7 smarter ways to talk about climate change

Feb 9, 2016

People are not very good at talking about climate change, not even climate activists — or so says Norwegian psychologist and economist Per Espen Stoknes. Understanding the science of climate change isn’t enough. We also need to understand the social science of how people react to certain messages.

Stoknes’ book What We Think About (When We Try Not To Think About) Global Warming is a manual for telling better climate-change stories. With chapter titles like “Stand Up For Your Depressions!” and “Make It Simple To Choose Right,” it distills a great body of social science to a handful of accessible lessons. From why we’ve traditionally gotten stuck when we’ve tried to talk about the climate to what we should actually do about it, Stoknes provides clear examples with a healthy dose of psychotherapeutic understanding.

Stoknes came by the Grist office to share some of what he’s learned. Here are our favorite takeaways:

1. Don’t use the word “denier”

“I think the words ‘denial’ and ‘deniers’ are overused. The original psychological concept [of denial] goes back to Sigmund Freud and the discovery of the unconscious, starting with how the Viennese people were repressing their sexuality and coming [up] with diseases and symptoms due to that. Now it’s being used as a pejorative, a synonym of being ignorant, stupid, and immoral. Using it is counter-productive.”

2. Pick a good frame for the story — like human health

“If we frame the climate as a health issue, we know that works because people care about their health. If you have climate here, and health back there, people don’t really notice it. If you shift that ground, then it’s more about health and not as much about the climate.”

3. Appeal to self-interest

“There are billions and billions to be made in [the energy sector] inevitably over the coming two decades. America can lead that or can be dragged backwards into it. So what role does American business play in this transition? Like in the transition from horse carriages to cars: Do you want to produce horse carriages or be in the car business? When Google throws billions of dollars at Nest, it’s not because they want to be kind. You draw people into a commercial discussion and, again, climate is the background.”

[Continued via name of source below]

40 comments on “7 smarter ways to talk about climate change

  • @OP – People are not very good at talking about climate change, not even climate activists — or so says Norwegian psychologist and economist Per Espen Stoknes.

    He appears to be among those who are not very good at it!

    Understanding the science of climate change isn’t enough. We also need to understand the social science of how people react to certain messages.

    We certainly do, when trying to spread accurate information or counter propagandist disinformation. This however requires a depth of understanding if the subject of climatology, which this author seems to lack.

    “I think the words ‘denial’ and ‘deniers’ are overused. The original psychological concept [of denial] goes back to Sigmund Freud

    Whose work has been largely debunked!

    Now it’s being used as a pejorative, a synonym of being ignorant, stupid, and immoral.

    Which is exactly what those spreading disinformation about man-made pollution and climate are – if we add on explicit dishonesty in the case of industry sponsored propagandist liars!

    Using it is counter-productive.”

    It is only counter-productive when used in a confrontational manner with innocent gullibles who have been misled.

    When used to describe the assertive ignorant and the wilful liars, to third parties, is is highly appropriate.



    Report abuse

  • 7 smarter ways to talk about climate change

    Could suggest a much better title!

    6 really dumb ways to strawman climate science and environmental science, plus one appeal to greedy self-interest! – with a bit of doubt-mongering ignorance about future prospects and key issues



    Report abuse

  • Pick a good frame for the story — like human health

    “If we frame the climate as a health issue, we know that works because people care about their health. If you have climate here, and health back there, people don’t really notice it. If you shift that ground, then it’s more about health and not as much about the climate.”

    . . . . and you have changed the subject and missed the points about climate altogether!

    Human health is one of the factors in climate change, where there will be winners and losers so the overall relationship between future health and climate is as clear as mud!

    Those whose lands turn to desert, or who are regularly subjected to flooding or imported tropical pests and diseases, can be regarded as being down-graded.
    Those nearer the poles may actually have a more pleasant and productive climate in some places.

    Health is an issue which is likely to be unpredictable, so lacks opportunities to make clear arguments to convince the public of long-term, required actions.



    Report abuse

  • I’ve found that there’s a surprisingly high degree of straight forward old fashioned ignorance about climate change.

    For instance, many people say nothing, but show an expression of astonishment when told about the evidence about historical weather conditions and atmosphere found in ice cores; they often start their argument against global warming by referring to the weather ten or twenty years ago, and pointing out that it hasn’t really changed.

    But they simply do not know that ice cores contain evidence dating back as far as 420,000 years; and it shows that we are living through the fastest period of warming ever, and that it has gone beyond all previous parameters, and as yet shows no sign of slowing.

