The Labour movement column
By Anthony Painter and A. Williams
“Gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages; the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage; neither our wisdom nor our learning; neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country; it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.”
Robert F. Kennedy knew that value wasn’t just about profit and loss. In his time, the significant environmental concern was pollution. Now it is climate change. And 40 years on we have moved at a frighteningly slow pace in terms of our fundamental ethos. To paraphrase Oscar Wilde: we know the price of everything and the value of little.
But at least, as we approach the Copenhagen Climate Conference next week, there is an acknowledgement by policy makers that this cannot continue. Whether this acknowledgement results in a meaningful Treaty remains to be seen. At best, it seems that we can hope for a political agreement with a legally binding Treaty to follow in 2010.
All this is mainly a conversation between elites. The rest of us are onlookers. Like financial collapse the problem seems too big and too remote to even contemplate. Only 41% of UK citizens accept that climate change is happening and is anthropogenic, according to a recent Populus poll. The risk of backslide on the climate change agenda is significant. And yet, little is being done to bring people into the process of changing our society and economy so that we can avert climate catastrophe.
Quite simply, we have to find ways of enabling people to take ownership in a collective effort to reduce our negative impact on the environment.
Imagine if local communities could set the priorities, visions and goals for how they might reduce climate change along with the government. Sound idealistic? Well, such an arrangement has been established not in the field of climate change but in development. We are not talking about the UK. We are talking about the African state of Angola, emerging from over three decades of civil war.
A US government and corporate funded pilot project was established in 2006 to increase capacities of both local government and civil society to participate in municipal development.
Essentially the Municipal Development Program (MDP) is building a connection between communities and government to achieve lasting development.
Local forums were established where local issues are discussed and projects to solve them are created. In these forums, community members, community leaders, local government officials and the private sector discuss the priorities of the local area and establish development projects.
These have included the renovation of local schools, rehabilitation of the local water supply, agricultural projects and training for youths and women benefiting well over 200,000 people. Through a continued process of consultation and debate, these and other projects and policies are included into a municipal development plan, which informs local planning policies and development.
In a country where a generation grew up accustomed to civil war in their communities, a genuine spirit of cooperation, accountability and renewed hope is emerging. A process of political debate, social interaction and investment has transformed the five municipalities participating in the programme.
Angola has recently overtaken Nigeria as Africa’s largest oil producing nation and the government has remained committed to decentralisation despite the recent fall in the price of oil. This indicates that the price of people’s participation is more important than oil, something Robert F. Kennedy would agree with.
So could this apply to the UK? In the UK we consider ourselves to be a developed country and that perhaps the lessons from Africa do not apply to us. Yet, adapting to climate change is, in a sense, a development issue. So, like the Angolan example, why not involve our communities in the effort to reduce our detrimental impact on the environment? How would this work?
Last week’s Labour movement column argued that the left should properly acknowledge the importance of ownership in distributing power more equitably. Here is an opportunity to develop new forms of ownership that can be engineered towards reducing our impact on the environment.
Each community (based on local authority area) could establish an environmental cooperative. It could be piloted in 20 communities initially. The objective of the cooperative would be to reduce that community’s carbon emissions by say 10% within five years. A baseline assessment of per capita carbon emissions would be made and then the reduction would be calculated in relation to that.
Every individual, public body, voluntary organisation and business would be given a share of the cooperative. Collectively they would decide how to reduce the area’s per capita emissions: determining to grant wind power planning applications, installing roadside charge points for electric cars, insulating homes, public buildings and businesses, increasing recycling above legal requirements, investing in better public transport and so on.
A central fund would be established to incentivise communities. The local environmental cooperatives could access these funds based on whether they can successfully meet the targets. Those cooperatives who reduce their emissions and improve their environmental impact the most will receive a higher proportion of the funds.
Like in Angola, under these proposals, local communities in the UK could use their green windfall to spend on local priorities. This could be improving public spaces, local schools, investing in further environmental improvements, or distributing it as a Council Tax rebate.
