This post is a cry out for help. For your help as a communication professional.
Global climate change is a serious issue that can only be solved with eduction and awareness. This is where you come into the picture. You can help educate the public, so everyone can do his small lifestyle change that may result in a massive global reduction of green house gases.
I compiled here a list of advertisements that are designed to raise awareness to the issue of global climate change. Hopefully these ads will inspire you to create more ads and distribute the ones already created. Email them, blog them, share them any way you can.
Commenting on this Blog entry is closed.
16 pencils
No offense, but why all this effort to deal with a problem that MIGHT happen in 2080, instead of helping with causes that are having an effect right now? Darfur, global starvation, terrorism, and the like are all issues happening right now. But the big issue is that the climate might change in 70 years? Why does anyone think that it’s been static this whole time until the 1900’s? And lastly, why hasn’t anyone learned their lesson? The big fear in the 70’s was global cooling, then it was global warming, and now, just to make sure they have their angles covered, it’s “global climate change”. This way, no matter what happens, it’s a reason to freak out.
Sorry, I know you’re trying to help, but humanity’s resources can better be spent fixing real problems in the here and now, and not freak out over something that isn’t conclusively determined.
Nate Cavanaugh
http://alterform.com
http://shift22.com
But, global warming is a much bigger issue than any of the problems you mentioned. Plus some of the issues we have today, like starvation and terrorism will only increase with global warming.
The already poor areas of the world will become so dry that even more people will starve. Think about millions of refugees flooding richer nations. It is all interlinked.
The other problem is that with global climate change we will be doing damage to our Earth that is not recoverable. If we lose biodiversity it will be gone and we can’t bring it back.
Fighting CO2 emissions is more of an extremely effective prevention method rather than a fix to an already existing problem. If we spend a little effort and money on preventing major climate change, we won’t have to deal with enormous global issues in the next 50 or so years. So, I think it is a good use of humanity’s resources.
If you don’t believe in global climate change I don’t blame you.
First of all the science is not exact behind it. No scientist can tell for sure what will happen exactly. It is way too complicated for any climate model. However it is very probable that it will happen. The same way as you don’t jump off a cliff, even though you can’t be sure you won’t die from doing it, let’s not risk and see what happens to our only habitable planet.
Secondly, there were so many different climate change predictions in the past as you mentioned that later turned out to be untrue that it is easy to think this is just another one of those. But, the difference is again in numbers. 99.9% of scientists agree on this specific issue today. And, the majority of the rest are either paid by different lobbies to disagree.
The big problem is that there is a lot of money behind disproving climate change. The biggest industries in the world are all contributing to CO2, so any legislation against it would harm their profit. Therefore they spend a lot of money on misinformation and campaigning against it. On the other hand there is little money in fighting CO2. It mostly relies on conscience. And, we have little of that in governments mainly ruled by big company interests.
All in all, we may be completely wrong on climate change and all our efforts on reducing CO2 may be go in vain, but if we are right and we don’t do anything we are big trouble.
The closest recently discovered Earth like planet is 25 lighyears away. Not much chance we get there in the next 500 years.
16 pencils
Hi Ivan,
There are a couple of issues I have to take with your post, so hopefully, I am not too rude 🙂
“99.9% of scientists agree on this specific issue today.”
Honestly, I care very little how many “scientists” believe in global warming. It’s really not all that impressive to me that anthropologists, biologists, physicists and other scientists unrelated to the climate believe in global warming. I take their opinions on the climatology with the same grain of salt that I would if I heard their opinions on child rearing or dating.
What is impressive to me is that some of the top climatologists in the world do not believe that there is anything to get into a bunch about.
Such as Richard Lindsen (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/) or John Christy (http://www.reason.com/news/show/34939.html).
Also, just because an idea is widely supported, says nothing of whether or not it is true.
There have been many “scientific” ideas that people assumed were true because they were widely supported, but turned out to be a load of garbage.
Like, eugenics, for instance. It was a great big bunch of psuedo-science, but if you questioned it, you were demonized for impeding progress.
“The big problem is that there is a lot of money behind disproving climate change.” and “On the other hand there is little money in fighting CO2.”
The first one is a red herring, and the second statement is wrong.
Again, the amount of money behind any idea has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it is true.
There is a lot of money behind the movement to keep people off of drugs. Does that mean everyone should pick up a needle and a heroin habit?
No, because the money behind an idea are not related to whether or not that idea is right or wrong.
Also, the global warming issue also reveals alot of people’s prejudices. For instance, do you really believe that any corporation, if they KNOW that there is a global catastrophe coming, that they’re not going to do anything to help, all because they want some money?
That’s ridiculous.
No group of people would damn themselves to a terrible world and kill millions of people, all because they make an extra 100 million this quarter.
Greed can make people do terrible things, but asking everyone to believe that a large group of people all know the truth that the world will pretty much end, and then say “Naw, we need the money”.
About the second statement, you’re quite wrong. There are numerous industries that will benefit from this, and there is quite a lot of money on both sides.
The funny thing is, the side arguing for global warming has the most to win, and the most to lose. Big oil, no matter what happens, will be a thriving enterprise. Oil pretty much goes into almost everything, and even if they migrated all fuel to seawater, Big Oil would be a profitable thriving business.
However, the folks who want to sell carbon credits, and get paid to enforce the crazy nutbag laws all stand to make a lot of money, and if they don’t get what they want, they’re going to lose that opportunity.
And here’s the thing, you may be okay with being wrong about climate change, but at what cost?
What damage are you willing to do to the third world, all because our society suffers from the guilt of success?
For instance, was it worth the death of thousands, if not millions of people from the third world because of food spoilage? When they prohibit the use of cheap refrigerants such as freon, and the food all goes bad, and they die, which is the greater loss?
The life right now, or the maybe life in 80 years?
The same happened and is happening with DDT and malaria in Africa.
What the climate change war is going to do is keep poor people poorer, and keep the industrialized world ahead.
Now, the question is, are you willing to stake someones life on it if you’re wrong?
Personally, I am willing to for sure save some people now, rather than hoping I am having an effect in the future.
Nate Cavanaugh
http://alterform.com
http://shift22.com