The New Politics of Climate Change (Jonathon Porritt)

Search

My Profile

Feeds

What are feeds?

Articles

Other Blogs

News Links

Organisations

« SNR/Prosperous Places/New Build | Main | The Third Runway »

The New Politics of Climate Change

"But people just don’t get how urgent it is, Jonathon!" This from a harassed Government Minister looking at the latest survey of public opinion on climate change, with all the usual disturbing data about people’s uncertainty, confusion, ambivalence (saying one thing and doing another) and continuing denial of the now incontrovertible fact that addressing climate change effectively will literally transform all our lives.

Tons of reasons for the continuing confusion, of course – the Clarkson/Daily Mail effect; an army of denialists filling the blogosphere with a combination of vitriol and errant rubbish; a tendency not to believe politicians on anything, let alone climate change, and so on.

But the upshot of all this is that politicians (and this government in particular) feel unable to intervene as decisively and substantively as they need to – for fear of getting punished electorally. The gap between the rhetoric on climate change (world class) and the programme of measures in place to address it (bog-standard) is still very large.

So it was good to see the latest publication from the Green Alliance on The New Politics of Climate Change. The basic thrust of it is that individual action by the "converted" is never going to be sufficient, and that we now need to mobilise the whole of the so-called Third Sector (voluntary organisations, local community groups, trade unions and co-ops, NGOs beyond the environment world, faith communities and so on) to enable a collective shift in both attitudes and actions. Without this, we will never generate a sufficient momentum to encourage/compel our politicians to do what they know they should be doing but still feel they can’t get away with.

"So the critical issue is not simply our behaviour, but the impact of our activism, behaviour and attitudes on political action. The political effect of this action depends not simply on the numbers of people involved but on who those people are and their political influence."

This makes a lot of sense to me. The Third Sector in the UK is hugely influential. Tot up the income of all those different groups and it exceeds £100 billion, with a massive multiplier effect throughout society. But in terms of climate change, it’s a great slumbering monster, largely sitting on the sidelines of the debate on the grounds that its "not my issue", leaving it to the transparently inadequate green groups to keep battling away on their behalf. As Stephen Hale (the author of "The New Politics of Climate Change" and Director of Green Alliance) says: "we need to mobilise action networks that influence individual and community behaviour, and build the social foundations for success."

But how best to mobilise this slumbering monster? I think we will be seeing a lot more action on that front throughout 2009 from many different angles – hopefully with a correspondingly large impact on our political parties.

Posted by Jonathon Porritt on January 9, 2009 12:27 PM | Permalink

Comments (11)

Here in Dorset a Climate Change Coalition has been setup between statutary and third sector organisations to work in partnership to work together to communicate and inspire the people of Dorset to take action on Climate Change.

What would help is a resourcing via government of the N.I indicators on Climate Change which would enable Strategic partnerships to fund work, and also something a bit more than £6million from DEFRA for Nationally based organisations in terms of financial commitment from Government.

Since the DEFRA Environmental Action Fund government funding for sustainability and environmental initatives has been practically non-existent.

There are many people locally and regionally working on a shoe string to take action on the biggest issue of our time. It is time they are given the financial backup they deserve.

Posted by Paul McIntosh | January 9, 2009 6:37 PM

Jonathon: The trouble with your blog article is that, coming from your background with no (little?) scientific knowledge and your dogmatic acceptance of everything green, you believe what you want to hear without an understanding of the evidence.

You say "an army of denialists filling the blogosphere with a combination of vitriol and errant rubbish; a tendency not to believe politicians on anything, let alone climate change, and so on." I think that quote sums you up. The term ‘denialist’ is derogatory. There is nobody out there who denies climate change, after all the climate system is unstable and always has changed and will always continue to change. The army of people (with an awful lot of exceptionally good scientists amongst them) are sceptical of the political nature of climate science (the IPCC for example) and question the theory of anthropogenic global warming (and it is only a theory, because there is no evidence for man having anything other than a small impact on the climate). These scientists publish in peer-reviewed literature and do not just work on the blogosphere.

This army of sceptics do not use vitriol and errant rubbish. If you look at the best sceptical websites (What’s up with that, Climate Audit for example) and compare with the warmists websites (Real Climate for example), you will come to realise that the sceptical sites are mostly full of sense and genuine debate whereas the warmists sites are full of abuse and ban anyone from posting there if they do not agree with them (i.e. they employ censorship).

Scientists tend not to believe politicians (quite rightly, because there is hardly a politician out there who understands science or how it works). And the general public don’t believe politicians either, can see no evidence for global warming and hence there is a general reluctance to accept the need for ‘green taxes’ to try to solve a non-existent problem.