    So, what about substituting the term denial with igrorance? After all, how can the evidence for anything be denied without counterevidence?



    Report abuse

  • Stafford Gordon
    Feb 9, 2016 at 9:38 am

    So, what about substituting the term denial with igrorance? After all, how can the evidence for anything be denied without counterevidence?

    [Honest] Ignorance of the science, is not the same as irrational denial of the encountered science (with its associated conspiracy theories).

    “Parrot asserted ignorance” (ie repeating tripe from Faux News etc.), comes in range between the dishonesty campaigns, and the simple lack of knowledge of scientific evidence or available options.

    Then there is the “lazy-brain” ignorance of those who do not want to both to think!



    Report abuse

  • @Stafford Gordon

    they often start their argument against global warming by referring to
    the weather ten or twenty years ago, and pointing out that it hasn’t
    really changed

    … which of course is doubly mistaken. It has changed. Empiricism, if I’m understanding it correctly, has been taking a beating (as in David Deutsch’s Beginning of Infinity) but if you have taken the time to walk and take in what is around you in your own local natural environment on a daily basis (boots on the ground) over the last ten or twenty years, you cannot miss the changes. Those who see no changes are simply not observing because they are too busy, too protected, too insulated and suffering from ‘nature deficit disorder’. Climate change runs a lot deeper than changing temperatures.
    If they fail to see and feel in microcosm (in time and space) what science is telling us about the planet as a whole, they will be sceptical or will deny that the climes they are a changing.
    The #1 “takeaway” above should be…
    Take your “denier” on walks through a local natural environment you both share and depend upon and rub his/her nose in the changes.
    #2 Read a ‘boots on the ground’ book like Aldo Leopold’s Sand County Almanac.




    Report abuse

  • @OP link – The author has organized the eighteen chapters that make up the main body of his text in three sections devoted to understanding the climate paradox,

    What paradox????

    taking action, and re-imagining the climate through the senses.

    I don’t think climate science requires sensory re-imagining by amateurs!

    Per Espen Stoknes is a faculty member of the BI Norwegian Business School.

    Mmmmm A business lecturer – not a climate scientist, meteorologist, environmental scientist, geologist, oceanographer, glaciologist, biologist, or energy-system engineer!

    I think that explains the absence of any relevant science in the OP!

    The way to educate the uninformed, is to present them with simple explanations of nature of the global problems, and the available, and potentially available, green energy solutions, with clear evidence of the disinformation campaigns if that issue is raised by those who have been misled. –
    It is not achieved by playing semantics with the psychological term “denial”, or by people with no idea of the science, touting straw-man hippy versions of predicted environmental changes in story books!



    Report abuse

  • I am pleased to Grist, unlike Associated Press, is using honest terminology!

    @ the Grist link – The Associated Press has just released new guidelines for the proper way to describe those who don’t accept climate change. Instead of referring to these dunderheads as “skeptics” or “deniers,” AP journalists are now supposed to refer to them as “climate change doubters” or “those who reject mainstream climate science.”

    What sort of idiot “rejects mainstream science????

    In part, the change comes because — and this is not a joke — the term “climate change skeptics” is offensive to actual skeptics.

    But alas, the AP says “climate change deniers” is also out because “denier has the pejorative ring of Holocaust denier.”

    Holocaust history denier – Scientific evidence denier! The mentality looks exactly the same!

    Climate change doubter” or “someone who rejects mainstream science” just doesn’t have the same ring as “climate change denier,” so with all due respect to the AP, we at Grist don’t plan to retire “denier” quite yet.

    There are also some informed comments over there on that link, – and of course some deniers posing as informed sceptics, while trotting out the traditional lame rubbish which has been circulated and fed to them by media deniers!



    Report abuse

  • quarecuss:

    I garden, and during the last fifteen to twenty years, apart from shrubs manifestly responding to environmental changes, the grass now hardly stops growing at all; March to September used to be the growing season.

    But is weather the same as climate?

    Alan4:

    British weather has always been unpredictable because of the country being tucked away in the corner of the Atlantic, and its position relative to the gulf stream, which if wind direction stays the same for more than a certain period of time can influence an entire season; witness the run of ice bound Winters a few years ago. I think the mild Winter we’ve just had is a case in point.

    I think I’m right in saying that there are three basic influences: Arctic, Atlantic, and African or Saharan. There may be a fourth but I can’t recall what it is; doubtless you do.



    Report abuse

  • Stafford Gordon
    Feb 9, 2016 at 2:51 pm.

