I'm beginning to feel as though we're suffering from the "Boy Who Cried Wolf" syndrome. The strategy started out with fear tactics, and continues at the same hysterical level. People are getting numb and therefore back to the mental comfort zone of life as usual. The unfortunate souls living in the places depicted in your question cannot be so complacent. But they're likely to be far more victimized as well.

You mentioned "confusion." Global Warming took on a new name - Global Climate Change - because in some circumstances, there were a lot more cooling trends than warming ones. I, personally, would pay better attention if the "Powers That Be" had a better grip on the situation, not to mention the term!
Source(s):
Numerous news sources over the past several years.

Permalink | Report

No I don't think it is...It just seems Americans get a thrill out of scaring their residents in any way possible. If they want us to change what we use and how we use it...then don't give us another option. Don't get me wrong I know people who have "gone green" but I know 4 times the amount of people who think this whole thing is a load of crap. I think we have bigger issues, atleast in America that need to be solved...we need to get our troops home, we need to make sure Osama is caught...why is me using a normal lightbulb and hairspray more important then the man who had led terrorists to America? I'm sorry to say but I feel like the government is giving up...we need strong leaders not scaredy cats.
Permalink | Report

Hear hear!
The lightbulb-discussion is of course totally ridiculous, and counter-productive. It has been proven many times that people that are '' environmentally friendly' by changing their lightbulbs are way more lax in using them. They will keep the lights on unneeded, because the bulb is energy-consumptive, or will waste energy in other areas. In general, the calculated energy savings results are greatly diminished by this type of behaviour (I don't have the sources for that at hand, but I certainly know from experience, I do it myself too!)

On a larger scale, lights are a very small part of electricity-consumption, and saving in that area is totally meaningless on a national scale, especially when compared to the cost and effort to achieve that.
Of course it is good to get the people 'activated' when thinking green, but there are way better ways to do that, by simple buying less products. That way, companies are forced to re-think their product-line and production methods.

The current scare is CO2 footprint an global warming, and suddenly everyone has to turn 'CO2 neutral'. A few years ago it was the gap in the ozone layer. That latter one has gone out of fashion, and hardly anyone ever mentions it any more. Is that hole gone?

In general, I think the 'green' lobby shouldn't be given too much room to try an scare people. They should focus more on practical solutions, and the lightbulb-exchange is not one of them. Also, creating a clean-energy production facility in China, next to three coal-burning facilities is not quite productive either.

The majority of the problems don't lie in the western world, as both the US and EU are already pretty clean, especially the population. As long as company manager can make a buck by illegally dumping toxic waste and polluting, its a losing battle, and we'll see red rivers like below more often than we like.
Permalink | Report

Perhaps Yes.
People won't change until they realize that something gonna hurt them.
But scaring too is not effective.Because Global Warming is not the thing that will come in seconds. The current generation has less significance of global warming. But the next generation will definitely suffer.
Rather than scaring, we need to convince people. People should know whats the Global Warming is. It should be convinced that though they are not affected now, their next generations will be affected.
Strict Rules should be made about things that are causes of Global Warming. Everyone should reduce use of energy. There is need to invent new greener ways to get energy and transportation.
Permalink | Report

Q: Is scaring people about the Global Warming, the best way to encourage the world into environmental?

A: In the first place, those who understand what's happening are not "environmentalists" per se. Not all of them. Not even a majority. The majority are climatologists, followed by geologists, followed by the oil-drilling companies, followed by the military planners, and *then* the environmentalists.

Those who really understand what's happening and want to reverse it would seed the atmosphere with mercury and lead vapor if that could slow things down and turn it around.

Plus I know more than a few who think that a good way to kill two birds with one stone would be to nuke Iran and hope that the dust kicked up by the blasts would create enough nuclear winter to cancel out the green-housing that *is* happening.

Do you think those oil drillers rushing to lay enforceable claims to drilling rights in the arctic ocean - yes those same people who pumped up the hydrocarbons that got burned to release CO2 into the atmosphere - are living in a state of denial over the the effects of CO2 on infra-red retention?

