Sea and air temperatures smashed records in 2023 and now most of the Davos crowd expect a catastrophic global climate event in the next decade, The Kākā's climate correspondent Cathrine Dyer writes.
I do think humans have evolved biases such as dunning Kruger and cognitive dissonance that means we find it hard to reconcile a future with out us in it. The science is abundantly clear but it’s not piercing the lenses that people are willing to listen to. It’s beyond frustrating sometimes to watch it descend through the news cycle and sound bites. I’m certain solutions based journalism is a key! A refreshing change but I’m unsure of getting to cross over the populism we have now in the media and politics
I haven’t seen this (as overseas) but I think this type of thing is what we should see more of going forward. Climate change is too huge of a problem for most people to tackle in their heads, so they ignore or throw it in the too hard basket, hoping someone bigger than themselves will deal with it and life will continue as usual. For example could be a series of ads, maybe with varying themes, consistently demonstrating small, achievable steps you could incorporate into your week to reduce your carbon output. Maybe mixed in with a few scarier ones showing what our futures might look like if we do nothing (eg those hard hitting don’t drink/drive ads) for good measure
There are lots of plausible explanations that turn out to be wrong and the formula I see is people being offered a plausible explanation that’s less painful than reality. If you tie it to a question of the motives of those behind the accepted explanations. Then we descend down a familiar rabbit hole. I feel like this is the key thing with housing and child poverty also.
I worked on an environmental behaviour change program for 5 years, specifically working to reduce single-use plastics in the hospitality sector (very niche). For every step forward we had an onslaught of greenwashing and incessant marketing to counteract us from the plastics & packaging industry, denial in the form of so called green consumerism. It was soul destroying if I'm completely honest. Our program was government funded (for staff wages) but we had zero budget beyond that, so we had no hope up against them. As the NZ paper suggests, in my experience most people don't like being told that they need to change their behaviour, not because they don't accept that they need to, but because they believe the marketing hype and the myth of technological optimism, "they'll just invent something to fix that" was a very common response.
Thanks for this work Catherine. I'm certainly preparing for a near term climate disaster, both mentally and as practically as possible. Many have already suffered one, 'collapse is already here, it's just not evenly distributed yet'.
I'm quite interested in knowing what you've done to prepare practically? I feel like that is where we might all need to focus some additional resources.
There is just no match between those who want to encourage change and those with vested interests who want to keep the status quo. So much of the might and money is with the vested interests, and unless we are willing to face some pain who wants to look at impending doom? All it takes is a bit of doubt to stall change. I am incredibly grateful to those who are fighting against the odds and inacting some changes, but it is a very uphill battle I fear.
Perhaps our best hopes are the increasingly clear evidence of change (people do make changes when they have to and can see it themselves).
Additionally the courageous reporting is very useful for those who are willing to consider it.
I have prepared practically by moving back from uk to NZ, and taking up gardening for food. Also focusing on forming strong social bonds in the neighbourhood.
It’s easy to forget how uneven the collapse is being distributed. I’m sure our government will do everything it can to ensure there is enough collapse for everyone and not just for Māori.
The Science is clear without any doubt. Tipping points are likely here. I may be prescient or more likely just old and stupid? I did a V.U.W. 201 course in "Climate change and New Zealand Society" a year or two ago (Got an A actually, not bad for a man in 78th year). My essay (30%) of mark was titled "Are Democratic politics and Capitalism suitable for dealing with Climate Change". I argued NO on both counts. I was right. Our Government is happy to deny while the World Burns, freezes and drowns simply to preserve "the Market" so rich pr.... can profit at societies expense continuing the "Gig and Dig" economy of Naomi Klein and the landowner autocracy. "Groanswell" will be laughing all the way to the bank
"Evolutionarily unfit" makes no sense, it is nonsense talk. The fact we understand the issues scientifically is already beyond natural selection by chance mutation. You do not need to mutate to grok a science book or IPCC report and engage in community organization to respond. We can respond to climate change. Political will is not under control of ENS, it is under control of the oligarchs. If we need to wait for oligarchs to evolve by natural selection we are indeed toast. But we do not have to, and to think we do is ridiculous doomerism.
The article quoted was referring primarily to cultural evolution - I included a link to the article which provides a good explanation of cultural versus genetic evolution.
Humans are maladapted to respond to long term threats. Our physiology developed to give us responses to short term immediate threats ( there's a lion, run!) but long term ( stop drinking alcohol, stop smoking etc) we are useless as we don't "feel" the problem.
Great. Just when I was learning to adjust to living with climate change, I hear about a big harry monster coming over the horizon called environmental overshoot. It sounds like something that is going to destroy my garden, at the very least.
