Objective Climate Knowledge

The vast majority of participants believed in climate change and felt that something could be done about the problem. In addition, many of them constructed this knowledge as objectively ‘true’. This brings us back to some of the issues I considered at the beginning of the thesis:

Is science, in this case the science of climate change, a straightforward activity concerned with discovering impartial truth about the world and then disclosing this truth to politicians so that truth-based policies will follow? Or are there different ways of understanding the abilities and roles of science in society? (Hulme 2009, pp.74-75).

In chapter one I outlined my own epistemological position in terms of critical realism.

The physical processes of climate change are real. They occur independently of our interpretation of them. It is the social dimension of climate change that is constructed.

In chapter two I returned to these epistemological considerations when I talked about potential criticisms of a constructivist approach. I argued that, in the context of climate change we should adopt ‘an ontologically realist yet epistemologically relativist position’ (Jones 2002, p. 250). The thesis focuses on climate change as a social phenomenon.

However, the construction of scientific climate knowledge by the champions is still important for two reasons. First, it is a fundamental part of their understanding about climate change and the promotion of behaviour change. For many participants objective knowledge translated into ‘correct’ actions. Second, when the champions talked about their role as a communicator, many of them rejected the idea of objective knowledge and ‘correct’ behaviour. The latter point has important implications for the limitations of their role and will be discussed in detail in section 5.3.

The presumed objectivity of climate knowledge was initially evident in the way the participants talked about climate scepticism. One of the managers talked at length about the debates on climate change:

115

I listened to a sort of debate at the end of yesterday on the radio about climate change and you know it is that same shit all the time, you know, is this real and the climate, the natural cycle and all this kind of crap that no one disagrees with, erm...but whilst there might be this sort of anti-climate change debate still rumbling on there’s still the pro-climate change that isn’t really questionable now (G-manager, 927-934).

He acknowledges that there are non-believers but he does not accept this as an alternative position on the issue. Climate change is not questionable. Sceptics have not chosen to believe one thing over another. They have got their facts wrong.

Another champion expressed his frustration about those who did not believe in climate change. He said, ‘it’s really frustrating when you talk to somebody who, who says “oh it’s all, it’s a myth”, you know, you can prove that it’s not’ (C-6, 648-640).

Again, the champion takes an objective position on climate change. He knows it is

‘true’ because he has proof. The suggestion that climate change is a myth is incorrect.

In addition, the champions often took an objective position when they

considered why people did not believe in climate change. Sceptics were said to ‘have their fingers in their ears’ (C-9, 1047) or be ‘burying their head in the sand’ (C-6, 651). These people had not come to a reasoned conclusion about the evidence; they refused to listen to reason or to actually look at the evidence. Furthermore,

participants who had been sceptical in the past referred to their belief in climate change as a revelation. They talked about how they had ‘woken up’ (C-2, 564) and

‘seen the light’ (C-2, 681). One champion said, ‘it’s just ignorance ain’t it, if you don’t, if you don’t know anything you become ignorant and then all of a sudden your eyes open’ (A-5, 443-445). The champions had not simply changed their minds; they had progressed to an enlightened position.

Consequently, several of them perceived their role to be one of ‘enlightening people’ (A-3, 78) and helping them to ‘realise that we do need to change for the environment’ (A-9, 420-422). One champion said:

There’s a, there’s a lot of kind of, there’s a lot of scepticism that isn’t nece* isn’t based on those individual people actually having a great understanding themselves but more it’s almost like... the scepticism is contagious… one person who does think they know what they’re talking about says it to another person who says it to another person and, you know, it was important to me to just get the kind of message across and sort of get some of the ideas of where it actually comes from into people’s heads (B-6, 157-166).

116

Scepticism was rooted in a lack of knowledge and understanding. This champion felt it was his role to dispel these myths and help people to understand what is actually happening.

The objectivity of climate change knowledge was then reflected in the way participants talked about climate-protecting behaviour. If the knowledge was objectively true then this translated into correct and incorrect actions. For example, champions talked about people putting waste material in the ‘wrong’ bin. One champion talked about leftover food and said people ‘don’t necessarily put the food waste in the right place’ (C-2, 206-207). Another explained that when recycling facilities were first introduced employees frequently put waste in ‘the wrong boxes’

(A-2, 280). In these examples the champions are talking about the failure of people to place recyclable waste in a recycling bin. However, there is seldom a mention of

‘recycling’ and ‘landfill’ bins. Rather, these are ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ bins respectively.

One of the managers talked about the failure of the UK to implement widespread recycling. He compared this to the success in Germany where ‘everything’s done correctly’ (B-manager, 798). The system in Germany was not different; it was better.

They were addressing climate change in the ‘correct’ way.

Lahsen (2010) argues that the construction of climate change knowledge as

‘objective’ is a dominant position in current society. The IPCC is commonly perceived to be ‘providing objective knowledge’ (p.164). Yearley (2009) supports this position arguing that the IPCC ‘legitimated itself in terms of the scientific objectivity and impartiality of its members’ (p.396) . The champions drew on this scientific discourse in their explanations of climate change. The objectivity of climate science then informed us about what we ‘should’ be doing about climate change.

5.2 Constructing the Problem of Climate Change

When the participants talked about the science of climate change and their knowledge of the issue some of them did draw on discourses of scepticism and pessimism. However, the majority of the champions argued that climate change was true and that action could be worthwhile. Given the role of the champions and the fact that they had volunteered for the project, this was to be expected.

We therefore turn to the construction of the problem. Did the participants perceive climate change to be a fundamental flaw in neoliberalism or a small ‘glitch’

117

in the system? This is important because the construction of climate change as a problem will have an effect on how it is dealt with. If the problem is a small ‘glitch’

in the system this is likely to lead to reformist approaches. If we are dealing with a fundamental problem then this will require a fundamental solution. In section 5.2.1 I will argue that many of the participants did claim that climate change was a ‘major issue’. They appeared to be constructing the problem of climate change in quite a revolutionary way. However, although champions used words like ‘major’ and

‘fundamental’, this did not necessarily equate to a revolutionary construction of the problem. Many champions felt that we were already dealing with climate change in the context of neoliberalism. In sections 5.2.2 and 5.2.3 I will look at this construction in the context of society and business respectively.