Edel Rodriguez’s illustration from Rolling Stone
An article in the Sunday NY Times titled “We’re All Climate-Change Idiots” explores the well-worn territory of climate change denial, but it also adds a few details from psychological research into the phenomenon. The article hints at four strategies:
1. appeal to interest in technological solutions – even climate change deniers perk up at the mention of techno fixes;
2. public health appeals seem to get traction (asthma, etc.);
3. instant feedback, like the letters I get from National Grid telling me how much energy I consume compared to my neighbors, that brings out a sense of competition for behavioral changes; and
4. making changes that people are hardly aware of – like Rutgers changing the default printing on university printers to double-sided.
Are there any landscape and/or land use parallels to these suggestions? I think we can come up with a few – but, frankly, it feels like tinkering around at the edges. I have a hard time investing mental energy into it, especially after just reading Bill McKibben’s article in Rolling Stone. If you haven’t read it yet, you must. In “Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math,” McKibben very simply communicates the enormity of the problem using just 3 numbers. Powerful writing, but the result is a feeling of powerlessness. Hum, what’s a person to do with that? Oh, yes, back to the denial stance! The liberal denial, that is. (See the four points listed above.)
Praxis in Landscape Architecture 
Many ecologists will argue that without an overhaul or abandonment of capitalism we will always be ‘tinkering around the edges,’ and I don’t think even with the current state of hostility against capitalism that people would want to let it go in favor of many things especially not the environment!
Tilting at windmills with the capitalism argument, IMO. I have written about ecologists and pessimism before, though. Thanks for reading.
https://praxislandarch.com/2012/01/10/some-ecologists-think-constant-pessimism-isnt-working/
The biggest issue has to be governments investing in renewable energy sources. Solar, wind and wave all have a part to play, also however controversial, nuclear energy is going to be essential for the future. For this to be viable a solution needs to be fouond for dealing with the waste. I have heard of several solutions which involve burning the waste as a fuel, perhaps more research funding needs to be allocated to this area.
I also believe carbon capture has an important role to play. many people are against this as it cures the symptoms, but not the cause of the problem. I personally think all options should be examined, even if it is just supplementary to “buy” us some extra time.
On a final note, I think in the interest of fairness it has to be said we are still not 100% certain that any of this will actually make a difference. What can be said from examining the history of the planet is that climate change does seem to be a cyclical event. Perhaps human activity has speeded it up somewhat, but it is inevitable.