So just as the development model trialed in Angola increased participation, extended citizenship, met local needs and priorities, and fulfilled broader objectives, this new inclusive approach to managing our environmental impact in the UK would have similar benefits. Once successfully implemented in the pilots, there is no reason why this model could not be applied across the UK as a whole and replicated in the EU and beyond.
No-one is pretending this ambitious idea will be easy. But if our society is to reach beyond materialism, recover public value, embrace participation and citizenship, and make a greater dent on how we negatively impact the environment, then we can’t be ambitious enough. Robert F. Kennedy wouldn’t flinch from this fight for a single second. And nor should we.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
The fact that that hypocrite and useless moron Prescott is now on the band wagon we can all be 100% sure the whole thing is a con.
The planet has not warmed for 11 years, so all their theories are blown out of the water so the ychoose to follow their political masters by lying to keep their lucrative gravy train going.
I can understand your annoyance at MMGW "believers". Many argue their case with such force and in such a confrontational manner that its easy for people to say "up yours, leave me alone". Its easy to take the opposite view out of irritation.
This is what I said in a previous post, "believers" should tone down their argument, there is no need to force people to believe a certain thing. We have a representative democracy. Politicians do not need 100% public support to do something (look at Iraq!). People will look back and be thankful that their elected representatives did the right thing in the face of less than total public support.
Finally, labeling sceptics as "deniers" is the wrong tactic. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Make it beneficial for people to change their lives, make them want to do it. That is what we should be doing.
No I do not think that its sustainable, but principally because it is a finite energy source, one day it will run out. We need to look for alternatives if we want to continue to drive now.
I am also for Nuclear. Although security is an issue
Daying that, I am not a current supporter of electric cars, because the electricity to use them comes from fossil fuels, this position would change if the electricity required came from nuclear.
I also believe that investment on fusion is worthwhile allowing us to move away from the more dirty fission.
Think about it for a moment, the Corporations have allowed China to explode and in the process remove millions of jobs from Europe as we cannot compete with the slave wages.
Now the Corporations realise that they have to slow down the third world as thier plan for a New World Order will collapse if they move to fast,so they come up with the biggest con ever to stop this happening. They will use Global Warming to hold back the Third World from developing their economies using fossil fuels, which they have in abundance, to be replaced with Western Technology that doesn't work such as the ineffective Wind Turbines now blighting our landscapes. The evidence is out there if you care to look.
These Corporations run our Goverments for thier benefit, not ours.
By the time the people in this Country wake up from the Gov't assisted dumbing down of our Nation with schooling that teaches nothing, sex without morals, drinking and drugs, it will be too late!!!
Its very difficult to wait for MMGW to get worse before taking action. It is also very difficult to go along with huge changes in lifestyle on the basis of a theory but if it is true it cannot be ignored.
I completely understand your annoyance at some "believers". They argue with such vigour and confrontation that its easy to say "up yours, leave me alone!" and take the opposite view out of irritation and suspicion. This IMO is part of the reason why only 41% of people "believe" in MMGW.
This what I said in my previous post, "believers" need to chill out (excuse the pun!) and realise that the force with which they give their argument - strong as it is - is holding back the response to the problem. We can respond without total public support but must always be open to scepticism and rebuttal. Belittling "deniers" (an apalling name) as ignorant trolls is not going to help.
and I am all for Nuclear power, France has what, 50 of them with no issues
Thanks,
David
Why is it up to politicians to put the case, politicians are politicians, and to sound as if I'm stating the bloody obvious, they do politics. They are members of political parties, they exist to score political points from their opponents, and this whole argument is political. Your comments sums up everything which I abhor about this whole sorry mess. you start with. but my point was that I don't think we should rely on the science to speak for itself here why not, without the science there is no argument, just because you contend that something is true, does not make it so!
You end with :And we do this with the scientific evidence: this is teh trust... it comes from the science.
You are absolutely right on this score, but it is totally divorced from the beginning of your argument. Both statrments are mutually exclusive.
This is typical MMGW rhetoric.
