Question:"This new Cabot Institute sounds like a great idea but...?"

This new Cabot Institute sounds like a great idea, ... but then I wonder how can you address the point that we already have so much technology and more than enough solutions from proponents of change - they simply aren't being put in place. Isn't the real issue now to get institutions and people to change? What can the Institute do to change this? Member of the public

Crispin Tickell: A big problem is the failure of the academic world to communicate to the public in ways that they understand and also with the political world. You need to use the right language - the academic community has responsibility to expressing itself in language that people and politicians can understand.

[He then goes on to provide an example - with a definition of Sustainable Development as 'treating the earth as if we intend to stay!']

Jonathan Porritt: We need greater understanding/acknowledgement from the political class that there are physical boundaries on the limits of this planet.

Brendan Gormley: New entities need to concentrate on risk taking and collaboration - in which case a new centre is welcome. Translation of the lessons from the ground into policy is key. Need more research linked to change and policy.

Ric Parker: The Cabot Institute is exciting, as it is not just about technology but is also about people and how they can use technology. There is great potential for great research in the future. In terms of behaviour change, social sciences can also make big contributions to the world of technology through knowledge of the public and human behaviour. Therefore their contribution is key.

Crispin Tickell: People now understand that there are real problems (with climate change) in the way that they didn't in the past.


The member of the public who asked the question: Behaviour change is the most important point - since technology might fall by the wayside. He is concerned by inertia and thinks that many simple solutions that could be applied aren't and that many barriers are in place which prevent change regarding climate change.

Brendan Gormley: We need to question who is listening and who is not - perhaps those living closest to climate change should be listened to most (e.g. people of Haiti at the moment).

From the audience: Can they provide examples of behaviour change?

Audience member: Recycling - this has been a profound change, as well as attitudes to smoking etc. While there are plenty of examples of positive behaviour change, there is also much negative discourse, which is unhelpful.

Audience member: Long-term behaviour change requires long-term policy planning.

Audience member: Working with companies and communities shows that people welcome change and positive interventions. It's good to highlight some of the opportunities related to behaviour change and not just the negative, e.g. boost to local economy.

Jonathan Porritt: Look at what motivates people to change: coercion, seduction, persuasion. Politicians need to find the right balance between these - therefore demonstrating positive stories related to climate change, and not just apocolyptic perspectives, has great potential. For example, creating jobs, innovation, creativity, patents derived through investment in clean technology etc., but we need to do more, or at least, politicians need to do more. We need a change of language - to make it more upbeat and positive.

Audience member/Professor of Sociology:
Peturbed by the framing of the debate focusing on the level of the individual. Social structures, inequality etc. are not being considered. There is need to focus more on social structural change, rather than individual behavioural change. Need to change how the global economy changes.

Brendan Gormley: We need to start with those communities that are being adversely affected by climate change.

Audience member: What can be done to convince the sceptics?

Ric Parker: The debate is more about how much the climate is changing, rather than what to do about the fact that it is. The evidence shows that the planet is warming up, and is linked with our industrial practice.

Crispin Tickell: Not all of the debate is respectable. The science is overwhelming, but there are uncertainties - where are the tipping points? The sceptics must be willing to change their minds when the counter-evidence becomes overwhelming - and this isn't happening. There is a big campaign to devalue science of this nature.