    I garden, and during the last fifteen to twenty years, apart from shrubs manifestly responding to environmental changes, the grass now hardly stops growing at all; March to September used to be the growing season.

    I have kept a garden diary of sowing, planting, harvesting, greenhouse heating etc. for the last 35 years.

    But is weather the same as climate?

    While climate is the summation of weather over extended periods, weather is local, regional, and in areas like the UK, very variable according to changes in wind direction.

    When we wish to evaluate GLOBAL temperatures, it is important to measure the whole globe at the same time to get an average.

    Deniers love to quote the Medieval Warm Period which affected ONLY parts of the northern hemisphere and particularly Europe.
    Other areas had warm or cool periods at different times.
    Regional changes are not Global averages!

    British weather has always been unpredictable because of the country being tucked away in the corner of the Atlantic, and its position relative to the gulf stream, which if wind direction stays the same for more than a certain period of time can influence an entire season; witness the run of ice bound Winters a few years ago. I think the mild Winter we’ve just had is a case in point.

    This is very dependent cyclones driven on the Jet Stream, which in turn is dependent on global ocean temperatures.

    I think I’m right in saying that there are three basic influences: Arctic, Atlantic, and African or Saharan. There may be a fourth but I can’t recall what it is; doubtless you do.

    The Jet Stream is also influenced by the Oscillations in the Pacific.

    El Niño, La Niña and the Southern Oscillation
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/gpc-outlooks/el-nino-la-nina/enso-description



    Report abuse

  • Phi, Alan4D and others interested in technical solutions. Our premier science TV program Catalyst devoted a half hour special to the solar PV / Battery issue. It turns out that Australia is being used as a trial ground for lots of competing PV/Battery systems. The big battery research and manufacturing companies are trialing their systems in Australia. We have a very large take up of PV, given our climate. Their plan is to see what works in Australia, then take it to the rest of the world. It was positive news for the future.

    One of the problems with managing power supply is surge in demand, which requires gas fired power plants to be sitting at idle, ready to crank up. With widespread installation of batteries across the grid, the surge is smoothed by the instant release of battery power to the grid, removing the need for the rapid response power station.

    This is the link to the program. If you watch, stay till the end, an Australian guy has a revolutionary new battery based on cheap old technology, which means we won’t get tied to dwindling lithium supplies. I hope this plays in your regions.

    http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/4398364.htm



    Report abuse

  • Stafford Gordon
    Feb 10, 2016 at 4:31 am

    Oh yes, and deniers also cite Roman vineyards near Hadrian’s Wall; how many internal combustion engines were there knocking around in that neck of the woods at the time I wonder?

    You can still grow grapes in northern England on sheltered south-facing slopes or walls! It is just that the effort makes them cost about 20 times as much as imported ones. The Romans did not have rapid bulk transport systems, so fresh soft fruit imports were not an option.



    Report abuse

  • Grrr, load of namby pamby drivel. And what does “collapse hope with optimism” mean when it’s at home? Was that meant to be “conflate”?

    This seems to be a similar philosophy to people not wanting to talk about Islamic terrorists in case that offends Muslims who aren’t terrorists. Never say anything too scary. Well some things shouldn’t be sugar coated and global warming is one of them. Just a year or so ago the Republicans and those in the pay of the fossil fuel industry were taking every opportunity to deny global warming. By confronting and ridiculing them the tide has finally turned and now it’s far more common for the same people to go only as far as “the future is uncertain” which to be honest is hard to disagree with.

    This didn’t happen by being all touchy feely with the nutters. It came about by making them look stupid for being unable to read global temperature charts and CO2 emission levels.



    Report abuse

  • I see the denialist stupid, the self-serving seekers of legal employment, and the carbonaceous polluters, have once again delayed essential actions in the USA!
    Some seem to be celebrating “a great victory for their coal burning stupidity”!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35538350

    President Barack Obama’s plans to regulate emissions of carbon dioxide from US power plants have been stalled by the US Supreme Court.

    The court ruled that the president’s Clean Power Plan could not go forward until all legal challenges were heard.

    Designed to cut US emissions by 32% by 2030, the scheme put huge emphasis on a shift to renewable energy.

    It formed the key element of the US pledge at UN climate negotiations held in Paris in December last year.

    Introduced by the president last August, the plan set carbon reduction goals for each state and it was up to the states themselves to come up with proposals to meet those goals.