For the record, I believe that the globe is currently warming. I do not know whether this is man made or not, I believe we need to 'do science' in order to prove it. I do not think that the science has yet done that. Until science has proved it, then there is no evidence to support taking my tax dollars on squandering it on any 'green' technologies aimed at reversing it. Simple argument hey? You cant have a solution until you understand the problem, and I believe that we do not understand the problem.
A puzzling argument, if oil is running out then we'll have to change anyway. That's a good thing IMO. The higher the price of oil the more people will be willing to change the energy base. Your comment smacks of the anti-capitalist undertone that I commented on earlier.
People often talk of great leaders leading public opinion down the right route. This is a perfect opportunity. We can still make progress as a nation and a world if "only" 41% of people "believe". We can set up a framework where people want to change their lives. 0% VAT on energy insolation, subsidised renewable projects, 0% tax on electric cars. 0% VAT on air travel with emission offset schemes. This is what we need to do, not tell people not to travel, or make them feel guilty at least. We mustn't bully people, and calling people "deniers" reminds me of the thought police.
What I suspect you'll find as the evidence shows itself in the next 10-20 years opinion will change drastically, but it will take time. Remember, this doesn't mean we shouldn't take action in the meantime - we must. If you're right people will look back with great respect that the rigth thing was done in the face of public opinion. You don't need total support to do the right thing.
We need to get this perspective. We are asking the public to make massive changes to their lifestyles on the basis of an "unproven" theory, I'm amazed that you expect a majority to come along with you when they're more interested in how to pay the electricity bill (ironically) or what's for dinner.
The acid test for me is nuclear power. Many "greens" recoil in horror when nuclear power is mentioned, but it is a realistic 0 carbon alternative. If MMGW is the great threat we are all told, nuclear power is essential, and it must happen NOW. The threat of waste products is a small price to pay for averting global catastrophy. This is how I seperate MMGW believers and loony anti-capitalist greens.
Out of interest Henry, where do you stand on nuclear power?
maybe because most of the public are not convinced?
ricki
Agreed.
"relax a little and let public opinion come with us slowly"
Isn't the key question whether we have the time ?
For me personally climate deniers are living in a dream world that somehow we can carry o living as we are, draining the planet of it's resources and that is fine.
the world's economy is based on oil and guess what, there is not a lot left. Look at the price now, and just come out of a recession, we will hit 0 plus a barrell again as the world economy grows. for me when Oil was at this level it started off the downturn which led to the spiral of recession and near depression.
the truth for me is that we have to get off the the need for pil, we have to move away to a oil free future and until the politicans are brave enough to do this then we will live in this fake dreamworld.
Lets complain at Petrol at 130p a litre but not understand that this will become the norm and in a decades time f we do not change may seem cheap.
You say that "I don't think we should let the science speak for itself here" but also "this is the trust; it comes from the science". You're first statement could give the impression that we should embellish the evidence, I'm sure that's not what you mean.
I understand that action needs to be taken and that politicians need to put the case to the public. It is difficult to go along with a theory when we are told short term variations in temperature shouldn't lead to long term conclusions so we basically can't see it happening. The theory's predictions have to be verified. Obviously its to late by then (according to the theory).
One last thing I will say is that science has a habit of exagerating the consequences. Remember the "new ice age" in the 70s? Its easy to see how this happens, what is perhaps a worst case scenario in a scientific study becomes certainty in the newspapers and suddenly its in the common thinking. I think some of this has happened in this debate. The consequences became worse and worse over time just as politicians pushed for action. Its obvious why if you subscribe to the theory but a cynic would say political will came before the evidence.
"believers" should cool their language, relax a little and let public opinion come with us slowly, once action is taken people will realise its not all bad. In fact 0% car tax on electric cars, no congestion charge, no petrol tax, all that sounds good to me. At the moment it seems like upheaval but give it time and people will come around. You didn't honestly expect the majority to believe something put to them by a politician did you?
