One of the most effective ways of changing people’s minds about climate change is to have a personal conversation with them, especially if you know them well. People take the opinions of family, friends and work colleagues seriously, and will listen to what you have to say – as long as you’re not being pushy. There are seven things to keep in mind when having a conversation with a climate sceptic. Firstly, try to understand why they hold the views they do. Are they sceptical for psychological reasons, economic reasons, social reasons, religious reasons or ideological ones? Once you understand where they are coming from, you can devise a strategy to win them over. For example, if they believe that all climate activists are leftists, then reassure them that this is not the case. There are many people you can name who are not left-wing but who still support climate action. In Australia, these include Matt Kean, John Hewson, Malcoln Turnbull, Larry Anthony, Kerry Chikarovski, Nick Greiner, Robert Hill and Phillip Ruddock. If your interlocutor thinks climate action is going to bankrupt the county, then explain that it is actually inaction that threatens our prosperity. If that person does not want to face reality because it is too frightening, then reassure them that all is not lost. Things are far better than they were ten years ago, as we now have all the technology we need to solve the problem and are well advanced in adopting it. We are winning the war, but just not quickly enough. Secondly, know some basic facts about climate change and renewable energy. You don’t need to know everything, or even a lot, but you do need to know three key things: that the science of global warming is settled; that renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuels in most parts of the world; and that EVs have now reached price parity with internal combustion engine vehicles. Thirdly, don’t be afraid to admit that you don’t know everything. But assure your interlocutor that you’ll find the answer and send it to them promptly. It doesn’t matter if you don’t have this information yourself or don’t know where to find it. Just contact someone who does have the facts, and ask them to send you what you need. Or check out Climate Myths and How to Respond to Them, which debunks over 120 misconceptions about climate change, renewable energy and EVs. If the person you’re speaking with makes an assertion that runs counter to what you know, ask for the source of their information. Give them your email address and ask for theirs, so you can send them some real information. It’s highly unlikely they’ll send you anything, but by requesting their sources you are putting the onus on them to back up what they’re saying. They may not admit to you that they don’t have an answer to you, but they will have to admit it to themselves. Fourthly, never be aggressive or patronising, as this may just entrench the views you’re trying to counter. Always be friendly and polite. If the other person gets aggressive, then it means your arguments are probably cutting through. Fifthly, always be positive. Excessive negativity can discourage action as much as encourage it. People have to believe that it’s not too late to save the planet. Sixthly, try to find areas of agreement with the person you’re speaking with. That will make them better disposed to you, and therefore more likely to listen to what you’re saying about climate change. Finally, don’t waste your time on hardcore climate deniers, as you are unlikely to change their minds. The only exception to this rule is if they are holding court at an event and having an influence on those around them. Then you should at least challenge their views, to demonstrate that climate scepticism is not the norm. In conclusion, talking about climate change with people you know is the best way to change their views. If they like you and respect you, they’ll have respect for your opinions too. The author, addressing a group about climate change. [Source: Ken Enderby]
Overpopulation is the reason why the Earth is warming. Unless we can drastically reduce the world’s population, we cannot do anything about climate change. Fact: Overpopulation is a serious problem and is putting great stress on the planet’s resources. However, it is not the main factor driving climate change. A person’s environmental footprint is calculated by the following formula: Impact = Population x Affluence x Technology (I = PAT). The fact is, while population might be great in many poor countries, affluence and technology are not. Most of our greenhouse gas emissions are a result of these latter two factors, and originate in the wealthy nations, not the developing ones. [China is the main exception to this, although it should be noted that most of its CO2 emissions are generated by its upper and middle classes, not its poor. This will change, of course, as the country continues to develop.] The solution is to be found by changing the technology we use to generate wealth. By using renewable energy, we can go on living comfortable lives without altering the Earth’s climate.
Emissions from China and India will overwhelm any reductions achieved by the rest of the world, so nations like Australia are wasting their time taking action on climate. Fact: China and India are not doing nothing and are nowhere near as responsible for the problem as we are. Most of the CO2 in the atmosphere was put there by the nations of Europe and North America, so it is incumbent on them to take the lead when it comes to solving the problem. Australia, with the second-largest greenhouse gas emissions per capita among the OECD nations, is also responsible for a disproportionately high level of CO2. It has a moral responsibility to rectify this. It’s also worth noting that if Australians really are concerned about China’s and India’s emissions, they should stop selling them the coal and gas that are causing those emissions.
Global warming is an international problem and needs an international solution. No nation can act alone. Fact: We already have an international solution: the Paris Agreement. Many nations are taking it seriously, and even with the return of Donald Trump, US emissions are still going down, albeit not as rapidly as they were under Joe Biden. China is also taking serious action, with the nation already six years ahead of schedule in its quest to reach net zero. Given that China is responsible for almost a third of global emissions, its actions will have a greater impact than those of any other nation. The Paris Agreement. Signatories are in blue; non-signatories in yellow and nations that have withdrawn (only the US) in move. [Source: Wikimedia Commons]
Methane clathrates have already been irreversibly destabilised by the current level of global warming, meaning that catastrophic temperature increases can’t be stopped. There is therefore no point in cutting CO2 emissions. Fact: Methane clathrates are ice-like substances that trap methane gas in a cage of water molecules. They form below the seabed and in permafrost. If just a fraction of one percent of the methane trapped in these clathrates were released into the atmosphere, it would indeed add significantly to global warming. However, there is no evidence that this is about to happen, so we are not facing such a doomsday scenario. The planet’s methane clathrates are still locked away safely beneath the oceans and in the Arctic permafrost.