The hell they are... half of them came from geo-engineering backgrounds, and they know all about what causes infra-red retention... why do you think they're elbowing each other to claim drilling rights to the arctic ocean before the ice cap has even finished melting?

Do you think they wouldn't have looked at space images of the arctic ice cap and not been able to see in a glance that it's shrunk 30%?

You know who else is fretting about global-warming? The military. They have departments of analysts to study all possibilities, who work with strategists and logisticians to design plans for how to respond to any crisis no matter what happens, and to assign probabilities to those crises in order to work out annual budgets of resource allocation.

They are s--tting bricks, because if it keeps going the way it has been, then in 18 years there are going to be so many people from Mexico and central America trying to push north that the forces might have to use some cruise missiles tipped with neutron bombs to stop the waves, and *none* of them likes the idea of popping off a nuke, even if it's a neutron bomb, which are relatively benign as far as nukes go, anywhere close to American soil, plus once you've used one, that opens it up for everyone else.

They have studied the evidence, they are convinced it's happening, and they do *not* like the scenarios, nor the responses, that they are having to make plans for!

Are they environmentalists?

So get off the broken-record groove of thinking that people who can see what's happening are "environmentalists".

Environmentalists are just the ones who are pissed off that it is happening, but oil drillers, perfectly aware that it is happening, are seeing it as an opportunity to drill for oil in the arctic ocean, and military, also perfectly aware that it's happening, are dreading the consequences of how far they might have to go against a starving southern-neighborly people whom nobody hates.

So... okay... you don't like the idea that those-who-know are starting to sound frantic about it?

Well then... what would like them to do? Set up little information kiosks in the mall, handing out pamphlets with sun-shiny smiley faces saying,

"Hi There! Would you like a free pamphlet showing you how to move without fuel after the water and food has disappeared from your neighborhood? We think you'll especially like the section about how to sell your house in a desert with no buyers, and the back page has some wonderful recipes for how to make some terrific stews from cockroaches by our award winning chefs! Have a nice day!"

I mean seriously... suppose you're living downstream from a dam, and some guy's been standing on a street corner for weeks hollering, "There's a huge crack in the dam and it's about to break! Everybody get out of here?"

Would you go up to him and say, "I'm sorry, you've been saying that for weeks now, and I'm sick of it, so I'm just not going to listen to you anymore unless you can stop ranting like chicken little. Try to sound less like you're crying wolf, and maybe I'll listen to you, and oh my gosh, I'm late for my appointment with the manicurist!"

At what point would it occur to you to actually drive out and take a look to see if there's a crack in the dam?

You won't listen to the scientists when they speak in calm rational tones of voice, and you won't listen to them when they try to get your attention with emotional expletives.

That means you just don't want to believe it, and you'll look for any excuse you can find to pretend it's not true, such that as soon as someone gives you any flimsy counter-spin, you'll latch onto it, even when you *know* that it's being provided by a special-interest lobby that is invested in keeping things torching at the current rate.. which is just nuts... which means it will be your own fault if you die a miserable death because you didn't start to do something about it right now, or at least start making plans for where you're going to move after the heat-retention breaks the 2 degrees mark, after which it's impossible to reverse tipping into the next heat harmonic.

The fact that the evidence is all there in abundance, such that all you have to do is read it, or just look at a space pic of the arctic ice cap for crying out loud, means you are bending over backwards to keep your ostrich head in the sand, such that those lobbyists are going to start feeling like they wasted a lot of money on all that spin control to keep their investments cranked to high.

Seriously... how do you need to have it explained to you?

With Muppets? Or would you feel a greater sense of credibility hearing it from a fat purple Gorgosaurus?

Or... is the problem that people are telling you that you might actually have to do something about it yourself.

You want an "environmentalist" to stop screaming about it, and to come to your door with a pinwheel, and hand it to you saying, "Here... blow on this three times per day, and that will stop global warming".