I know you said that you generally are persuaded by the arguments, but my point was that I don't think we should rely on the science to speak for itself here: the socio-economic consequences of climate change are too great. This does not mean that I think we should fabricate the evidence, but that we should most definitely provide politcal arguments to people who will not have slogged through IPCC data or the annexes to the Kyoto Protocol etc.
In my mind, it is down to politicians to put the case, based on the evidence, but showing the way forward to the public. They must show the connection between inaction now and catastrophe later. That's why I fundamentally disagree with Alan M who says we should keep the politics out of it. We have to be compelling. And we do this with the scientific evidence: this is teh trust... it comes from the science.
It is easy to sound anti-capitalist, but there are also significant scientific opportunities for new industry that will incorporate businesses and manufacturing in the fight against climate change.
If the leadership think that global warming is real then why dont they lead by example ? why do they jet around on planes to meetings (on the taxpayer) and not video link ? Why are they given petrol costs and not train tickets ? They expect us to change our behaviour but change theres ?
ricki
The idea ties in well with Chris Cooks proposed future local finance initiative and the new way of funding local needs. I see all that and how it could work but for me the big 'but' remains centrist inclined national politicians, who would want control on the weak grounds of it being 'public money' and the personal need for kudos.
It means, in effect, the political parties at Westminster giving up a lot of power, influence and patronage and having listened to Scot Sec Murphy's bluster on the Calman Report implementation, today, the response appears to be over their dead bodies as it will always be jam tomorrow.
Local folk will see the benefit but..... sorry to be 'Weary Willie' on this but prior to my recent illness and retirement I had spent since 1996 working on compliance and implementation projects in health care and remain damaged by ill thought out political interventions and obfuscation by both medical and standard politicians.
Please do let me know how it goes....
(sent by email)
"Tony,
You need to have your Parish Councillor's hat on to read this.
Ashton Hayes village has a project 'Going Carbon Neutral' http://www.goingcarbonneutral.co.uk/
Can you bring this to the attention of the Parish Council with a view to inviting someone from Ashton Hayes to Pulford? And, if someone is invited, we need to put a 'flyer' through residents' letter-boxes.
Give me a call, please : 01244 ------.
Regards,
PB
That's the Parish Councillor 'done.' He'll respond - he's a Party member.
Cheshire West & Chester - tomorrow.
"There will always be deniers. But I really think the time to get on board is now".
Notice I said that I "tend to agree with the official prognosis". I'm not making a point about the validity of the theory. I'm saying that the average "man on the street" is not realistically going to study the facts and figures AT ALL so it is a matter of trust.
We are told we must materially change our lives based on a theory even if it is irrefutably true. We are told MMGW is happening and we must reduce our CO2 emissions. This effects every aspect of our lives. How we heat our home, how we travel, should we travel? etc..
There also seems to be an anti-capitalist undertone to some global warming "believers". This leads to more mistrust.
The final problem with the presentation of MMGW to the public is people saying things like "There will always be deniers. But I really think the time to get on board is now". I didn't mention whether I "believed" or not. There is no need to push opinions or facts onto people. The image of the science is harmed with this approach. The facts can stand up for themselves. It is our right decide in our own minds what is true.
For the record I believe the theory to be true and action needs to be taken on a global level.
There you go, it's the 'small acorns' outlook ....
Well, that's made my night.
And I will blog on Ashton Hayes tomorrow!
There, cooperatism in action....
We can agree to disagree on mechanisms :) but your article has prompted me to put two things on my agenda for tomorrow :
(i) get in touch with my Parish Councillor and suggest that he brings the Ashton Hayes project to my village, and
(ii) write to the Cheshire West and Chester Environmental Director and ask him if the Council has any plans to 'export' goingcarbonneutral across the rest of Cheshire West and Chester
There has been eveidence over the last seven days that seem to cast doubt on globel warming , The reason ( i suggest ) that the poll shows most dont belive in global warming is a mistrust in goverment , Too many times the leadership have taken the voters for granted and then spun them a load of spin not facts .
ricki
EG:
farms emit CO2 on an industrial scale. Anyone want to kill a few thousand cows to reduce methane emissions? Methane is worse than CO2. And if you have a local power station,, or have to drive to the shops.. or rely on fertilisers or tractors or combine harvesters.. Fcator that into the argument and it all falls apart.
