On the fundamentals of climate change, the research shows that scepticism is growing and that people are starting to doubt the link between human actions and a destabilising climate, or indeed to doubt the climate is changing at all. And in these circumstances, there is a greater expectation that governments, not individuals, should solve the problem.
Human beings are flawed and irrational creatures, capable of extreme selfishness and short-term opportunism. But at a more prosaic level, a large part of the reason we can’t engage properly with the challenge of climate change lies in the curricula of our schools and universities.

In my opinion, basic science education is failing. We are now suffering from a decade or so in which ‘media studies’ is regarded as a better career option than, say, physics, chemistry or engineering. Is it therefore so surprising then that the science of climate change is beyond the average person?

One cold snap and all of a sudden our recognition of the need for carbon management starts to evaporate.

Doubters and deniers
Then there is the level of trust we have in scientists. Science theory tells us that there is rarely a simple answer to a problem and to identify a trend you will get it wrong many times before you get it right. This is particularly true for something as complex as global climate change. It is all about testing hypotheses and discussing the issues that surround them. To stick one’s head in the sand and declare that the scientists are simply wrong is not the way to approach this issue and is a view that will slow down progress towards a widely agreed upon conclusion.

And one incident of alleged impropriety does not mean that the whole global scientific community is working together to try to hoodwink us, as was claimed at the end of last year.

Isn’t it interesting that that ‘revelation’ emerged just before our global leaders met to negotiate an international agreement in Copenhagen, a key moment when we had the chance to shift public policy and the path of international legislation. Many of us regard Copenhagen as an expensive, wasted opportunity that will not have been helped by the media attention given to the data controversy. A poll in February showed that the proportion of people who do not believe in climate change jumped from 15% to 25% following the email furore.

None of us has a crystal ball, of course, we are talking about the weather here. No one can say with absolute certainty exactly what will happen and when. But the international scientific community agrees that damage is the likely result of our current behaviour. More importantly, we believe that waiting for definitive evidence that the models are correct before acting will be disastrous. By then, the scale of the damage will be much greater and the costs of fighting it will seriously affect the global economy.

There is an international consensus that there is a cause and effect relationship between our thirst for oil and a changing climate. This recognition is having a direct impact on government policies around the world and will have a major impact on the conditions in which the paper, print and publishing industries will operate in the future. Are you prepared for these changes?

We all need to keep up the effort to understand and reduce our carbon footprint. Doing so will unlock opportunities for cost saving and new business. We can’t be certain, but the chances are that if we do, the generations to come will look back and thanks us for taking action now.

Mark Line is the executive chairman of Two Tomorrows, www.twotomorrows.com