They say you shouldn’t try to eat anything bigger than your head. We should have known better than to try to eat the planet.
The ecological effects of climate change receive very little attention from media outlets. Perhaps humanity could better understand the consequences of a rapidly changing climate if they were exposed to information about what is happening to the biodiversity that surrounds us, from disease organisms to polar bears? What will happen to our land of birds when avian malaria and one or more of its vectors arrive in Aotearoa?
The behavioural self-destructive traits of people is indeed the crux of the problem. My psychology dissertation in 1992 looked at people's perceptions of environmental issues. My research demonstrated the mismatch between people's stated attitude towards wanting to do the right thing by the environment and their actual behaviours which were damaging to the environment. In psychology, this contradiction is referred to as cognitive dissonance. People generally cope with this by ignoring or denying any information that makes them feel uncomfortable. Hence, climate change denial and lack of action or personal responsibility. Such a shame, when as your article highlights, we have never lacked the technological ability to adapt our behaviour or consumption habits to live within planetary climate and ecological limits.
Two areas chiefly to blame are the media and education. The media does not do nearly enough to investigate and highlight the real issues of the global capitalist system which insists on endless growth and thus causing ecological overshoot since the 1980s. I am a specialist teacher providing learning and behaviour support in schools in Northland. Prior to this I was a social studies teacher. I would have dearly loved to teach environmental education in the schools I taught but there was never any opportunity to do so. Even today in 2024 with the world facing down environmental and climate catastrophe we still do not have environmental education as a core subject in its own right in our schools. How short sighted and disingenuous is that?? In 2006 I had an article published in the Pacific Ecologist entitled, '100 things you can do to tackle climate change'. Today, the internet is awash with thousands of organisations offering positive climate and environment actions we can all take. This is great and certainly to be encouraged. My article emphasised the importance of taking actions at all levels from the individual to local, regional, national and globally. Individual actions are great, and we should all make the effort to do what we can, but without also acting in a coordinated way through NGOs and voting for environmentally positive political parties we our doomed. If enough people took these collective actions we could rapidly transition away from fossil fuels and towards a carbon negative future. Unfortunately, in the recent NZ election where I stood as the Green Party candidate for Whangarei, I was the only candidate to bring up the climate issue and policies to tackle it. National, Act, NZ First and Labour were simply not interested, even though 80% of New Zealanders indicated they wanted more not less action on climate change.
My experience of politics in the past forty years in the UK and then NZ from 1998, is that without the Green Party in government we are consistently and predictably let down by the other political parties that serve at the alter of unbridled capitalism and worship the interests of big business. Concerns for the climate, environment and people come a distant second, with just a lot of green washing and rhetoric spun to convince the voting public otherwise.
Very interesting comments on anthropogenically induced adverse environmental effects (AEE-humans) in this podcast with Catherine. With a PhD in Earth & Planetary Sciences and BA in the behaviour of humans at scale through time (i.e., Human Geography), I am reassured to hear the view that these wider dimensions are being increasingly considered. AEE-humans is essentially population ecology for humans. We know from many other species that (species environmental effects ~ P (Population)^C(Consumption) in the population ecology sense. The results of the majority of AEE work emerges as narrow slices of the “C” term. It is not surprising, then that measurements of AEE or AEE crises continue to emerge, in spite of commitments, effort, & investment.
If we looked at the AEE~P^C holistically, we might begin to see how the rolling list of “crises” below might be effectively managed, including climate change. If we do not consider the boundaries to the systems we hope to better understand and influence (a tendency in reductionist approaches), we will very likely fail again and again.
Global Anthropogenic Environmental Effect Crises (draft list)
Surely the climate crisis is the continuation of the same old problem- the rich eat the poor. The problem, as it always has been, is the 1%, not the 99%.
I've thought about this long and hard and i think a rebate system will work, where if you don't have children (thereby greatly and significantly reducing the impact on on the planet) you get a rebate credit payment from the govt. The easiest way being a tax rebate of 20% sliding depending on your recycling habits and how often you cycle, especially if you use the amazing cycle paths in Island Bay.....full of great ideas!
I do think humans have evolved biases such as dunning Kruger and cognitive dissonance that means we find it hard to reconcile a future with out us in it. The science is abundantly clear but it’s not piercing the lenses that people are willing to listen to. It’s beyond frustrating sometimes to watch it descend through the news cycle and sound bites. I’m certain solutions based journalism is a key! A refreshing change but I’m unsure of getting to cross over the populism we have now in the media and politics
I quite like the ad on TV about protecting the sea. The one ending with take 3 pieces of rubbish when leave.