    A group of 27 states, utilities and coal miners sought to block the proposal in the courts. They argued that the plan was an infringement on states’ rights.

    An initial attempt to halt the implementation of the plan until legal challenges were heard was thrown out by a US appeals court in Washington in January.

    However the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to suspend the plan pending the outcome of the litigation.

    Under the Clean Power Plan, individual states were due to submit their proposals on how to meet the CO2 restrictions by September this year. That date will be missed.

    It is unlikely that all the legal questions over the future of the Clean Power Plan will be resolved before President Obama leaves office next January.

    .West Virginia’s Attorney General Patrick Morrisey called the high court’s action a “great victory“.

    “We are thrilled that the Supreme Court realised the rule’s immediate impact and froze its implementation, protecting workers and saving countless dollars as our fight against its legality continues,” he said in a statement.

    What will worry the White House more is the division of the court along ideological lines, with conservative justices all supporting the stay while the liberal justices opposed.



    Report abuse

  • Yet more proof, if more were needed, that the Supreme Court is a sham with not even a pretence that the justices are impartial. They nearly always vote along party lines 5-4.

    The Founding Fathers must be spinning in their graves because their dream of a tri-partate government with each arm acting to check and balance the other two has fallen by the wayside. The Judicial acts merely as a tool of the Legislative that was in power when each justice was elected. The Legislative is corrupted by lobbyists and corporate money. The Executive is forced to try and bypass the other two because the two main parties hate each other so much they can rarely agree on common purpose.



    Report abuse

  • @hfaber

    What’s the alternative for ‘denier’?

    I have a list of choice alternatives but in the spirit of this article I expect the word “sceptic” should be used.

    While someone who ignores the science when reaching an opinion does not deserve the right to be called a sceptic, we use the term as flattery when discussing climate change. flattery usually works on.. well I won’t use the word here but it’s quite high on my list



    Report abuse

  • @Stafford Gordon

    But is weather the same as climate?

    No, but the “local natural environment” I mentioned as a place to take the denier for a walk is one that has to be known inside out over the course of a lifetime. The knowledgeable and observant denizen of such a place will see climate change there in many different ways, not just changes in the weather.



    Report abuse

  • David R Allen 197229

    Thanks for this link. Australia is perfectly placed to develop battery technology. I wasn’t aware of zinc-bromine in gel form only as part of a flow battery.

    Australia is also home to development of the graphene (super fast charge/discharge battery), ideal for the most energy efficient (regenerative braking) EVs and charged in the time it takes to get a take-away cappucino. With fuel stations and retail park recharging vehicles in five minutes from stored liquid energy for flow batteries these community batteries are ideally placed and managed to remove the need for batteries in every house, greatly reducing the management and maintenance costs, whilst maximising peak load removal and lossy grid usage and having their initial costs underwritten in removing the peak power demands of fast chaging electric cars.



    Report abuse

  • I’ve just had some fun learning about graphene; it’s future looks good and it can’t be patented because it’s a natural material; I need to go back to James Watson’s book DNA to be reminded of how Craig Venter wangled his patents.

    Discovered/invented at Manchester University, graphine’s now being trialed in Australia; where one of our daughters went to live a month ago, but she’s having to slum it at Bondi.

    I bet no “denier” wouldn’t turn their nose up at a share in the financial proceeds it’ll generate if and when it’s fully approved for general use.

    But of course those returns, like the material itself, will be embedded in the technologies it’s employed for; I don’t suppose any of those twerps would turn down any of those benefits either, although they might argue that there’s no need for them.

    I think that in time the antediluvian ideas about the climate which are being clung to at present will just fall away under the hammer blows of scientific evidence.

    In the mean time there’s fun to be had in ridiculing and laughing at climate cynics.



    Report abuse

  • I’ve been waiting for this story to appear in the news section and hopefully it will next week. After my comments about the Supreme Court above I couldn’t have expected that things would change quite so quickly. Justice Scalia who has ensured that the court would rule along Republican lines for 30 years is no more. The panic in the conservative camp is palpable. I listened to the opening part of yesterday’s candidate’ debate and it sickened me to hear every Republican candidate railing about how Obama must not be allowed to nominate a new judge and how they must do everything in their power to block it.



    Report abuse

  • Arkrid Sandwich
    Feb 14, 2016 at 10:32 am

    I’ve been waiting for this story to appear in the news section and hopefully it will next week. After my comments about the Supreme Court above I couldn’t have expected that things would change quite so quickly. Justice Scalia who has ensured that the court would rule along Republican lines for 30 years is no more. The panic in the conservative camp is palpable.

