'Do politicians have the answers to climate change?'
Well, Newsnight did ask:
It's a bit like saying do they have the answers to 'the weather'. So in this more balance-aware age it probably should be more like 'Could politicians have the means to help mitigate mankind's possible/probable negative influences on climate change?', but I think we know what you mean.
And the answer is, of course.
The only small problems are the democratic electorates with near zero trust that most institutions who would claim to serve them - government, business, media, activist groups - will tell them what's going on without spin, career-advancement, profit or self-interest put first to cloud any rational efforts to address the issue.
Or, if that can be surmounted, have the skill sets in place to communicate anything to people in ways in which they can rationally engage in this day and age.
So... with Clintonesque troofamism, that's an 'affirmative, though enhanced by variable qualifiers to leave the answer to the question sufficiently obscure as to be anything and nothing all at once'....'cos staying in power is really all that matters.
I shall look forward to the results of the poll, but have long expressed concerns by the twofer style (even if it is this time 'focus groups') of getting to anything meaningful in debate.
I am sure for the benefits of ratings, the groups of sceptics and believers will have been selected in advance for the 'richness' of their views.
The trouble with such adherence to entrenched warfare entertainment is that the two extremes get so comfy where they are, surrounded by their mates firing rounds over the horizon and hoping for the odd hit, they forget what they are doing to everything that lies in between.
So usually the only winners in such events are the carrion crows who feed off the carnage they have orchestrated just for the meal of the day. For tomorrow is another headline.
Am I willing to pay more in green taxes? Yes, so long as they are clear, fair, spent where I can see the benefit (not endless quangos and unproductive administrators), have genuine enviROIs, are not just to meet some target, and will make the planet a better place overall for my kids by being imposed.
Will environmental policies influence the way I vote in a general election? Yes, but nothing the current shambolic collection of half-considered knee-jerks, crowd-pleasers and spinmeisters I've witnessed to date have managed to put forward anything to move me beyond 'none of the above' as yet. More's the pity.
Please let it be an interesting, worthwhile session, and not another producer's wet dream that leaves me disappointed again, and Mother Nature with a tear in her eye.
And if by some miracle it does arrive at some consensus and answers without collapsing into another 'tis/'t'isnt 'BigOil funded deniers' vs. 'Hairshirt and ignore the realities of 6B and growing populations', please to the heavens may they be in the form of tangible, worthwhile things that can be DONE, and not just yet more airwave fodder in the form of meaningless WORDS.
I guess I'm looking forward to it:)
ADDENDUM: I hope someone may one day hire me. I was pretty much bang on with all I said above, and have been banging on about for the last few years
[I sent that yesterday in response to the pre-show email. Didn't seem to make it for some reason]
I've now watched it. And I was wrong. At least about the extremes. This was a very polite, reasoned group. Good on 'em.
However...
I was a tad concerned about the research methodology on display. We had 30 'sceptics and deniers' moderated by a guy who says 'I'd rather die of heat than eat less meat'. Sets an objective tone? Not. As was, frankly, his leading the public hands up (which is why we have secret ballots) with incredulous commentary: 'Look... we ONLY have...'.
So I was expecting polarised views. Which is, to an extent, what we were served. But initially from only about half a dozen respondees, over and over. It expanded a bit more when things hit politics, but not by much.
And speaking of politics, why were we served visuals of, and choices between just Brown and Cameron? With, by way of bizarre 'balance', a sole Lib Dem spokesperson in the studio to respond afterwards?
The qualitative trends were interesting, but no more considering the nature of the group.
I was surprised at the high score for HRH, especially from the sceptics, because as examples go his record offers them some pretty good ammo, and certainly better than Mr. Huhne's odd proxy mea culpa for Al Gore.
Post Live Earth and pre Planet Relief (RIP), the BBC must be heaving a sigh... of relief how the cult of celebrity was viewed. (Please note all who just fancy setting up a party in the Green Room with your favourite soap star... er... in the name of awareness).
I was surprised at the consensus on the activist approach. Though it does at least show that guilt and hectoring are no more useful in the persuasion stakes across the board than fines or nanny state lectures.
I was also surprised to see Mr. Branson (if oddly deemed, at least to me, typically representative of the corporate sector) not better received. But then, opening with the notion that alternative fuels are going to solve everything (if showing how a selection of footage or edit can steer things) is not quite the 'reduction' response you'd expect a guy with travel as his business model to come up with. ADDENDUM - Just added a pic of a Virgin ad: fly to New York to shop. About covers it, I think.
And so the polster rounds up with 'Is climate in crisis... we're not sure.' That's quite a claim. based on 30 'we's'. I think most politicians are. I think such as the IPCC are. I think RealClimate is, etc (cue a raft of those who are not...).
So if as he says, 'we' are not, ... why not? And how do 'we' get motivated to act to help in mitigation?
As the topic of the piece it seems clear politicians don't have the answers, possibly, as JP said ' [They] just don't believe you'.
Which is, if others of us also don't, a bit of a problem.
Don't know about a dog's name, but it is its dinner.
Newsnight - Give a dog a bad name
Whatever it's called, please make sure it's kept virtual.
