I have a confession to make. Despite dedicating my career to the cause of promoting the low carbon economy, I still occasionally wonder if climate change is really being caused by mankind’s actions. Have the scientists got it right? Can we truly measure how much impact we are having on global climate patterns? Is the current emphasis on creating a low carbon economy & sustainable way of life a waste of time?

But then, is this relevant?

Regardless of our belief in the causes of climate change, or even its actual existence, there are other known factors to take into account. Humanity’s constant growth, industrialisation and urbanisation of the planet are causing irrevocable loss in bio-diversity1. Oil production is approaching its zenith, with the UK Energy Research Centre recently stating: ‘a peak in conventional oil production before 2030 appears likely and there is a significant risk of a peak before 2020’2.

These two facts alone should make a very convincing case for the need for a sustainable and low carbon approach to life. But now let’s factor back in the possibility of anthropomorphic climate change by way of a simple risk assessment.3

	Action taken	No action taken
Anthropogenic Climate Change is real	Worldwide climate change possibly averted, new sustainable economic approach, renewable energy solutions developed to replace oil, a slow-down (cessation?) in the depletion of biodiversity	Continued (accelerated) loss in biodiversity, massive economic & political upheaval as consequence of oil depletion and effects of climate change.
Anthropogenic Climate Change is not real	New sustainable economic approach, renewable energy solutions developed to replace oil, a slow-down (cessation?) in the depletion of biodiversity	No replacement for oil with consequent economic upheaval making the current crisis seem insignificant, & continued (accelerated) loss in biodiversity

Looking at the options presented above, taking no action to counter the potential effects of climate change is madness. And if presented in this way, even the most stringent opponent of man-made climate change should surely acquiesce to need for action. The stakes are too high to procrastinate and argue over whether the vast majority of scientists have got their predictions wrong or right, action is needed now.

So, perhaps this is how we should present the facts to the population. Not as a matter of belief, but as a matter of insurance. We know from research (our own included) that whilst awareness of climate change is now widespread, attitudes towards climate change – its causes, whether we should act, how we should act, and whether our actions can make a difference – is still quite polarised4. Indeed our Environmental Choices™ research shows that the subject matter of climate change & issues related to it can provoke strong negative reactions dependant on an individual’s beliefs and occupational situation.5

But then consider insurance. We take out voluntary insurance against our pets’ health, our own health, the possibility of redundancy, a whole raft of issues. Not because we believe that these problems will occur, but because we wish to counter the potential impact of the problems if they were to occur. And insurance is adopted by people from all walks of life, with very differing outlooks. Surely the impacts of climate change are worth insuring against?

1 DIVERSITAS Open Science Forum, Cape Town 10^th Oct 2009 http://ictsd.net/i/news/biores/56994/

² The Global Oil Depletion Report, 8^th Oct 2009: http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/support/Global%20Oil%20Depletion

³ Apologies to Greg Craven for my paraphrasing of his incisive risk assessment model, but I happen to completely agree with it. For a more expansive explanation I urge you to view his highly successful video on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ or read his book: “What’s the Worst That Could Happen? A Rational Response to the Climate Change Debate”

⁴
http://www.haddock-research.com/environmental_choices/EC2008_1a_Attitudes

⁵
http://www.haddock-research.com/environmental_choices/EC2008_2c_Passions , http://www.haddock-research.com/environmental_choices/EC2008_1a_Attitudes, & http://www.haddock-research.com/environmental_choices/EC2008_3a_Power_Generation

Welcome to my ‘Climate Citizen’ blog. Named after one of the groups that compromise a 3-way attitudinal model created as part of our analysis of the Environmental Choices™ 2008 data set.

What does it mean to be a ‘climate citizen’? From our 1st Environmental Choices™ report (1.a Attitudes (towards climate change)) the definition we provide is as follows:

‘As a prerequisite to being a Climate Citizen, you would believe that climate change is caused by human activity, that it is a serious threat and that we should focus on changing the way we do things now to tackle this. All Climate Citizens believe these things. There is some variability in how much climate change would impact the decisions you make in your life, and your personal interest in climate change – though, on average, it would be more than other groups.’

This group definition is in contrast to the 2 other attitudinal segmentations – ‘Mild Greens‘ & ‘Sceptics/Uninvolveds‘- who, as the naming suggests, meet different criteria along a sliding scale of attitudes regarding climate change. These 3 groups were created by applying statistical cluster analysis to answers given by nationally representative samples of over 1,000 American, English & Canadian respondents (over 3,000 in total) to a set of 5 questions regarding climate change. (For more information please download a free summary of the report from our website www.haddock-research.com or visit http://www.haddock-research.com/segmentation )

So, I regard myself as a ‘Climate Citizen‘. But, how does that impact on my lifestyle? Does it resonate in my life in the same way that it does other ‘Climate Citizens‘? Clearly the answer to this would be ‘no’ – how each individual’s relationship with climate change manifests itself will be tempered by their specific situation, desires, and aspirations. But, ‘Climate Citizens‘ do exhibit certain traits that can be utilised for the commercialisation & marketing of low carbon products or communication of low carbon propositions or policies. Some of which, and their ramifications, I will address in future blog posts. But for now our categorisation of ‘Climate Citizens‘, ‘Mild Greens‘ and ‘Sceptics/Uninvolveds‘ can be seen to be important for two reasons: firstly, it demonstrates the highly segmented relationship society has with climate change, and secondly, as a litmus test for any low carbon products or propositions or for any products that are to be marketed on their ‘green’ credentials.