Are communications and the media flawed or is the world ignorant to the subject?

From what I've noticed, almost all the people who post in the Fragile Earth forum are really concerned about climate change and the impacts that humans are having on the environment. Sometimes, it seems as if we're just a community with the mutual agreement that action must be taken to reverse our impacts while we confirm that idea over and over again with outside sources. I'm not saying that confirmation, more information or our mutual agreement is 'bad' in any way. I just believe that the information is not going out to a diverse or wide enough audience. People who post in the forum care about the subject and that's why they are here. Yet there is whole world out there who are not interested, who choose to ignore this subject or who are just not exposed to it.

Essentially, my question is what is the most effective way to communicate issues regarding the environment? Movies such as the Inconvenient Truth was only successful to a degree. Newspapers have consistent numbers of articles regarding the subject. Even the News sometimes report grand events such as oil spills or protests. Magazines which specialized on the subject, like the National Geographics, always put out a lot of informationa about climate change and the environment. But the readers are usually those who are already concerned with the subject so the best information is not going out to a wide enough audience. It seems like environmental issues have been 'put out there' in many ways and many times before. Is the way in which the information is communicated flawed or are the audience just ignorant to the subject?

As soon as we get rid of this climate change hysteria, the real environmentalism will start. I'm super serial.

I think that people in general are put off the subject because the proponents all seem overzealous, or that they simply lack the desire to change - or even that they think they have changed and are "Earth-friendly", but are not. Case in point? Biodiesel. Or hybrid cars. Or compact fluorescent lights; which are probably in the right direction, but simply not enough. Or the general distaste of nuclear power. Double standards are going on here, and until we lay down a clear path, people as a whole will not change.

By the way, reducing one's "carbon footprint" then calling oneself "green" is somewhat of an oxymoron, since extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will cause plants to grow like we have never seen before.

So pretty much, you think people in general are just too selfish to make any significant change? I agree with you that purchasing 'earth-friendly' products is not enough, but I think it's only not enough because not everyone is using them. If everyone started to use 'green' detergents, shampoo and so on, the effects CAN accumulate to something possibly great.

I also don't expect any drastic changes but just as long as people are starting to move in the right direction and keep doing so, I'm somewhat content. I wish that governments would take a more active role in this. They have the power to affect its citizens and to impose laws and regulations. But I guess banning harmful detergents, bleaches, shampoos and such will affect the economy too much for them to take it into consideration.

Sure you can say that carbon dioxide make plants 'grow like we have never seen before'. But remember that carbon dioxide contributes to acid rain.

Well, not quite. Many companies are buying into the "green" craze, and anything that could possibly be percieved as "environment friendly", regardless if that title stands up to scrutiny, gets plenty of business. So, I would say that the economy will not be damaged, only shifted.


As a matter of fact, it does not.

en.wikipedia.org...

I can see that the media has succeeded in villifying one of the biopshere's most essential ingredients.