Even if we stopped all greenhouse gas emissions, the CO2 and methane we have already released would stay in the atmosphere forever, so the planet is still doomed. Fact: This is not true. The oceans and land absorb about 60 percent of the CO2 we emit each year, so if we reduced our emissions to zero, these would become giant CO2 sponges. Scientists estimate that it would take about 50 years for our cumulative CO2 emissions to fall by 60 percent, and 200 years for them to fall by 80 percent. [Unfortunately, it would take thousands of years for them to fall back to pre-industrial levels. But this is not necessary.] Methane, which accounts for about a third of our greenhouse gas emissions, would be even easier to eliminate, as methane molecules only stay in the atmosphere for 12 years, by which time it is largely converted to CO2. Methane levels would start falling very quickly if we reduced our emissions to zero (or to somewhere thereabouts). The news is even better when it comes to global temperature. Climate scientists estimate that this will stabilise with three to five years after we reach net zero.
There’s nothing we can do about climate change; it’s too big a problem and it’s too late to act. If we’re already heading for 2.7°C warming, we’re doomed anyway. Fact: It may indeed be too late to keep warming to 1.5°C. Even 2°C will be difficult. But both those temperatures are manageable ecologically, and we have all the technology and economic levers we need to stop further increases. The problem is getting politicians to act. That’s why public pressure is so important.
For the past decade Australia has been meeting its commitments under the Paris Climate Agreement of 2015? It doesn’t need to do anything more. Fact: Australia only met its commitments between 2015 and 2022 because those commitments amounted to very little. In fact, at that time the country was doing a lot less than other, comparable nations. What the Coalition government agreed to in Paris was to reduce our 2005 level of emissions by 26-28 percent by 2030. However, Australia also claimed the right to achieve this by using ‘carryover credits’ from the time of the Kyoto Protocol, when it was allowed to include changes in land use (i.e. a drop in deforestation) in the calculation of its emissions. The fact that it did manage to reduce its emissions during that period (largely due to Labor’s carbon tax, which was in operation from 2012-14) meant that the government could slacken off in its own efforts and still achieve its 2030 target. To the nation’s shame, Australia was the only country in the world that was using this subterfuge, even though others had also earned the right to do so. As the IPCC pointed out in 2019, doing this would “reduce what Australia needs to do to meet its 2030 target by more than half.” And even using these carryover credits, Australia was still not on target to meet its Paris commitments! [As an aside, it is worth noting that the nation’s two biggest mining companies, BHP and Rio Tinto, opposed the use of carryover credits. Both believed that Australia should make real emissions reductions, and not just paper ones.] According to government figures, Australia’s emissions fell by 19 percent between 2005 and 2020. About two thirds of that occurred prior to the abolition of the carbon tax in 2014, 3 percent occurred as a result of the COVID economic downturn and 4 percent from initiatives by the government itself. If we use 1990 as our base year (like all other nations do), then Australia’s emissions were only set to fall by 8-11 percent by 2030! When the Labor Party returned to power in 2022, it committed Australia to a 43 percent reduction in emissions by 2030, then upped this in 2025 to a 62-70 percent reduction by 2035. These are significant improvements on the previous government’s target but are still inadequate to meet the ambitions of the Paris Climate Agreement. That said, it will take a great deal of effort to achieve them, given how little was done under the Coalition.
More than 60 percent of a power bill is made up of transmission costs. These will increase significantly if we opt for 100 percent renewable energy, as we will need to build thousands of kilometres of new power lines to bring electricity from solar and wind farms to the cities. Fact: Transmission involves moving electricity from its source (power stations, wind farms, solar farms and the like) to substations in urban and rural areas. This represents only about 8 percent of a power bill, not 60 percent as the myth claims. Even if we add distribution costs, which are not affected by the cost of high voltage power lines, we only get to 42 percent of a power bill. In addition, the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) estimates the cost of building new transmission lines to be $16.4 billion, if the country is to completely decarbonise its grid. It also estimates that this amount will not only be fully recouped but will also deliver an additional $17 billion in net benefits to the economy. In other words, consumers and businesses will be better off with a shift to renewables.
Won’t the disposal of solar panels and batteries make them an uneconomic and dangerous proposition? Fact: Solar panels are easy to recycle, as they are 76 percent glass, 10 percent plastic, 8 percent aluminium, 5 percent silicon and 1 percent copper. Other metals make up just 0.1 percent of the total. A lithium Iron Phosphate (LNP) battery is 15-20 percent iron, 12-15 percent phosphorus, 10-15 percent carbon, 5-10 percent aluminium, 5-10 percent copper and 3-4 percent lithium. The rest of the battery is made up of plastics and electrolytes. All of these minerals and polymers can be recycled. That said, it’s always easier to dispose of panels and batteries by putting them in landfill, so tough government legislation will be required to prevent this from happening. As for the economics of disposal, the cost of having a solar panel recycled in Australia is about $20 (US$14) in 2026. The cost of recycling a home battery is between $300 and $500 – or about the same as recycling 20 solar panels. In addition, it is estimated that the global value of recyclable materials from solar PV panels will be $US2.7 billion a year by 2030 and a $US80 billion a year by 2050. Battery materials will be worth $6 a year by 2030 and a vast amount more by 2050. Hence, disposal will not be a significant issue.