Hmm... actually... from the way some people talk about it, even *that* would be too much effort.

How about if those who don't want to look at the evidence and think about what it's telling them in rational orders of thought were to tell others what it would take to convince them that it's real, and what they'd be willing to do about it once convinced.
Permalink | Report

People aren't scared of propaganda. People are scared because what happen proved that the propagandas are true. There have been a lot of change in the climate in the world, and Indonesia felt it (points to the above video). We are getting flood more often, the weather is harsher and more uncertain. We get typhoons when it never happened before. These are what scared people into action, not propaganda.
Permalink | Report

Propaganda never works as well as truth. The truth is that there are legitimate ecological concerns which we ought to be doing something about. We need to work together: the government (people), businesses (more people), individuals, nonprofits, school groups, researchers, scientists. We all need to live on this planet and we all need to take care of it. We have divided ourselves into battle groups and are fighting each other instead of our common enemy, pollution.

One thing we could improve with a little common sense is priority. Is the environment our number one problem? I'd say it's in the top four, and in some local areas it may be number one (such as an area where unsafe water is killing people)

Here's a list of top concerns:
1. War
2. Disease (including the AIDS epidemic in Africa)
3. Economy (unemployment, homelessness and foreclosures, healthcare, trillion dollar deficits, energy costs)
4. Environment (hard to totally separate from energy costsor disesase in some cases)
BIG GAP
5. Moral issues (whatever you want)

Here is what we have seen from government and environmental activists on both sides lately, and what we need to protest as counter productive :

Scare tactics and diversion (blame shifting): It's going to destroy the planet soon, and if you don't buy these light bubs (I have, by the way), it will be all your fault. It's not the fault of the government and businesses, it's the voter and the consumer, or better yet, blame it all on the opposing political party.

Identify and demonize an opponent while claiming messiah qualities for your own position : "It's _______! They don't care if you live or die, they don't even care if the whole planet is destroyed! We have the only solution." Isn't it interesting that one characteristic of a religious cult is a group who claims to have special revelation that no-one else has, and the only way of salvation is through 100% blind agreement and obedience? No questions allowed, no alternative views. Sound familiar?

The science is settled: Anyone who disagrees with us is a hack or a Nazi, not a scientist. Opponents are either bought out by big business, grant money, or political favor. That is simply not true, and it is so UNscietific to be almost laughable. Science is almost never settled, and strong arm scare tactics to shut down research for alternative or additional explanations seems foolish and counter productive.

On the positive side, we have controlled specific ecological issues in the past, which makes me think we can do it again. The bald eagle nearly became the victim of DDT, but we rescued it. Ranchers in the west are no doubt overjoyed that the resurgent wolf population is once again plaguing their cattle ranches. In the 1960's Lake Erie and the Saginaw river used to catch fire regularly. Now Lake Erie has a thriving walleye population (walleye are sensitive to pollution), and the Saginaw river only catches fire every now and then.
Source(s):
http://www.reuters.com/article/africaCrisis/idUSB316783
http://www.montanacattlemen.org/Wolf_Reportings

Permalink | Report

It's not the tactic i would choose, but unfortunately it is a proven tactic to get the sheeple to adjust their behavior. Fear works. Rational, critically thought out arguments bounce off most people like a slow spitball against a brick wall.

In a better world we wouldn't need fear to get a point across and change bad behavior. In the reality based universe, unfortunately we do. I'm not totally sad about this fact but I am resigned to it.
Source(s):
me

Permalink | Report

Greed holds more promise than fear in convincing folk to change their ways.

If people with little income could be persuaded to fill the recycling and toxic cleanup niche, we'd see change.

If corporations were forced to pay for clean up, at a rate on par with their own mid level management positions, we'd see less polluting, less poverty, and a cleaner environment.

Large corporations and their CEO's hate anything that messes with their bonus structures and people would be encouraged to take matters into their own hands while profiting from the effort!
Permalink | Report

I guess you're not going to choose my answer as "Best" cos you have a different view on certain things than I do.... :)

Still this is how I see it...

