Be the change you wish to see

In this post from a couple of days ago, I brought in evidence to show that I am not the only one puzzled that people don't get the connection between climate change and meat eating.  And later, in my rejoinder to the comments, I added, "Scientists rarely ever are able to shape people's habits."

The conversation continues.  At least here, thanks especially to the commenters--even the occasional ones--I don't feel like I am talking with myself, which is what usually happens in the classroom ;)

This opinion essay at the Scientific American explores what ought to be done:

Social science can point to effective ways communicators can help the public distinguish fact from untruth, and hopeful understanding of how science might sidestep contention in the first place.

Good luck on social scientists helping ways in which the public can "distinguish fact from untruth."

But, it is not as if the public is not really in the dark about the lifestyle aspects of climate change, though they may not be well informed about the meat connection.  Pew Research Center notes this from its global survey:

Even in the US.  Yes:

Even in the U.S., a country known for its technological advances, only 23% believe technology alone can solve climate change. 

If so, then how would one go about convincing people that they have to make some serious lifestyle changes?

Here's where things get complicated.  I suppose it can easily become a game theory scenario where people think it is a great idea--as long as others do it.  But then everybody waits around for others to implement changes!

As that grand old man from the old country said:

If we could change ourselves, the tendencies in the world would also change. As a man changes his own nature, so does the attitude of the world change towards him. ... We need not wait to see what others do.

Horsing around about Chernobyl

My car is old, and the odometer shows quite a few digits.  The dishwasher at home has problems, but it works.  A couple of undershirts (the banians, in the old country language) are a tad frayed.  The pair of brown shoes that I wear to work has the beginnings of holes on the under side.

But, I have no plans to replace any of these, and more, unless the situation compels me to.  For a simple reason--I am crazily concerned about the environment in my own way.

As long as the car gets me around reliably, as long as the dishwasher works, as long as ... replacing them will simply mean material consumption, which is one of the biggest threats to the environment for the future generations.  As I often joke with students, it is really not my problem but theirs, yet I am doing my best to make sure I don't worsen things for them and their children.

On Earth Day, I read this short commentary in the Scientific American about nuclear energy.  The subtitle says it all: "How an award-winning filmmaker who created the definitive Earth Day documentary learned to love nuclear power in an age of global warming."  Of course, I have blogged in plenty that summarily excluding nuclear power from the energy discussions was a huge mistake. But, that ship has sailed, as they say.

The opposition to nuclear power ramped up after the disaster at Chernobyl.  The accident happened thirty years ago--on April 26, 1986.  To mark the thirty years, and in time for Earth Day, National Geographic has a lengthy report.

This year will mark the half-life of cesium-137, one of the most widespread and dangerous of the radionuclides released. That means the amount of cesium has dropped by about half in the 30 years since the accident, decaying into the short-lived barium-137m.

An important milestone in understanding what happens the day after.

Marina Shkvyria watches for animal tracks as she walks toward an abandoned village in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone, the area sealed to the public after a nuclear power plant exploded here 30 years ago, on April 26, 1986. Spotting one, she crouches and runs her finger over the toes of a wolf print in the loose sand.
It may seem strange that Chernobyl, an area known for the deadliest nuclear accident in history, could become a refuge for all kinds of animals—from moose, deer, beaver, and owls to more exotic species like brown bear, lynx, and wolves—but that is exactly what Shkvyria and some other scientists think has happened. Without people hunting them or ruining their habitat, the thinking goes, wildlife is thriving despite high radiation levels.

In our popular imagination, the forbidden zone is not one that we would think as something that supports plants and animals, right?  Yet, it is now a thriving wildlife refuge.  Radiation "is not holding back Chernobyl wildlife populations."

The combined territory of the exclusion zones in Ukraine and Belarus caused by the Chernobyl disaster is a little more than 1,600 square miles, making it one of the largest truly wild sanctuaries in Europe.
But what it means for animals to be rebounding in Chernobyl has become the scientific equivalent of a boxing match, with the latest blow delivered Monday when Beasley put forward a study in the journal Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment.

Beasley's following comment is pretty darn interesting:

“I would argue that for many of those species [the effects of radiation], even if they’re there, probably aren’t enough to suppress populations to the point where they can’t sustain themselves,” says Beasley. In the zone, “humans have been removed from the system and this greatly overshadows any of those potential radiation effects.”
Essentially, this means that human populations have a bigger negative impact than radiation.
... While Beasley stops short of calling the landscape “ruined” by radioactive contamination, he knows that it will be there for centuries or millennia, in the case of plutonium. But, without humans around, his findings show that the wildlife seems to be doing all right.

We humans are a much bigger threat to the wildlife than radiation is!  Now, that's plenty to think about on this Earth Day.

Caption at the Source:
The Przewalski's horse nearly went extinct, but in an effort to save the species it was introduced into the area around Chernobyl in 1998 and to other reserves worldwide. Without humans living in the area, the horse population has been increasing.