Information Campaign

One approach is the http://www.letstalkgordon.org.uk/ suggestion for a televised public address by the Prime Minister on climate change.  This links to a Downing Street petition.

But why just one televised address?  Why not make it a regular thing, as were Churchill's radio addresses during World War II?  How about monthly, or every three weeks even?  It should not be as narrow as climate change anyway.  There are so many inter-related issues that need to be covered: technology, economic instruments, adaptation both here and elsewhere, re heatwaves, water scarcity, crop yields, sea levels, storms, tropical diseases; deforestation and biodiversity loss, peak oil, peak phosphorus, over-fishing, population, air quality.

Well, we do have a minister for Climate Change and he does seem to understand some of the issues. Other ministries and ministers fight their own corners and that's how we don't have a concerted government push. Mandy sees it all as a new marketing venture, full of big industry. We've got this embarrassingly huge high energy consuming civilisation, from coal fired power stations to NHS hospitals and vast superstores, linked by bustling transport systems. Our Gordon can't just say "Sorry, we got all that wrong, too" can he?

Yes, the Government needs to know and yes people can then be told, too, but the most effective way to spread information is from the bottom up and from person to person. Me, I never believe what the Government tells me. I like to work things out myself and talk to others about the issue. Then I really understand the subject. However, debate and information needs to go out and I reckon we should all be messengers and slow down society from within.

Trouble is, I do agree that the matter has become urgent. Maybe we can link a post economic collapse recovery into slowing the progress of climate change. So that's insulation, afforestation and much more arable, organic agriculture - using green manure crops cos there's far less livestock to release methane and waste good cropland.

The transition movement is the single most effective way of reaching and empowering people. What Chris says about 'slowing down society from within' is pretty much what the transitioners also believe. Going cold turkey before we actually are forced to is something that most would avoid, but, if educational films are shown which convey the reality of a post peak oil society, this will gradually affect a growing fraction of the population. I recommend Carbon Weevils (very wry humour, only 7 minutes long) for starters, and it should be compulsory viewing for all Members of Parliament,  nay all government departments. To get anywhere at all with the low-carbon agenda, we need to  to be able to stand back from the human condition and ridicule ourselves.

Candidly I don't think you want an information campaign, i think you just want everyone else to agree with you.

Currently the theory of AGW is;

1.Taught in every school

2. In every paper

3. On every tv channel

etc etc

Yet for some reason many people still remain sceptical. A more worthwhile approach would be to ask why rather than attempt to brow beat people with more of the same.

Dear Diana,

Thanks for your help.  The Carbon Weevils do seem to be starting a transition movement, not because they are worried about overrunning their biosphere's climate, but because they're approaching the summit of their "Peak Oil" and don't know how to become carbon independent weevils.

If only they could see that planning for the day when their carbon source starts to deplete is just delaying their transition, then they might choose a more drastic economy now as being the lesser of two weevils.

Regards, Neal Pearson

I think you'll find that the Transition Movement is precisely the one choosing the more drastic economy now and members are just as concerned about climate change as peak oil. There's plenty of information out there so I won't insult your intelligence by providing a link. (PS Great pun.)

Informing the Public re Climate Change

Having watched last night's Newsnight on BBC2 (did anyone else see this?), there was a general conclusion amongst the audience that the UK Government has shown insufficient leadership. Consequently, the general public remain confused re climate change, what to do about it and even whether it's really as big an issue as has been made out.

The Government really does need to communicate the issue more effectively, in terms of action and not just talk.  The obvious answer is for the Governement to define its objective (e.g. To achieve x% reduction in UK CO2 emissions by the year yyyy), along with its targets, how it intends to achieve those targets, and how it has performed to date in meeting those targets.  It would make sense to update these targets, actions and performance data on a quarterly basis, thus highlighting the seasonal variations in energy consumption.  These quarterly updates should be broadcast nationwide and should be as simple and concise as possible, i.e. the public wants complete honesty and transparency.  Importantly, the Government should work with all elected political parties to ensure that these commitments will be passed on to any future Government after an election.

In conjunction with these updates, it is essential to introduce a quarterly climate change budget, setting out how the intended actions will be financed.  There has to be carrot as well as stick, e.g. tax rebates for use of sustainable fuel sources, funded from increased taxes in fossil fuel usage.

Such a commitment would show the rest of the World that the UK really does take Climate Change seriously, and is prepared to show leadership.  This would set a good example for the rest of the World to follow.

What do others think of these ideas?

Regards,

Tony

In my view there are three important parts to this:

1.  Public information campaign led by a series of broadcast addresses (see my comment #1 above)

2.  Interactive teach-ins of small groups of people, of the kind shown on Newsight.  Not necessarily with the same props, but going on for longer than shown.  The object would be that the public is more welcoming/demanding of Government-led equitable measures to cut emissions and manage resource use.  This may turn out to be more successful in influencing the waverers and those inclining to support emissions-saving than the strongest sceptics.  This seemed to be the experience of the Newsnight exercise: the one person who clearly wasn't persuaded was demanding to know how much of the CO2 increase was natural, even after hearing how the current level was way above that found in ice-core for '00,000's of years.