I haven’t seen this (as overseas) but I think this type of thing is what we should see more of going forward. Climate change is too huge of a problem for most people to tackle in their heads, so they ignore or throw it in the too hard basket, hoping someone bigger than themselves will deal with it and life will continue as usual. For example could be a series of ads, maybe with varying themes, consistently demonstrating small, achievable steps you could incorporate into your week to reduce your carbon output. Maybe mixed in with a few scarier ones showing what our futures might look like if we do nothing (eg those hard hitting don’t drink/drive ads) for good measure
There are lots of plausible explanations that turn out to be wrong and the formula I see is people being offered a plausible explanation that’s less painful than reality. If you tie it to a question of the motives of those behind the accepted explanations. Then we descend down a familiar rabbit hole. I feel like this is the key thing with housing and child poverty also.
I worked on an environmental behaviour change program for 5 years, specifically working to reduce single-use plastics in the hospitality sector (very niche). For every step forward we had an onslaught of greenwashing and incessant marketing to counteract us from the plastics & packaging industry, denial in the form of so called green consumerism. It was soul destroying if I'm completely honest. Our program was government funded (for staff wages) but we had zero budget beyond that, so we had no hope up against them. As the NZ paper suggests, in my experience most people don't like being told that they need to change their behaviour, not because they don't accept that they need to, but because they believe the marketing hype and the myth of technological optimism, "they'll just invent something to fix that" was a very common response.
Thanks for this work Catherine. I'm certainly preparing for a near term climate disaster, both mentally and as practically as possible. Many have already suffered one, 'collapse is already here, it's just not evenly distributed yet'.
I'm quite interested in knowing what you've done to prepare practically? I feel like that is where we might all need to focus some additional resources.
There is just no match between those who want to encourage change and those with vested interests who want to keep the status quo. So much of the might and money is with the vested interests, and unless we are willing to face some pain who wants to look at impending doom? All it takes is a bit of doubt to stall change. I am incredibly grateful to those who are fighting against the odds and inacting some changes, but it is a very uphill battle I fear.
Perhaps our best hopes are the increasingly clear evidence of change (people do make changes when they have to and can see it themselves).
Additionally the courageous reporting is very useful for those who are willing to consider it.
I have prepared practically by moving back from uk to NZ, and taking up gardening for food. Also focusing on forming strong social bonds in the neighbourhood.
It’s easy to forget how uneven the collapse is being distributed. I’m sure our government will do everything it can to ensure there is enough collapse for everyone and not just for Māori.
Thank You Bernard and Catherine,
The Science is clear without any doubt. Tipping points are likely here. I may be prescient or more likely just old and stupid? I did a V.U.W. 201 course in "Climate change and New Zealand Society" a year or two ago (Got an A actually, not bad for a man in 78th year). My essay (30%) of mark was titled "Are Democratic politics and Capitalism suitable for dealing with Climate Change". I argued NO on both counts. I was right. Our Government is happy to deny while the World Burns, freezes and drowns simply to preserve "the Market" so rich pr.... can profit at societies expense continuing the "Gig and Dig" economy of Naomi Klein and the landowner autocracy. "Groanswell" will be laughing all the way to the bank
Patrick Medlicott
Agree capitalism is never going to allow humans to work together to solve a common problem. Until we evolve beyond that our future is dim.
"Evolutionarily unfit" makes no sense, it is nonsense talk. The fact we understand the issues scientifically is already beyond natural selection by chance mutation. You do not need to mutate to grok a science book or IPCC report and engage in community organization to respond. We can respond to climate change. Political will is not under control of ENS, it is under control of the oligarchs. If we need to wait for oligarchs to evolve by natural selection we are indeed toast. But we do not have to, and to think we do is ridiculous doomerism.
The article quoted was referring primarily to cultural evolution - I included a link to the article which provides a good explanation of cultural versus genetic evolution.
Humans are maladapted to respond to long term threats. Our physiology developed to give us responses to short term immediate threats ( there's a lion, run!) but long term ( stop drinking alcohol, stop smoking etc) we are useless as we don't "feel" the problem.
Does this apply to all human societies or just Western societies?
Great. Just when I was learning to adjust to living with climate change, I hear about a big harry monster coming over the horizon called environmental overshoot. It sounds like something that is going to destroy my garden, at the very least.
They say you shouldn’t try to eat anything bigger than your head. We should have known better than to try to eat the planet.
I dug in and found a couple of female speakers on Impact Investment. This is a concept that could do with more coverage on The Kaka. Thanks.
The ecological effects of climate change receive very little attention from media outlets. Perhaps humanity could better understand the consequences of a rapidly changing climate if they were exposed to information about what is happening to the biodiversity that surrounds us, from disease organisms to polar bears? What will happen to our land of birds when avian malaria and one or more of its vectors arrive in Aotearoa?