    Yep!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35572479
    The death of one of the most conservative members of the US Supreme Court, Justice Antonin Scalia, has sparked arguments over the process to find his successor.

    President Barack Obama said he would nominate a replacement.

    But the Republican candidates for the presidential nomination have called for a delay until after the election.

    Before Justice Scalia’s death, the US high court had a conservative 5-4 majority.

    It succeeded in stalling major efforts by the Obama administration on climate change and immigration.

    Justice Scalia’s death comes just 11 months before the end of Mr Obama’s term as president, so Republicans in the Senate are going to be under intense pressure from some conservatives to do everything they can to delay confirmation of a replacement until a new chief executive is sworn in on 20 January 2017.

    That could involve slowing down confirmation hearings in the Senate committee and filibustering any nominee before they receive a vote in the full Senate.

    .The longest it has ever taken the Senate to confirm a Supreme Court nominee is 125 days.

    It looks like Obama could fix this obstructive problem long-term!



    Report abuse

  • Scalia

    I wish no-one dead yet death has served progress well on the planet, making way for an increment of blind change, relieving selective pressures in evolution, or, in making way for the fresh and ever more informed eyes of youth, steering culture more firmly to safer ground.

    Death strikes conservative and progressive with equal frequency but it strikes conservatives the harder.



    Report abuse

  • @Arkrid Sandwich

    Feb 14, 2016 at 10:32 am

    The panic in the conservative camp is palpable.

    Panic is exactly right. They’ve been hit with a typhoon straight out of the blue. They are flailing about.



    Report abuse

  • Arkrid Sandwich
    Feb 14, 2016 at 10:32 am

    The panic in the conservative camp is palpable.

    There is a hypothesis that judges are appointed to interpret and uphold laws, but I suppose in the case of those wearing faith-blinkers, this would include making up laws as they go along, according to what they want to believe!



    Report abuse

  • Alan,
    What won’t a fundamentalist do to please his imaginary friend in the sky? Scalia was a fundamentalist Catholic with extraordinary powerful position in this country. I have no doubt that he wanted to send women back to the dark ages.

    Ding-dong the brainwashed witch is dead. No guilt.

    (foul mood)

    Dan,

    Can we form a mutual support pact whereby we talk each other off the cliff when posting comments in foul mood? 😉



    Report abuse

  • The divisiveness and partisanship in right wing politics in the USA is so profound it is almost impossible to grasp for this Brit at least. I struggle to even think that these people understand human values on the same sort of basis as those of us from other countries. Listening to the Republican candidates is like hearing selfish and maladjusted children squabbling in a school yard. We expect judges to be impartial and unbiased and in the UK to a large extent we get that but there is not even a pretence at impartiality on the Supreme Court.

    We expect politicians to disagree on views but to put country first and party second and again in the UK we get that to a large extent. In the USA I believe Democrats do try to live up to those ideals but Republicans will do anything to prevent consensus if it means conceding an inch.

    I have to conclude that the only way the USA will ever bring its government, legal system, its healthcare system, its measures to tackle global warming, its infrastructure, taxation system and other things onto any sort of par with normal civilised nations is for the Republicans to simply play no more part in anything. To be crushed in the next election, to have no say in either the House or Senate, to never get into power again. Trying to work with them is pointless as Obama has found out and if they get into power they turn everything they touch to shit as Bush proved.



    Report abuse

  • 32
    Stardusty Psyche says:

    Arkrid Sandwich – Justice Scalia who has ensured that the court would rule along Republican lines for 30 years is no more.

    I think the court has actually been fairly evenly split, with a very slow movement to the liberal side, as demonstrated by the recent gay marriage ruling, another 5-4 vote but this time on the liberal side, much to the chagrin of the conservatives.

    Roe vs Wade has stood the test of time, so far Obamacare has withstood any major constitutional challenge, and cases like Kitzmiller v. Dover in the lower courts are pretty much out of the question to be successfully appealed to the supremes.

    11 months is a very long time to delay, but even if they manage to pull it off we will be right back to where we are now with a split court and a swing voter, since Scalia was about as bad as it gets.

    The conservatives are worried that one more liberal appointment will move the court off the middle and solidity liberal.