Vote for CO2 emission reductions and starve.. That will solve human generated CO2 problems eventually.
Cockermouth is a minor tragedy. There was much worse flooding at the end of the last Ice Age when the Channel was flooded.. and human CO2 output was miniscuke..
Of course the problems is too many humans ...
Thank you for your comments. Unfortunately, it would have to be local authority sized. This is for three main reasons: (i) Local authorities have the requisite powers to make a meaningful difference: planning, transport, waste disposal, etc; (ii) If it was a series of little projects then it would be too micro to make real difference nationally; (iii) There will be some administrative expertise within local authorities that could be of use.
However, these cooperatives would absolutely not be run by the local authority or councillors. LAs would be one partner amongst many.
Thank you for the Ashton Hayes case study which is fascinating and inspiring (the Green Party while liking this concept criticised it for not being ambitious enough in terms of cutting carbon emissions and having had a look at http://www.goingcarbonneutral.co.uk they could well have a point.) There is no reason why micro projects like this could not be established at a community level by the cooperative. Indeed, I would be amazed if they weren't established. in fact, communities could complete against one another and that could engage people further (cooperation through competition!)
@Peter Thompson We can't allow every good idea to be spiked because people don't trust politicians (or Westminster). We have to do *something* from time to time.
@Alex Smith Just realised what the picture is. Nice.
I'm with Ralph - its a random event, like the ice ages, plate tectonics, volcanic eruptions or tsunamis. What we are going to do to face up to it is more important for our survival than finger wagging, Darwinism is so much more practical.
Who here thinks that offsetting 8% of UK carbon to Senegal we will still produce is actually going to prevent Cockermouth being swept into the sea next year?
Nope, it will be solid, well designed and thought out hydraulic engineering that will do that. Time to get real and do some proper planning.
Positive article!
I'm not sure that 'local authority area' is the right size to get things done - it is still too big.
There are, even in a local authority area, many variations in social characteristics (think of the variety of wards in your LA area). In addition, councillors, by and large, don't fire up enthusiasm and the last thing that anyone wants or needs is this kind of thing done by committees and 'partnerships.' Real grass-roots enthusiasm led by credible people is the key. Small acorns an' all that.
Here in Cheshire, a small village called Ashton Hayes is aiming for carbon neutrality in their village. Their work can be seen via http://www.goingcarbonneutral.co.uk/
Agreed. The responsibility and benefits would be shared throughout.
I have more faith in a public collective than I will ever have in individuals.
Phill the globe has been warming up for the last twenty or so thousand years. We know this it is fact. Since the last Ice Age. The argument about whether or not human impact is a primary or partial effector to me is a mute and pointless argument.
There is no evidence globally to suggest the globe is now cooling.
Why is the impact of humankind a mute point? Because as the tides rise due to the inevitable melting of the ice caps (that subsequently are opening up more trade roots in places such as Alasks) we need to ensure we cope with the environmental/climatic changes that can result.
Let the scientists and politiciansgabble on about the causes. I for one am more concerned with ensuring our flood defences are adequate, that planners take into account storm runoff in flood plain locations before building, that we continue to replant trees across the UK to stabilise the topsoil and hold water (and ironically CO2), ensure we have better controls and capture methods that allow us to take advantage of heavy rain rather then be a victim of it.
Action is needed the debate is irrelevant. We need to continue to develop better tools and methods to manage, utilise and ultimately look after the environment in which we live, you may find that to be good for the economy too.
Based on what, the IPCC? Unfortunately their conclusions are based on research done at the University of East Anglia, which has been completely discredited.
Where's your evidence?
OK - let's say we in the UK take it seriously and look to reduce CO2 output in real terms rather than, as Labour has being doing, simply offset against someone else 'share'. We are then reliant on the fractal 'chaos' mathematical model to make a difference. Now the probability of this model is it might or it may trigger some other totally unforeseen consequence which may or may not be beneficial.