3.  Promotion of specific emissions-saving measures, e.g. via home energy audits, use of smart meters.  Here I agree there needs to be an accent on the self-interest value of doing them, but not always e.g. proper recycling does not stem merely from self-interest.

Unfortunately, the political and corporate class who we are asking to lead an information campaign have just discredited themselves in full public view.   They have robbed us blind, flaunted their own excessive consumption, and then, having told us all at the start of COP15 that we MUST act now to avert a total catastrophe, they have failed to do ANYTHING meaningful at all.   It doesn't inspire confidence.  Campaigners tell us we need to do more to make the government act, but millions have no faith in their governments, and there is no reason after Copenhagen why they should. 

So we have a situation where the mass of people feel powerless to do anything to avoid a life-threatening situation.  At this point , the well co-ordinated efforts of sceptics, PR firms and ill-informed bloggers to undermine the feeling of consensus get more attractive.  If you want to get on with your life in the present, it's more comfortable to believe that there are serious doubts about the science, and it's easy to suggest that this is all a scam for the rich to get richer and the state to fleece the tax-payer - because that's exactly how it looks when you make saving the biosphere the responsibility of corporate executives, financiers, and national governments.  The needs of the economic system they administer are fundamentally at odds with the needs of the ecological system that sustains all life.

I think that's why "climate change scepticism" has increased.  People's "belief" will fluctuate depending on how imminent the threat seems and how empowered we feel to do anything about it.  In my opinion, rather than spending any more energy on asking the owners and rulers to do more, we climate activists need to get clear that the task of averting runaway climate change is the task of transforming our whole society - there are many reasons why Capitalism is no longer sustainable, and climate change is one of them.  Peak oil may or may not be another one.  But the key thing is to decouple combatting climate change from the posturing and hypocracy of the wealthy elite, and link it instead to the fight against exploitation, injustice, insecurity, homelessness, war, oppression and the like.  

Many of us have tried to get the capitalist system to act on climate change because it seemed like we just didn't have time to organise a revolutionary movement - the revolution would have to wait.   For a while, the people with economic power seemed to be listening - they said all the right things and made big pledges.  But now we can see that capitalism has just co-opted our arguements for it's own ends.  The ecological destruction continues, and our enslavement to the system makes any meaningful personal action impossible.

The working people of the world - which includes all the brilliant technologists, designers and engineers we need - will have to take control of the situation, and we can only do that by empowering a popular movement which DEMANDS action, and backs that demand up by action in the workplace and on the streets.   It's a big ask, but to my mind it's the only option left, and it may be alot easier than it looks, if we can align ourselves with the popular mood rather than acting at odds with it.

Theo, "If you want to get on with your life in the present, it's more comfortable to believe that there are serious doubts about the science" - I agree, this is the biggest weapon of the 'climate sceptics'.

The 'popular mood' may be helplessness and/or suspicion about climate change, but it is certainly not demanding a socialist revolution.  Most people in this country think the current system is not ideal, but it allows them to get on with their life.  We are, after all, unless something very unexpected happens, about to elect a Conservative government.  So, "aligning with the popular mood" means something quite different to me.

The challenge, as well as inspiring the radicals to take action, is to get the majority of people (those who are naturally conservative, with a small c) to accept the science and distrust the deniers.  Specifically, in relation to a government-run information campaign, you are right that many people distrust government, but their silence gives weight to the sceptics' arguments.  It is easy to infer that "If it was that serious, then the government would tell us / would be doing more about it."  

I do agree that the current world order / capitalist system is a major part of the problem, but most people don't.  How can they be brought to see the big picture and the injustice inherent in a system which is taken for granted?  Honestly, I don't know...

Further to my last point, asking the public whether or not they believe climate change is happening is a waste of time. As if Joe Public is somehow more qualified to talk about climate change than scientists? I think not. A better news article, one reflective of the actual science would be to ask the scientists whether or not they think climate change is man made. You'd get a lot more saying yes than you would the unquailfied knuckle-dragging, Sun reading simpletons that make up large parts of the UK population.

Because Anton, Joe Public are the ones who will have to adjust their lifestyles and pay for it, hence why you need them on board.

Incidently, referring to Joe Public as "unquailfied knuckle-dragging, Sun reading simpletons that make up large parts of the UK population" is probably the fastest way to lose Joe Public as well as betraying a breathtaking arrogance and superiority complex.

I agree Theo, which is why we should think seriously about merging with the Climate Justice movement, who have also developed a similar understanding that the fight against climate change is nothing more nor less than a fight against capitalism.

Claire, most people do see the injustice of the system (consider how people react to the bankers' bonuses as an example) but feel powerless to do anything about it.   The more they see other people engaging in struggle, the more confident people will feel to fight for justice.

Just went on You and Yours (Radio 4) and said roughly the following (though i got cut short before the positive bit at the end!).  Many excellent contributions on air.  The core of our movement is very well informed and wise.