1) Politicians are not able to act independently of what voters will accept

Politicians generally are way ahead of "the people" in wanting to do something about climate change, but like with anything, if they do things that people hate, they'll get booted out of office.

There's no doubt for example that Barack Obama thinks this is a pressing issue. But unless he can persuade enough Americans to buy into policies that will result in much higher gas prices, go along with building lots more nuclear power stations and filling the country with wind turbines, all that would happen is that he'd get turfed out at the following election, and some new version of George Bush would be back in office to put things back the way they were.

All in all, you radically over-estimate the ability of politicans to do things that public opinion won't at least tolerate.

They can do unpopular things for a short-time in the hope of being proven right by events, but for something like climate change that is an ongoing fifty year effort that people have compared in scale to what it took to retool economies for World War 2, they can't.

2) "Global warming" is a pretty neutral phrase

"Global warming" is not inherently a scary or loaded phrase. The average temperature of the world has gone up, and if the science is right it will go up more. Not sure how else you'd want to describe it that you'd consider factual and neutral?

In some place like Canada, it might even be a net benefit if things got a bit warmer, so there is nothing *intrinsically* alarming to the expression "global warming".

What is alarming of course is the way that the consequences of that fact are depicted. Cities being drowned as the sea-level rises etc.

Some of that depiction could be called alarmist in that it's presenting things that are forecast to happen over centuries or millenia as if they are going to afflict us or our children.

3) Rationality is useful, but insufficient for causing human beings to change

Whether you're talking about people changing their lifestyle to become healthier, companies changing their businesses to survive, or countries changing to meet big challenges, the evidence is pretty conclusive that rational arguments by themselves will hardly ever get people to actually change.

Sure rational arguments wil persuade them that it's a good idea to eat less or exercise more, to drive a smaller car, or fly a lot less. But mostly it won't actually get them to eat healthier, exercise more or trade in their SUV.

You want people to actually do things, their emotions have to be engaged.

Now there are many emotions that can be engaged, and that will lead people to act, from fear to rage, from love to hate, from hope to greed to shame.

Take a look at this British ad...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w62gsctP2gc

What's it doing? It's appealing to people's love of their children, as well as scaring them, and with smidgen of hope too... "It's up to us"... i.e. we can actually do something.

Is it out of order?

The main misleading thing about it is that the changes it shows won't happen on the scale it shows within the lifetime of the little girl in the ad, at least not in England.

4) Stories and images are powerful and important

If you actually want to effect change, whether in your personal life or the world, you need to tell a powerful believable story with vivid images.

If you want peopel to suport Kiva, you don't just show them charts and graphs about microfinance. You tell them the story of a woman who worked her way out of poverty, and show them pcitures of her life, before and after.

If you want people to donate to help people in a drought, you show the parched land, and the starving animals. not the rainfall statistics.

But whether you're showing happy children in their new school, or a dried up landscape, people need to relate emotionally, and hear a clear simple story.

Conclusion

People need simple stories, powerful phrases and vivid images to make sense of life. If you're using those to mislead and manipulate people, I'd oppose that.

But if you're using them to communicate the essence of what you believe to be true, after having made all the efforts necessary to understand what is actually true, it's not only ok with me, I'd say it is a vital aspect of genuine leadership. It's been part of the repetoire of the greatest leaders down the ages, from Abraham Lincoln to Winston Churchilll to Nelson Mandela.

Do people need to be scared? Well, they need to be roused, and that might involve scaring them and inspiring them, pointing of the magnitude of the challenge, but also building their confidence and resolve that it can be faced and overcome.
Permalink | Report

Actually, global warming won't affect the Earth, it will really affect people. They're bound to disappear and seem not being aware about it. The Earth existed before humanity and will last after humanity's reign!

So, in my opinion, instead of shooting "Save Mother Nature" or "Save the Earth" our governments and other ecologists should shoot "Save Humanity".