    Report abuse

  • How are solar panels made? Why are they so expensive? How are electric cars made? Unless the politicians who are obsessed with Global Warming can show me a way to replace all of the energy we use by simply planting a bean into the ground and “Wala” Aren’t there “clean” ways to burn coal? Why not focus on that. You know what is funny is that I see Graffiti artist gone activist “Hope Poster” that flap their jaws about Global warming, I see them spray painting murals about Environmental issues……I see them donating money to charities that gives art supplies to “starving artist” well my medium is a graphite pencil and a charcoal stick…….Do the Artist gone activist ever stop to question what those mediums are made of? Do they shame other Graffiti artist for contributing to the pollution by using aerosol paint? Doesn’t paint have lead in it? Hmmmmm hypocrisy when it comes out of the mouth of President Obama who goes on Apology tours around the world in Air Force 1? What kind of fuel does he think is used for the Jets? Tears?



    Report abuse

  • Molle Laday #33
    Jul 10, 2016 at 12:53 pm

    How are solar panels made?

    Many are made in China at present often using polluting technologies, but that will diminish as green power generation progressively comes on line.

    Why are they so expensive?

    They used to be quite expensive but prices have been coming down steadily over the years as the manufacturing technology improved.

    How are electric cars made?

    Ask Nissan Toyota, Renault and Volkswagen.

    Unless the politicians who are obsessed with Global Warming can show me a way to replace all of the energy we use by simply planting a bean into the ground and “Wala”

    Oh dear! oh dear!, You have clearly done no investigations into hydroelectric power, (Norway 98% of their electricity) tidal energy systems, wind power ( the cheapest of all forms of electrical power generation), geothermal energy, solar thermal, solar photo-voltaic bio-fuel, or modern nuclear systems. .

    Aren’t there “clean” ways to burn coal?

    Not really! There are some limited plans to try to bury the carbon di-oxide pollution underground, but they are very expensive.

    Why not focus on that.

    It is a non-solution to the global problem of global warning and CO2 pollution. It would not deal with a fraction of the problem. What is needed is the end of digging up and burning billions of tons of coal.

    There are also ways to reduce energy wastage by using more efficient light bulbs, insulating buildings, and storing heat underground when it is hot for later use when it is cold.

    https://www.richarddawkins.net/2016/01/switch-to-clean-energy-can-be-fast-and-cheap/

    What kind of fuel does he think is used for the Jets?

    At present aviation fuel derived from oil, but it could be derived from bio-fuel, or use hydrogen as some space launchers do.

    I’ll leave artists to the entertainment from their art!
    If humans manage to curb their polluting activities which cause global warming and ocean acidification,, it will be because of science and technologies.



    Report abuse

  • Molle Laday #33
    Jul 10, 2016 at 12:53 pm

    Do they shame other Graffiti artist for contributing to the pollution by using aerosol paint?

    Virtually every country on Earth banned the use of chlorofluorocarbon-propelled aerosol cans with the adoption of the Montreal Protocol in 1989.

    Doesn’t paint have lead in it?

    Google is your friend, when looking for information.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_paint
    Lead is added to paint to speed up drying, increase durability, maintain a fresh appearance, and resist moisture that causes corrosion. It is one of the main health and environmental hazards associated with paint. In some countries, lead continues to be added to paint intended for domestic use,[1] whereas countries such as the U.S. and the U.K. have regulations prohibiting this, although lead paint may still be found in older properties painted prior to the introduction of such regulations.



    Report abuse

  • Here we go again trying to find the right words to appeal to the unreasonable. (Let’s say non-theist, rather than atheist, etc.) I don’t think it is the task of the reasonable to try to devise ways to appeal to the unreasonable; the unreasonable must find a way of becoming reasonable.

    This is analogous to what Oscar Wilde said: “Now art should never try to be popular. The public should try to make itself artistic.”



    Report abuse

  • Molle Laday #33
    Jul 10, 2016 at 12:53 pm

    my medium is a graphite pencil and a charcoal stick…….

    They are different isotopes of carbon, but all the artists’ uses of carbon, are dwarfed by the annual use of coal!
    https://yearbook.enerdata.net/coal-and-lignite-production.html

    China 3,538 million tons, United States 820 million tons,
    India 764 million tons, Australia 471 million tons, Indonesia 387 million tons, Russia 49 million tons, South Africa 248 million tons, Germany 186 million tons,

    Do the Artist gone activist ever stop to question what those mediums are made of?

    Charcoal is carbon from the atmosphere, absorbed by trees and made into wood.
    The wood is then cooked until only the nearly pure carbon is left.
    Charcoal is the carbon from carbon dioxide taken out of the atmosphere by trees.



    Report abuse

Leave a Reply

View our comment policy.