Large majorities of people across the world agree that humans are causing global warming, a BBC poll indicates.
Now, as all would know, I have a few views on polls; how they are conducted, what the questions are and then how they get applied. I am no statistician, so I am in no position to comment on detailed methodology, but I can cock an eyebrow at how detail gets turned into a sound-bite.
So I do wish that such significant findings, in all their complexity, hadn't quite been offered up in such a way as to give the contrarians the chance to have a go at a headline like that. It surely should read as the subhead does to avoid any charges of trying to sway opinion. It is powerful enough already.
And I note that it's not that man has made and is making things worse, but indeed has caused it. So that perception now has taken hold, and maybe a good thing. But is it proven yet? I don't know if it is. And if shown to be shaky, does such absolutism help or hinder those trying to ease us back to less wasteful ways, or simply hand a 'get out of any responsibility free card' to those needing little incentive to grab such a thing if the science raises doubts on nature's total exclusion from the deal?
And while representatives from about 150 countries, including 80 heads of state or government, were at the meeting, I note it is noted that US President George W Bush was not present. Instead, he is hosting a meeting of 16 "major emitter" countries in Washington on Thursday and Friday.
Who else world-leading emitter-wise, but not mentioned, was not there I wonder? Talk about serving up a distraction on a plate to those who would challenge the motivations of the commissioners? Just give us the facts, and explain them rationally, guys. We don't need to be lead.
And on a final note, what does the team think the actual move to action will be of those strongly moved to respond with... words?
ADDENDUM - speaking of what happens 'twixt headline and what follows:
Guardian Home - Benn rallies US on emissions targets - Do what? Rather, who what?
But click on that to get - Benn calls on US to adopt binding aims on emissions - That's more like it. Nothing like a good call. As to who will pay any more attention this time...
Apparently, 'Mr Benn made his appeal (is that more or less than a call, or better than a rally?) at a climate change summit at the United Nations headquarters in New York... attended by more than 80 heads of state and government...' but '...President George Bush was not at the meeting.'
Now where have I heard that before? Meanwhile, who else wasn't there? Or, for that matter, who was?
Maybe Mr. Brown was less not there than Mr. Bush. Which makes him 'Green God Gordo' by not being something as bad as he could be. Yeah, that'll work.
Guardian - Has the US stand-off run out of steam?
I've read everywhere from the Guardian to the BBC that George Bush did not attend this, but other than Hillary Benn am having trouble finding out which 'world leaders' actually did. Can anyone help?
If this is the 'single, greatest (etc)..' I'd just like to see which of our global great and good didn't feel there was something more pressing at the 'mo.
Guardian - The new climate change pioneer
As the BBC and the Guardian seem to be linking back and forth I have so far gathered that George Bush isn't there, but other than Mr. Benn am having trouble finding out which other 'world leaders' (Does his boss know?) were. Anyone?
Anyway, big up to NZ for some national initiative on the DOING vs. talking front. Maybe it's the perfect entire country for eco-tourism, once the whole flying thing can be addressed.
Mind you, I do have a certain sympathy with those who try and point out certain comparisons need to be matched with a few realities.
Some Singaporean chums once challenged me to explain why the UK could not be more like their city state in terms of economy, transport, etc. I had to point out that if one put a wall round London it would be a pretty rich place with a public tube and bus system that's... well, it would be a pretty rich place.
At least I managed to note that their thirst for oil per head was also top of the list, too. So being small doesn't automatically make it easier to go green.
ADDENDUM - Having had little that made sense from our media here, I have turned to Google. And roamed a world of headlines, from Thailand's Bangkok Post to some Canadian effort. What was first of all interesting was how many had either taken a lead from the same press release, or had a very similar take on it all. Like, word for word.
At least I now know that a fair number of 'world leaders' were there: France, Germany, Canada at least. Plus Al Gore. I also know, A LOT, that George Bush wasn't. Condi Rice was. What I didn't see was that the Prime Minister of the UK also didn't quite make it, but sent our A team instead. For some reason the Chinese just sending their Foreign Minister was OK, too. No word yet on Putin being there or not, or indeed what the Indian contingent comprised.
One thing's for sure, it didn't come across as the be-all-and-end-all that some media seemed to wish it was, but mainly because of the way it was reported.
Grist - Every Momentum Counts
U.N. hosts one-day climate meeting to spur climate-agreement fever
They usually talk sense.
I loved this though: Gathering momentum for a United Nations climate conference in Bali, - at last I can make it up!
And an answer, of sorts: The conference attracted 150 nations, about 80 of which sent at least their heads of state, making it the best-attended climate meeting in U.N. history among high-level officials
Plus a certain, welcome, pragmatism: 'However, since it's being hosted by the binding-agreement-wary U.S., critics see little coming out of the meeting but voluntary actions and vague technology-sharing agreements. Oh, and probably press releases and goodie bags too'. Darn, I forgot to mention the goodie bags. I wonder if Mr. Benn will have spares?
No comments:
Post a Comment