Livescience is on a tear today.  This one is so full of bunk I can’t determine where the profound stuff stops.  And, since “a substantial representation” is required, I’ll just give them credit and stick the whole thing here:

Three-quarters of Americans think climate change is an important issue, a recent Pew Research Center survey found. But they don’t see it as an immediate threat and so aren’t keen to act to change the status quo. The issue ranked last on a list of 20 compelling issues, behind things like terrorism and the economy.

Now a task force set up by the American Psychological Association concludes that getting people to “go green”  requires policymakers, scientists and marketers to look at psychological barriers to change and what leads people to action.

Why are psychologists delving into this issue?

The main influences of climate change are behavioral – population growth and energy consumption, the group said in a statement.

“What is unique about current global climate change is the role of human behavior,” said task force chair Janet Swim of Pennsylvania State University. “We must look at the reasons people are not acting in order to understand how to get people to act.”

The task force said several factors are to blame for the lack of public urgency:

• Uncertainty – Research has shown that uncertainty over climate change reduces the frequency of “green” behavior.

• Mistrust – Evidence shows that most people don’t believe the risk messages of scientists or government officials.

• Denial – A substantial minority of people believe climate change is not occurring or that human activity has little or nothing to do with it, according to various polls.

• Undervaluing Risks – A study of more than 3,000 people in 18 countries showed that many people believe environmental conditions will worsen in 25 years. While this may be true, this thinking could lead people to believe that changes can be made later.

• Lack of Control – People believe their actions would be too small to make a difference and choose to do nothing.

• Habit – Ingrained behaviors are extremely resistant to permanent change while others change slowly. Habit is the most important obstacle to pro-environment behavior, according to the report.

The task force has some recommendation to change things.

People are more likely to use energy-efficient appliances if they are provided with immediate energy-use feedback. Devices that show people how much energy and money they’re conserving can yield energy savings of 5 percent to 12 percent, according to research.

“Behavioral feedback links the cost of energy use more closely to behavior by showing the costs immediately or daily rather than in an electric bill that comes a month later,” said Swim.

Citing other studies, the task for said efforts to get people to weatherize their homes should include strong financial incentives and attention to customer convenience and quality assurance.

I then fired off a comment for the article.  Since they don’t seem to allow pingbacks, I’ll post it here as well:

I think this article sucks.  What exactly do they mean “go green”?  I built the largest house I could afford.  Actually more than I could afford.  That according to them is not “going green”.  This house uses less electricity than a 20 year old house 1/4th its size.  It is just that efficient.  Did I do it to be “green”?  Hell no.  I did it to save me money.  My next car I’m waiting for a totally gas-free vehicle.  Am I going “green”?  Hell no, there is nothing supporting the “green” movement.  I’m doing it because I am thoroughly convinced gas is a finite resource that financially benefits radical extremists who like to behead journalists.  Now, according to those psychologists I am in denial, believe in a flat Earth, etc. etc. etc.  However, I am more green I bet than any of them are.  This debate is not about “going green”, it’s about publicly saying you’re green or not.  It’s the 21st century Spanish Inquisition.  So, the fact that these learned psychologists totally miss the psychology of what’s happening right now tells me what it was they were looking for before they did their “research”.  Now, I wouldn’t have the time to waste reading and responding to this biased psycho-babble if it weren’t for the fact I am suffering through the coldest damn summer in the history of mankind ( our records go back to 1995 ).  So, EXCUSE ME if I do not feel the urge to run around proclaiming Al Gore is our savior and totally dismissing the fact that almost every single major point he made in his for-profit movie is wrong.  And, as an added bonus for those psychologists, since they are much wiser than all of us, I’ll let them change yet the third spring bulb to go bad in my super-efficient house.  All they have to do is carefully contain all the poisonous metals in the bulb so the mercury doesn’t destroy the environment and kill us all in the effort to save .1 degrees.  In order to save the planet from this obvious threat of mercury poisoning due to all these “green” bulbs going bad, I’m going to use the old bulbs for a while until they figure out how to make a “green” bulb that lasts longer than a couple of months and doesn’t contain poisonous chemicals.  If those learned psychologists had explored the option of “there is no way to be confidently green”, then I would have felt better about their result.  Now, how many of those psychologists bought foreign cars with the Cash for Clunkers program in an effort to save Detroit from not going green fast enough?

Any of them wonder how much damage melting down all those clunkers will do to the environment?  Give me another green one.  Market forces will make things greener.  Lynch mobs only fester resentment.  Any psychologist could tell you that.

The bottom line is the psychologists aren’t concerned with people being green or not.  They’re researching why people won’t proclaim loudly they’re green or not.  These college professors went into their article with the assumption people are not going green.  THEN sought to understand why.

People are going green whether they want to or not.  People are going green without proclaiming it loudly.  The market forces simply dictate people go green.  There is no need to “accept” climate change.  I think the whole man-made therefore man’s-fault therefore man’s-ability-to-stop therefore man-is-god complex is bunk.  We can mitigate man’s impact, but there are forces a LOT more powerful than man and we have no way of dealing with those things.  So, going green is nice, but it’s not the end-all be-all of climate change.  I’d rather figure out how man can exist in the climate he’s given as it changes than pretend I’m God and can dictate the ideal climate.  It just ain’t gonna happen.  That should give those college professors a stroke.  But, the fact is, I’m green.  I’m VERY green.  I’m so green I heat and cool a 5,500 square foot house for about $200 a month.  That $200 a month IS the measure of greenness.  It IS the bottom line.  That is how much of a drain I am on Earth’s resources.  It is the measure of how much waste I’m putting back into the atmosphere.  I am septic.  No energy or chemicals are used to dispose of my waste.  Therefore, my monthly water bill is about $30.  OK, professors, raise your hands, how many of you all are greener than I am?  Now, how many of you professors are going to look inward as to why you guys are so slow to go green when anti-climate change flat Earthers such as myself are running green circles around you guys?

The answer is quite simple and does not take a degree in psychology to come to ( although I do actually have some psychology experience ).

Words are a hell of a lot easier than action.

It’s quite simple to run around yelling that everyone ELSE has to go green and exploring why everyone ELSE isn’t green enough.

But……

PS, quickie addendum: Why is it that in so many articles on Livescience that the source quotes some huge number supporting climate change, in this case 75%, but the comments are always a huge number opposing?