If you look at the range of global threats we face today with a significant probability of occurrence:
- - Climate change
- Peak oil
- Bird Flu + Other pandemics
- Demographic Timebomb
- Water depletion
- West > East superpower transition
- Global Recession
- CFC/Ozone Hole
- Nuclear/biological war
- MegaTsunami
- 1) the threat is accepted by experts as very certain
2) achievable solutions routes have been outlined
3) those routes are acceptable to the general population
To the politician viewing such a list of 'disasters', each threat needs to get in line behind the many smaller threats that cause concern every day. In general a terrorist bomb has a greater mindshare in the general publics' views than climate change. Someone who comes up to the politician saying that this is a significant threat will get heard; but when they start to state that massive change of society is required all they are in fact saying to the politician is that the threat exists, and they don't know how to deal with it. Threats stated without credible routes to solution actually decrease the notice and action that will be taken. Why worry about something you can do nothing about?
Peak oil is falling into the same trap.
Many quite rightly say that the threat is real, and that given human nature (eg lying) it's probably much closer than thought. However by not presenting it in a way that has a credible solution that fulfils all of the above three points, those same people make it less likely that action can and will be taken.
To remove doubt:
- - die off
- artificial population reduction
- sustainable living = arable existance
- contraction & convergence
- significant carbon taxing of individuals (probably)
The question I pose to people here is: how can you present both the problem, and a solution that meets the three points - even if it's not a total solution? What is needed is an encapsulated combination that makes a viable whole and that then can be taken up and implemented by the politicians.
- - Alternative fuels get a bad press here, but they do meet the above requirements.
- "Reducing our dependency on those nasty arabs" may not be a pretty message, but it is acceptable and allows movement in the right direction.
- More nuclear power to produce a better environment is similarly acceptable, if after a moment of confusing paradox.