People could only be touched by what relates directly to them and not what's linked to a planet even if it's ours.

Many documents and films have been made on the subject an no one seems having had an impact. Indeed, when in a film you hear "you can't fly, you can't drive your car" and when you know the scenes of this film have been filmed from a helicopter and/or a car you have the right to wonder why the person is shooting at you!
Source(s):
http://www.home-2009.com
http://www.lesyndromedutitanic.com/

Permalink | Report

Scare tactics have worked on other issues but history shows that they take a long, long time to bring about even small degrees of change.

As an example, I would site the campaign to convince people to stop smoking. I just read "The Secret History of the War on Cancer" by Dr. Devra Davis, who is the Director of the Center for Environmental Oncology of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute. The campaign to stop smoking dates back to pre-WWII days and has some parallels to today's environmental movement in that it was hindered by political intrigue and vested interests, as well as more well-meaning, but misguided participants.

After decades of scare tactics, millions of people have given up smoking, but progress has undeniably been slow and incomplete. Basic human nature dictates that we seem to do what we want to do, even in the face of proof that our actions are self-destructive. Furthermore, we act in contradictory ways, talking a good game, but continuing to behave badly.

So, what alternatives to scare tactics are there? Altruism doesn't influence enough people or we wouldn't be in the bind we're in. One simple answer is quite basic: money talks. If enough consumers pressured corporations and government officials, change would happen faster. Threaten the pocketbook and/or the position of power and policies will change.

How do we convince consumers to exert that pressure when the changes may be inconvenient? Repetitious "scare-and-show-proof" tactics. Decades ago, I stopped smoking after seeing a picture of diseased, blackened lungs. Many others have watched family members suffer from cancer, and so they changed their habits.

Unfortunately, the swirling continent of garbage in the middle of the Pacific and the melting glaciers are not as easy to relate to as a visit to Uncle Harry in the cancer ward. It's too easy to shrug it off as something somebody should do something about, as we reach for a little container of bottled water.
Source(s):
Devra Davis: Chemicals, Cancer and You, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14986010

Permalink | Report

I think that global warming is a very real problem.

No, the world probably won't wipe our the human race in 10 years if we continue abusing the environment, but dire things have already begun to happen.

The fact is, people need to start giving a damn about the environment! Our irresponsible actions are catching up to us.
Source(s):
http://barrytyred2.blogspot.com/2007/10/floating-garbage-island-as-big-as-t...

Permalink | Report

I would agree with george carlin on the global warming issue.. the earth has been for billions of years and it has seen worse things than global warming... the earth is doing fine.. but the difference is the people are f-d.

What we should be thinking about thought is not how to stop global warming.. but how to help people who will get affected by it.. there will be places with flooding and places with famine... that's what matters... not stopping the plants and industry.

to be realistic... economy is important... not only for developed countries but for the whole world.. as long as there is developed countries.. the developing countries have better chance to develop!
Permalink | Report

Let's ask this question...if you weren't afraid that global warming was real, and that it could destroy life on earth as we know it, would you act?

For the majority of the population of the world, the answer is "no". For many years, scientists and climatologists have been predictiing and warning, and no one listened. No one changed.

We are a complacent society, one that tends to not want to give up their own comfort unless it's absolutely necessary. When we hear the planet is warming, what do we care? Most of us will be dead before then, and we don't want to give up our creature comforts to help the enivironment. Besides, "greenies" and "environmentalists" are whackos, right? So why change our ways?

Fear is sometimes the only way to reach the majority of the people, because they don't respond to generalistic warnings. Everyone responds to fear. It starts a "fight or flight" syndrome in our bodies, and while many may choose to flee, hide from the truth and hide their heads in the sand, most will choose to fight to make things better for future generations.

Invoking the "save the planet for your children" is advertising genius! Who doesn't want our children to have a great world to grow up in? Who doesn't want the best for our future grandchildren?

Yes, fear works. George W. Bush proved that.
Permalink | Report