On human behaviour - 2 suggestions: the 1st is to instill “fear” more widely in the population, the 2nd is to read “Ministry of the Future”.
I agree. Everyone should read Ministry for the Future. It is both harrowing and hopeful
The behavioural self-destructive traits of people is indeed the crux of the problem. My psychology dissertation in 1992 looked at people's perceptions of environmental issues. My research demonstrated the mismatch between people's stated attitude towards wanting to do the right thing by the environment and their actual behaviours which were damaging to the environment. In psychology, this contradiction is referred to as cognitive dissonance. People generally cope with this by ignoring or denying any information that makes them feel uncomfortable. Hence, climate change denial and lack of action or personal responsibility. Such a shame, when as your article highlights, we have never lacked the technological ability to adapt our behaviour or consumption habits to live within planetary climate and ecological limits.
Two areas chiefly to blame are the media and education. The media does not do nearly enough to investigate and highlight the real issues of the global capitalist system which insists on endless growth and thus causing ecological overshoot since the 1980s. I am a specialist teacher providing learning and behaviour support in schools in Northland. Prior to this I was a social studies teacher. I would have dearly loved to teach environmental education in the schools I taught but there was never any opportunity to do so. Even today in 2024 with the world facing down environmental and climate catastrophe we still do not have environmental education as a core subject in its own right in our schools. How short sighted and disingenuous is that?? In 2006 I had an article published in the Pacific Ecologist entitled, '100 things you can do to tackle climate change'. Today, the internet is awash with thousands of organisations offering positive climate and environment actions we can all take. This is great and certainly to be encouraged. My article emphasised the importance of taking actions at all levels from the individual to local, regional, national and globally. Individual actions are great, and we should all make the effort to do what we can, but without also acting in a coordinated way through NGOs and voting for environmentally positive political parties we our doomed. If enough people took these collective actions we could rapidly transition away from fossil fuels and towards a carbon negative future. Unfortunately, in the recent NZ election where I stood as the Green Party candidate for Whangarei, I was the only candidate to bring up the climate issue and policies to tackle it. National, Act, NZ First and Labour were simply not interested, even though 80% of New Zealanders indicated they wanted more not less action on climate change.
My experience of politics in the past forty years in the UK and then NZ from 1998, is that without the Green Party in government we are consistently and predictably let down by the other political parties that serve at the alter of unbridled capitalism and worship the interests of big business. Concerns for the climate, environment and people come a distant second, with just a lot of green washing and rhetoric spun to convince the voting public otherwise.
Very interesting comments on anthropogenically induced adverse environmental effects (AEE-humans) in this podcast with Catherine. With a PhD in Earth & Planetary Sciences and BA in the behaviour of humans at scale through time (i.e., Human Geography), I am reassured to hear the view that these wider dimensions are being increasingly considered. AEE-humans is essentially population ecology for humans. We know from many other species that (species environmental effects ~ P (Population)^C(Consumption) in the population ecology sense. The results of the majority of AEE work emerges as narrow slices of the “C” term. It is not surprising, then that measurements of AEE or AEE crises continue to emerge, in spite of commitments, effort, & investment.
If we looked at the AEE~P^C holistically, we might begin to see how the rolling list of “crises” below might be effectively managed, including climate change. If we do not consider the boundaries to the systems we hope to better understand and influence (a tendency in reductionist approaches), we will very likely fail again and again.
Global Anthropogenic Environmental Effect Crises (draft list)
Habitat loss
Climate change
Rising temperatures
Extreme weather
Extinction
Resource depletion
Plastic pollution
Overfishing
Bottom trawling
Bycatch
Biodiversity loss
Water shortages
Sea level rise
Ocean acidification
Ozone depletion
Air Pollution/Air Quality
Water pollution
Deforestation
Acid rain
Waste management
Intensive farming
Desertification
Soil degradation
Global Anthropogenic Social Problems
War
Extreme poverty
Pandemic
Immigration
Food shortages
Refugee rights
Health
Rights
Freedom of the press
Disinformation
Nationalism
Persecution
Surely the climate crisis is the continuation of the same old problem- the rich eat the poor. The problem, as it always has been, is the 1%, not the 99%.
I've thought about this long and hard and i think a rebate system will work, where if you don't have children (thereby greatly and significantly reducing the impact on on the planet) you get a rebate credit payment from the govt. The easiest way being a tax rebate of 20% sliding depending on your recycling habits and how often you cycle, especially if you use the amazing cycle paths in Island Bay.....full of great ideas!