The vast majority of the participants did believe in climate change. They referred to it as ‘irrefutable’ (C-2, 839) and ‘completely un-debatable’ (B-6, 440).
Based on their knowledge of the problem, many participants talked about the
111
evidence surrounding climate change. One champion said:
I’ve looked at the evidence I’ve read, I’ve read the papers and that kind of thing and it just seems, you know, it seems, the evidence seems so overwhelming that, you know, I think it seems pretty clear to me that if we’re not, if we’re not causing it, I don’t see any evidence to say that we’re not (B-6, 448-453).
The reference to ‘overwhelming’ evidence reiterates the champion’s earlier point about the issue being ‘completely un-debatable’. There was no question in his mind about whether or not the science of climate change is ‘true’. This was a running theme in almost all of the interviews.
However, discourses of scepticism and pessimism were drawn upon by some of the participants. First, there was some scepticism about the issue. One champion said, ‘I’m a bit sceptical of the whole... of the whole sort of erm man’s impact on climate change’ (D-1, 400-402). Another admitted that he was ‘not a great believer in climate change’ (C-8, 223). In addition, some participants talked about previous scientific predictions about the environment:
I was aware of those issues [of climate change], in my own mind a little bit sceptical because there was something called a, er... Club of Rome report...many years ago which predicted that the world was going to run out of all its resources by year 2000 and we haven’t (B-5, 740-745).
Science is not infallible, ‘we do make mistakes’ (C-5, 452-453). These individuals did not explicitly reject the science of climate change, but they did point out that science was capable of drawing the wrong conclusions because this has been the case in the past.
Ereaut and Segnit (2006) distinguish between several discourses of
scepticism, including ‘rhetorical scepticism’. ‘Rhetorical scepticism’ is described as
‘a non-expert discourse, but one that attacks the expert discourse as “bad science”’
(p.16). Most of the champions who questioned claims about climate change were dubious about the science. This was not strong enough to be an ‘attack’, but it is most reflective of this discourse. In fact, the two champions who questioned the science of climate change both decided that, on balance, they did subscribe to the consensus view: ‘There probably is something going on’ (B-5, 763-764). The other champion said, ‘ultimately I do believe that there is a change going on at the moment and, erm, that we are... responsible for that change’ (C-5, 453-455).
112
In addition, many of the respondents found the question about belief in climate change rather amusing. The response from one champion was, ‘(laughter) yes, I do believe in it as it were’ (C-9, 815). Another said, ‘yeah, yes I do believe it so I’m not a sceptic (laughter)’ (A-7, 462). The notion of being a ‘sceptic’ was
considered to be quite funny. In an interview with one champion I mentioned the fact that I had met other champions who did not believe in climate change. The participant was somewhat dubious about my claim: ‘what like they don’t believe it exists’ (B-2, 414)? When I confirmed that this was indeed the case he responded with laughter and asked, ‘really’ (B-2, 416)? It was difficult for him to imagine that a fellow champion did not believe in climate change.
This bemusement about belief was also personally directed at the non-believers. Champion D-1 was part of the focus group and when I asked about belief in climate change the other participants laughed, shook their heads and pointed at this individual. The manager confided to me, ‘he’s a non-believer’ (D-manager, 401). The champion did not appear to take offense and he was prepared to argue his case.
However, his views were clearly treated with some disdain by the other people in the group. To the rest of the champions belief in climate change was simply a given. The other champion who was overtly sceptical concurred with this response. He said that his views were a ‘running joke’ to his colleagues (C-8, 224).
It is not surprising that the participants in the study would believe in the problem of climate change. They had volunteered to take on the role and the vast majority of them had a prior commitment to climate-protecting behaviour. Moreover, the fact that so many of them were ‘believers’ made it even more difficult for them to comprehend that some champions were not. They accepted that sceptics existed in society, but they were surprised that this should be the case for their fellow
champions. The two champions who were sceptical argued that they were concerned about other environmental issues and that climate-protecting behaviour was good for the environment more generally.
In chapter three I also outlined a discourse of pessimism. Hulme (2008) claims that the dominant tone around climate change ‘is one of danger and catastrophe’
(p.6). This discourse embodies a ‘strong sense of “giving up” on measures such as education and a definite degree of pessimism about the possibility of mitigating
113
climate change’ (Hobson and Niemeyer 2011, p.962). Climate change is too a big a problem for us to deal with and therefore action is futile.
This is another discourse that played a minimal role in the interviews. For example, one participant acknowledged that this position was common for many people in society: ‘Some people will just, that’s too scary… I’m just gona blank that out or that’s so scary God I’m really depressed now I’m just going to go have a holiday abroad to cheer myself up’ (D-manager, 437-442). However, it was not a common position among the participants in the study. The vast majority of
respondents talked about the importance of making an effort to tackle climate change.
Action was not futile and individual behaviour change was an important part of addressing the issue. One champion said, ‘I appreciate that what I do is, is part of you know a huge, huge issue but if anyb* everybody just changes one thing, you know, surely that’s a help’ (B-3, 449-451). Another champion expressed similar sentiments:
‘it’s a big problem and it needs everyone to chip in’ (C-9, 856). These champions did not underestimate the ‘enormity of the challenge’ (Hobson and Niemeyer 2011, p.962), but they rejected the argument that ‘the problem is just too big for us to take on’ (Ereaut and Segnit 2006, p.14). Something could be done to address the problem of climate change and everyone should be acting now to do something about it.
When I asked about the success of the champion scheme itself, there were several participants who expressed a sense of futility. One manager described the frequent despondency that he perceived in his champions: ‘“Too hard”, it was our catch phrase, “too hard”’ (D-manager, 566). Many of the champions expressed similar sentiments. One champion explained that, ‘sometimes you feel like you’re knocking your head against a brick wall’ (A-7, 442-443). Another argued that, ‘it is difficult when you keep going on and on about things and you just keep hitting a brick wall all the time’ (C-8, 648-649). However, these participants still refused to engage in a discourse of hopelessness. They did not ‘exclude the possibility of real action or agency’ by themselves or those around them (Ereaut and Segnit 2006, p.14).
The manager added, ‘but what do you do? You know, you kind of just, you can’t just walk away from it all’ (D, manager, 566-568). The champions also refused to admit defeat arguing that there was ‘no reason to stop’ (A-7, 443).
114
The role of the champions was to encourage action on climate change. It was their job to instil a sense of efficacy in those around them. Often this was a challenge but the champions continued to believe that action was not futile.