How do we do it? Government claims to be 'green' but offers no real tax or other advantage to encourage us to be green. It will not even support companies producing green products and as in the case of the Isle of Wight turbine producer, a similar producer in Scotland and apparently did everything it could to ensure these companies failed. The answer for Government is routinely; punitive fuel taxation which does little more than raise inflation as in the recent 'green hike' on petrol duty which now means that diesel which costs 35p a litre at the factory gate is now £1.20 a litre at the pump. To many normal folk this sort of regime is about 'phoney green issues' as the 'money' appears to be going straight to the Banks to prop them up and not to support 'green' technology development.
In Scotland we have seen Westminster indifference lead to the loss of leading edge carbon capture technology to Australia and attacks on the SNP's declared reliance on hydro and wave power to produce Scotland's future needs. We have seen total indifference from Westminster to create the infrastructure needed to move Scotland's excess reuseable production capacity south of the border. Yet there is no such difficulty when it comes to oil and gas (which yield the Treasury in excess of £32 million a day in tax and duty).
There in lies the real cynicism of many folk - politicians lie to meet their own short term ends or personal gain, why should 'green politics' be any different?
The IPPC AR4 from 2007 is widely considered the most authoritative report as far as I am aware. Link here: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_synthesis_report.htm
I use the word 'deniers' simply because I refer to people who deny that climate change exists. And I'm sorry, but environmental issues are not devoid of politics and never have been: this is because the effects of all environmental degradation have a habit of not respecting national borders. This turns them into diplomatic issues. The modern enviromental-legal era was born in the late 19th Century in a dispute over air pollution between the US and Canada (the Trail Smelter litigation). It is also the political ramifications of climate change (anthropogenic or not) that will effect our day to day lives and they will require political solutions as well as scientific ones. Even if you were to believe that it is not man made, significant work would have to be done to make us adapt to a new hostile environment.
However, I do believe that the main cause of climate change is due to the excessive release of greenhouse gases, not just carbon but nitrous oxide and methane too, into the atmosphere. I do not believe that the 'natural cycle' warming theory holds up, especially when you use more reflective methods than simply measuring core temperatures. This is my scientific argument, but this is not a purely scientific topic.
I don't really understand why your plea for science-only discussion is coming in a comment on a political blog, but never mind.
Science does not exist without its context and scientific consequences touch us in our real lives. So I think it is fundamentally flawed to ignore the social, economic and political factors of climate change.
It really is not constructive having this debate every time someone mentions the words climate change. Trust me, we know the arguments of the sceptics inside out.
The earth's atmosphere and its seas are warming. It is not absolutely certain that this is caused by man's carbon emissions but it is as near as damn it certain. The costs in social, political and environmental terms of doing nothing about it are immense. It is far less costly to act and, I believe, will actually be beneficial in broader terms than the environmental.
Now, can we have a conversation about what we are going to do? Or we can just go through the same routine again which is rather pointless.
To WHAT evidence do you refer
1. If Man made global warming was indisputably true, then there would be absolutely no need to either enhance the results of the analysis, or by hiding the source data which proves your point. Proof is proof.
2. If the globe is warming and it is not 'Man Made' then there is absolutely nothing that we can do about it. So you can pull together communities and all work together and come up with hair brained publically funded schemes and it will have the sum total of zero (null, nada, nothing) impact.
Again you use the word 'deniers' why. It is word which has political connotations - I am not interested in the politics, but the science.
PROVE IT TO ME, ANYBODY, PLEASE - dont give me emotion, dont give me flannel, dont give me assumptions, dont give me anything but the indisputable facts, based upon scientific rigour which when repeated consistently show the same results, over and over and over and over.
This is soemthing that cannot be done. But still the bandwagon rolls on the music is palying and my tax dollars are being chucked out, at 'scientists' who are peddling a myth.
