner.html ,
and is believed to be clean.