Gathering from what I've read on this forum and heard from my colleague students participating in this Challenge, I feel as if most of us share the idea of climate change being as much as a personal issue as it is a public issue, but I consider this a sort of "bubble". When I leave this bubble and look at the entire society, it seems as if people don't do enough about climate change and I've been wondering why.

I think that one of the main causes of people not caring enough about climate change is because it feels... *distant*. It's not a palpable issue that affects you directly, right now and it's effects are seemingly low, so people don't consider it an issue of their concern: climate change to most people is *their* issue as much as initial public offerings on Wall Street are. Perhaps they consider climate change as an issue that governments, scientists and corporations should tackle, not "regular people". However, I'm not sure that it's true that people just feel distant from such a big issue. I don't want to believe that this is the reality, but my wishes seem unre alistic when I walk down a street and see people driving from their home to a bar that's 3 minutes of walking away from their home. Should we, as some sort of climate change activists, voice our opinions about this reckless behaviour -- would that be of any use? Or would that just be annoying? I'm not really sure.

While the biggest polluters are corporations and factories, I firmly believe that sustainability starts with a single person changing their habits to accommodate the environment instead of selfishly taking from it, and I believe that this idea should be a part of our core moral principles and taking into account children's development, I consider education to be one of the best ways to achieve that. Children should learn about climate change in schools and ways of coping with it and decreasing its negative effects, which would in turn raise them to be environment-friendly individuals in their adult life, shaping the society over a number of generations and slowly decreasing pollution from people and organisations. It's easier to teach children about such complex and important subjects than adults who sometimes go as far as to deny scientific facts.

Programmes such as ISCFC and I2Sea contribute to this idea greatly and should be applauded and implemented by as many schools as possible, but we can do more. Teaching students about important real-world issues such as climate change should be in every single national curriculum and unfortunately, we're far from that goal. Hopefully, with enough activism and good will from legislators, we'll get there.

Dear Mario - thank you for sharing your ideas and concerns!

You are very perceptive - social science research indicates exactly what you suspect: that one of the main impediments to action on climate change is that it feels distant.  Part of this may actually be a defense mechanism on the part of many people, since the problem is so big that it is easy to 'put it off' and concentrate on things that people feel that they can control.

Therefore, social scientists say that to this idea of climate change as a distant problem, we need to make it more near.  One example would be to connect global patterns to local issues (like wildfires, or droughts, or -in croatia perhaps- coastal flooding).   

One always needs to match communicating the seriousness with solutions, and lowering your carbon footprint is one such solution, but there are many others, including those that work on community or country levels. 

What approaches can you think of that might make climate change and ocean acidification feel more real and near to people in Croatia?

It's interesting to think of climate change denial as a defense mechanism and as you mentioned social science research, I've done some research myself, digging up papers on climate change denial and found some intriguing claims.

"Cool dudes: The denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States" by Aaron M. McCright and Riley E. Dunlap claims that conservative white males are more likely to be climate change deniers, especially if they self-report understanding global warming. The authors furthermore suggest it's an example of identity-protective cognitions, the tendency of persons to try to protect their identity, considering their opinions as a crucial part of it (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar … 801100104X)

However, you do say that making it a _near_ problem would increase awareness and that seems to be right. In her book "Living in Denial: Climate Change, Emotions, and Everyday Life" Kari Marie Norgaard (https://books.google.hr/books?hl=hr&lr= … U6HzVZ&sig =zEDKYjEcwYHoJ4wckSYLmcMvO6U&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=climate%20change%20denial&f=false)  describes climate change-related lawsuits in Mississippi:

"And although one cannot tie weather events per se to climate change, the fact that increased hurricane intensity is one clear outcome of climate change has led residents in Mississippi, who are now homeless as a result of Hurricane Katrina, to file a lawsuit against oil companies for their role in climate change."

But later on in the same book, the author shows us it's not always the case by pointing to the example of an unnamed community in Norway that didn't respond to the disastrous effects of climate change on their homes and their reasons as to why are staggering:

"They said they care deeply about global warming, but their concern did not translate into any forward motion. As they thought about the problem, they seemed to run into brick walls, characterised by lack of clear knowledge, seemingly irreversible causes, and a problem with no real solution. (...) Our respondents always seemed to want to move the topic from global warming itself to more familiar topics, such as moral deterioration, where at least they felt on firmer ground (Immerwahr 1999)"

So, while connecting climate change to local issues is important and does help in some cases, it seems as making those connections is not the perfect solution - we need to combine it with other ways of raising awareness. In Croatia, for instance, there aren't many cases of wildfires, droughts or coastal flooding, but we've had horrible river floods, destroying homes and whole towns. Here's a few pictures of what happened in Gunja (May, 2014): http://i.imgur.com/J91mgxF.png

My home town was flooded by Orljava as well -- my godparents' house was flooded almost up to the attic, but people didn't seem to connect it to climate change: it was the river doing rivery things to them. I'm not sure if this is the fault of the issue not being communicated clearly enough or just people not thinking deeply about such issues, but I can't wrap my head around not thinking deeply about why your home was destroyed by a river.

Either way, I think the key to battling climate change denial is being vocal about climate change as that's what the "dark side" is doing about denial: they're basically screaming their opinions and we're being quiet about it. This includes media, education and just talking to your neighbours about climate change when they say "What global warming? It's so cold!".

fascinating stuff!  I will think about this a bit and reply "tomorrow" ... Seattle time

Sorry for the delay in replying! 

I am not sure that the Norway example is an exception, or perhaps it is -as the saying goes- an exception that proves the rule.  Let me explain.

As I wrote above, the social science research I have read makes at least two related points: one is that people will be much more likely to confront issues of climate change if the problem feels near, but they will also only do so (in most cases) if they have a solution that is tangible and ready. 

In the Norway case, they faced an issue that was near, surely, but, as you quote above

So by my reading, you had here only one of those two essential elements to taking action.

That is really too bad about the flooding in your town, and the damage caused to your godparents ' place.  Unfortunately, the science says that these kinds of events will only get more frequent and serious.

I agree with you that silence and waiting is not an option, but responding to the noise created by those who would deny the reality of climate change should be done in a way that adheres to the science. I trust that truth will win out eventually; hopefully sooner than later.