A pet purchase on the day you discuss the consequences of climate change measures may prove... interesting.
As long as it lasts:
VOTING ON CLIMATE CHANGE
Do voters really care about climate change? US pollster Frank Luntz organised a focus group to see
Watch the item
Guardian CiF - What will it take to convince people?
A variation on the above:
GiGo.
To ask if politicians have 'the answer' to climate change a bit like saying do they have the answers to 'the weather'. So in this more balance-aware age it probably should have been more like 'Could politicians have the means to help mitigate mankind's possible/probable negative influences on climate change?', but I think we know what was meant. For me it just became a bit less than effective as the various deaths by a thousand cuts took their toll on the process.
The simple answer is, of course they have.
The only small problems are the democratic electorates with near zero trust that most institutions who would claim to serve them - government, business, media, activist groups - will tell them what's going on without spin, career-advancement, profit or self-interest put first to cloud any rational efforts to address the issue.
Or, if that can be surmounted, have the skill sets in place to communicate anything to people in ways in which they can rationally engage in this day and age.
I looked forward to the results of the poll, but have long expressed concerns by the twofer style (even if it is this time 'focus groups') of getting to anything meaningful in debate.
I am sure for the benefits of ratings, the groups of sceptics and believers were selected in advance for the 'richness' of their views. Having watched it my fears about extremes were misplaced. This was a very polite, reasoned group. Good on 'em.
Because the trouble with the media's attraction to entrenched warfare entertainment is that the two extremes get so comfy where they are, surrounded by their mates firing rounds over the horizon and hoping for the odd hit, they forget what they are doing to everything that lies in between.
So usually the only winners in such events are the carrion crows who feed off the carnage they have orchestrated just for the meal of the day. For tomorrow is another headline.
The two main questions were: 'Am I willing to pay more in green taxes? My ans: - Yes, so long as they are clear, fair, spent where I can see the benefit (not endless quangos and unproductive administrators), have genuine enviROIs, are not just to meet some target, and will make the planet a better place overall for my kids by being imposed.
Then: 'Will environmental policies influence the way I vote in a general election?" Ans: Yes, but nothing the current shambolic collection of half-considered knee-jerks, crowd-pleasers and spinmeisters I've witnessed to date have managed to put forward anything to move me beyond 'none of the above' as yet. More's the pity.
However, I was a tad concerned about the research methodology on display. We had 30 'sceptics and deniers' moderated by a guy who says 'I'd rather die of heat than eat less meat'. Sets an objective tone? Not. As was, frankly, his leading the public hands up (which is why we have secret ballots) with, as you noted, incredulous commentary: 'Look... we ONLY have...'.
So I was expecting polarised views. Which is, to an extent, what we were served. But initially from only about half a dozen respondees, over and over. It expanded a bit more when things hit politics, but not by much.
And speaking of politics, why were we served visuals of, and choices between just Brown (looking forward to his big climate ideas at the conference) and Cameron? With, by way of bizarre 'balance', a sole Lib Dem spokesperson in the studio to respond afterwards?
The qualitative trends were interesting, but no more considering the nature of the group.
I was surprised at the high score for HRH, especially from the sceptics, because as examples go his record offers them some pretty good ammo, and certainly better than Mr. Huhne's odd proxy mea culpa for Al Gore.
Post Live Earth and pre Planet Relief (RIP), the BBC must be heaving a sigh... of relief how the cult of celebrity was viewed. (Please note all who just fancy setting up a party in the Green Room with your favourite soap star... er... in the name of awareness).
I was surprised at the consensus on the activist approach. Though it does at least show that guilt and hectoring are no more useful in the persuasion stakes across the board than fines or nanny state lectures.
I was also surprised to see Mr. Branson (if oddly deemed, at least to me, typically representative of the corporate sector) not better received. But then, opening with the notion that alternative fuels are going to solve everything is not quite the 'reduction' response you'd expect a guy with travel as his Galactic business model to come up with.
And so the polster rounds up with 'Is climate in crisis... we're not sure.' That's quite a claim. based on 30 'we's'. I think most politicians are. I think such as the IPCC are. I think RealClimate is, etc (cue a raft of those who are not...).
So if as he says, 'we' are not, ... why not? And how do 'we' get motivated to act to help in mitigation?
As the topic of the piece it seemed clear politicians don't have the answers, possibly, as Jeremy Paxman said to one:' [They] just don't believe you'.
Personally, I think we need to look at the current crop of messengers because, for all their efforts (and money spent), not many seem to be getting the message.
Guardian - Can politicians solve climate change?
In the spirit of recycling, I'd answer the question as I did when it was posed on Newsnight and referred to on these very pages:
To offer a short answer from this it is, of course.
The only small problems are the democratic electorates with near zero trust that most institutions who would claim to serve them - government, business, media, activist groups - will tell them what's going on without spin, career-advancement, profit or self-interest put first to cloud any rational efforts to address the issue.
And having popped back to look at my blog I find it rather telling irony (and annoying) that Google have plonked an ad on my post... from a Washington Lobbying Firm.
No comments:
Post a Comment