M.I.A.

I believe what is missing from the debate/discussion on climate change and the role of social conflict, is the perspective of the average global citizen. We have spoken of the need to educate and focus on the serious issue of climate change, yet no decisive steps have been made to put these needs into action? While it is fairly easy to persuade those who strongly agree or disagree that climate change is an issue that needs to be addressed, how about those who are truly ignorant or indifferent? As many in this discussion have pointed out, those who are informed regarding climate change feel pretty strongly one way or the other and those entities are controlling the information and debate on this issue. However, to effect real change, those entities must start including global citizens that have no opinion on the issue. Why?

Some say that true power comes from the ability to create a desired outcome from a situation. It seems that at this point, there are two differing, yet strongly held positions regarding the relevance of climate change and therefore, not much is getting accomplished other than a debate over whether it's real or not. The informational power that these two sides hold can be used to inform others. If these two veiwpoints were to start a grassroots campaign to inform and educate more people, perhaps resolution can come about. I see the role of conflict engagment specialists as vital to this process. The importance is not to persuade other to a particular viewpoint, but to educate and inform as to the issue overall. As such, our ability to remain neutral, can assist both sides in communicating their interests and achieving their goals in order to jumpstart the process of including more individuals, communities, countries and nations in the discussion of the importance of climate change. Once people are educated, they can then decide what side of the issue they want to go to. It should not matter whether people believe climate change is real, not real, or a natural, inevitable event as long as they are involved and willing to work toward a resolution.

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Timothy Siemer on August 8, 2010 at 7:50pm

Nicolle, as always your posts give valuable insight into the problem. I could not agree more with you point about the average “Joe.” How much does your average person actually know about climate change itself and the consequences produced by climate change. Even in a nation as blessed as the US I feel that your average citizen actually know little about climate change and as a result votes accordingly. If people were highly educated on climate change (in a democracy) they would vote differently, and therefore the representatives democracies send to climate summits such as Copenhagen would work differently to resolve the issues. I think that there is a major trust issue for the global citizen surrounding climate change. Due to the lack of transparency and the extensive peer review surrounding climatology I personally don’t feel like I have access to strong data. (Although I will freely admit that I have very little free time to spend trying to find it’) I most certainly believe nothing presented by FOX/CNN/NBC as I feel the news channels today push an agenda rather than news. Where can I go to find information that I know I can trust. I’m afraid that by the time the world confronts this problem it will be because Floridians and Bangladeshis have several feet of water in their basements (figuratively speaking). At that time it may be too late to prevent some of the societal collapses foretold by researchers such as Jared Diamond. I think that the only way to create the needed trust is through Identification Based Trust (MacFarlane 2004, 91). Identification Based Trust can help both sides come together on the issue of climate change. If those opposite sides of the debate look at their positions in a less ridged manner perhaps a relationship can be established. Both sides need to take some type and analyze what is driving the other party. In this way both sides of the climate change debate can then identify with each other. (Macfarlane 2004, 91-92) For example, Dr Cloke talked about how much of the third world is dependent on energy production using techniques that have high CO2 emissions. Rather than telling them “change your ways” wouldn’t it be better to provide solutions? What if in return for exchanging sources of power perhaps a first world country could provide the expertise to create clean power. This would create jobs and markets for goods which would help offset the cost both parties. This is a simple example, but there are ways to work solutions for payment. For example look the at the Panama Canal. In return for building the canal the US was allowed to “rent” the canal zone from Panama for 99 years. This resulted in the establishment of Panama as a key player in Central America which will continue as long as the canal is in use.

Nicolle, I also enjoyed your discussion on the educational aspect of climate change. Both sides need to be educated, and I believe soften their position. Neither side of this debate is “right” or “wrong” because many people associate climate change with beliefs and that is something that no debate can change! Rather both sides need to take some time to educated themselves and then work towards a resolution. I think that a solution will be found when neither side gets exactly what they want, but at this time the debate is too polarized. People seem to want things to go entirely their way and as resolutionists we know that is not how lasting solutions are developed. Only when someone finally develops a solution that takes into account the important interests from both sides will a true solution be found.