Even if you don't feel that the case for anthropogenic climate change is made here (and I disagree with you), it is made very persuasively elsewhere. Let us not forget that the IPCC is a distinguished body of world-renowned scientists, separate from governments. They show us the likelihood. To be honest, when it comes the the stage that George W Bush agrees that man is contributing to the warming of the earth and the subsequent climate changes, it shows that the evidence has convinced those of the most guilty of even the most right wing of nuttery!
In any event: the earth is warming. Action must be taken if man is to survive. Warming will cause a shift in the gulf stream and the economies of Europe will collapse as the climate fails to sustain agriculture. The ice caps and glaciers melt: there is destruction of a scale that would outstrip that caused in Cockermouth last week and all over the UK 2 years ago combined. War will ensue as resources are scarce. This is not scaremongering: it's easy to see. Thomas Homer Dixon, a Canadian scholar in the field of climate change and political scientist, describes the scenario well in his book The Upside of Down. It is well worth a read.
Thomas Snoxell
It is not a matter of trust. If you choose to rely, as Glen Beck in all his neo-conservative fury has, that these emails with perhaps poorly chosen words outweighs all the other scientific evidence and all the evidence we see around us every day, then I think you're looking at things wrong. I'm not sure that your funding argument will really apply to all the work done by the whole IPCC. In any event, given the amount that climate change will cause to remedy and the reticence within many gov'ts and corporations to act, don't you think the financial incentive might be to play down the risk? Make sure the gov'ts don't act?
Copenhagen is a milestone. If we fail to get things sorted now, we are hurting our children and grandchildren and their children. It is as simple as that. When I was studying the environmental regimes around the time of COP 14 in Bali, they estimated it would cost 1% of GDP p.a now to act against climate change, but would destroy economies if they are left to have to fight more destructive change in the future.
There will always be deniers. But I really think the time to get on board is now.
I expect that theories are discussed openly, that protagonists for and against are allowed to state their case and are pilloried and ignored if they refuse to produce evidence. And of course if their theories are proven wrong., then they have zero credibility.
I have not studied climate change but note that:
people refuse to disclose evidence.
"Climate change " was once called "Global Warming".
And the once touted "hockey stick" curve is discredited.
I also am aware of the natural climate cycles : both cooling and heating.. and the impact of Ice Ages over millions of years.
Given that some participants which are Government funded and support climate change:
-Refuse to disclose evidence (as recently leaked)
-Make forecast short term which are hopelessly wrong but still make decades long forecast of climate heating (the Met Office)
-lie (Al Gore)
- or use Climate Change as the excuse to raise taxes whilst building new airports (Labour Government)
is anyone surprised that half the UK population think it's all puff?
I know the winters are warmer. We no longer get 1 metre of snow.
But frankly the Government and many scientists have zero credibility on this issue. They have cried wolf and turned out to be wrong.
Tough. Start by being honest. Until they do, I am a sceptical don't know. And calling me a denier as some have just conforms my views that many believers are unstable nutters who always follow the latest fads.
As a scientist myself I tend to trust the official prognosis but I also understand the pressures put on scientists. If they are funded for a study and it shows nothing of interest they wont get funding next time. So exageration is common. We can also see in the recent leaked emails that it is incredibly tempting to change the odd data point to give a certain result.
The problem becomes all the more acute when you introduce computer models into the equation. The parameters of such models can be changed to give wildly different results. So its very easy to change one or two parameters a very small amount (within acceptable errors) and give the "right" result.
On top of all these reasons to doubt we're also being asked to fundamentally change our lives. It is not at all surprising people are reluctant.
What's your point? 41% of people believe that Climate Change is Anthropogenic because there is no evidence to the contrary - what evidence we had has been shown in recent disclosures to hsve been hyped and manipulated in order to fit the convenient argument that it is Anthropogenic.
With the lack of and creditable evidence to support your assertion, we can only believe that it is not.
Are you asking us to have Faith in the argument? If you are it would affirm my opinion that this is a religion and not science.
At the very least you are asking us to accept a political argument as a scientific one, and that is just wrong!