As a scientist myself, I can tell you that the theory for anthropogenic global warming (climate change as it is now strangely called) is just that, a theory. And a very poor theory it is as it requires positive feedback, something that rarely occurs in nature. Simple physics shows that the dominant climate feedbacks are negative. There is no evidence that the carbon dioxide we are putting into the atmosphere is causing anything other than an insignificant change in the climate. And of course, the additional carbon dioxide is resulting in increased plant growth.

If there is any action required by politicians to address climate change effectively, it is to prepare for global cooling (a far greater threat, since cooling reduces food production, causes increased energy use and results in far more deaths than warning). All the climate indications are that natural global cooling has started (the earth has been cooling for about a decade now, despite all that carbon dioxide) and that there could be a prolonged and severe cooling (lack of sunspots, cool ocean cooling modes (PDO, ENSO)).

I don’t think it will be too long before the scam of anthropogenic global warming will be exposed. Big lies cannot be maintained for ever. Politicians cannot for ever hide the evidence that the voters can see with their own eyes.

Posted by Phillip Bratby | January 9, 2009 8:24 PM

I've read through the "The New Politics of Climate Change" and while most of it makes perfect sense, I'm not at all convinced that what it proposes is enough to tip this issue onto the mainstream public agenda; it needs to be up there with the health service, the economy, defence, jobs, and so on. After all, climate change, and the need to save energy, finding alternative fuels, etc, touches on all these mainstream issues. After reading the pamplet I'm still thinking 'this is not enough' -- what will really make people sit up and listen, take action themselves, and demand action from their governments?

Although individuals can make a significant effort to cut energy use, cut emissions, use fewer resources etc, we urgently need action on an international level. This is the only way we're going to tackle this issue. So when leaders meet in Copenhagen at the end of 2009 they need to come up with a legally binding agreement that will seriously tackle climate change for the next few decades. In fact, the UN is probably our only hope, imperfect as it is at taking firm & decisive action (see the conflict in Gaza for their ineffectiveness), but it simply has to succeed.

Businesses also have an important role, one I think that is potentially more effective than all the combined third sector. Imagine if the world's top 500 companies (largest by turnover, or largest consumers of energy or resources) could collaborate to make a concerted effort to reduce their consumption of fossile fuels, or find alternatives (for manufacturing, infrastructure and transport etc), what a difference this could make? We as consumers can have significant influence over these companies as well.

People are largely motivated by self-interest, and then the greater good. It's difficult to link the effects of climate change to personal well-being, especially with the time scales involved. Public information can persuade people to change their lifestyles, but changes in law and practices need to be made to really make a difference. People need to me made to change -- lately we hear about 'nudging' people, when they really need a 'push'.

It's difficult to express how large a problem this is, and how difficult it is going to be to get people to change. If you believe the science, and there's no reason not to (although people like Mr Bratby find it hard) then if we do nothing, potentially very serious consequences will occur, within our children's lifetime. Somehow the scale of the problem has not been publically conveyed, but at present we are totally failing to identify and meet the challenge.

Posted by 4fooey | January 12, 2009 12:25 PM

4fooey:

Can you explain to me exactly what science it is that I do not believe and that you believe? I find it very worrying that many people unthinkingly accept and believe what they are told about science by politicians and people with a political agenda.

I'll tell you some of the things I do believe. I believe that increased CO2 in the atmosphere can result in an increase in IR absorption and a warming, but that the IR band in which CO2 absorbs and emits is essentially saturated and so there is little warming potential left in any further increases in CO2. I do not believe that there are any net positive feedbacks that could result in enhancement of any warming resulting from increased CO2 (nature does not have positive feedbacks). I believe that the majority of the warming we have experienced since the depths of the Little Ice Age are natural. I believe that natural climate changes are mostly caused by ocean behaviour (where the energy is stored) and the behaviour of the sun. I believe we should be preparing for global cooling.

And it's Dr Bratby (I am a scientist with a PhD in physics)

Posted by Phillip Bratby | January 12, 2009 9:27 PM

4fooey again:

I have just had a look at "The New Politics of Climate Change" and was disappointed to find a lack of science in there (I wasn't surprised, it is after all a political document). There was a blind acceptance of the 4th IPCC summary report as the scientific evidence. And yet the 4th IPCC summary report is another political document which seriously distorts any scientific information hidden in the WGI supporting reports. I'll give just one example. One of the scientific reports explains how inadequate the global circulation models are and how their results should not be used as forecasts of the future climate. However, the summary report for (of) policymakers makes great play of the 'catastrophic' warming predicted by the models.

No wonder that many tens of thousands of scientists are dismayed by the political corruption of scientific findings and are sceptical of the climate change industry. I suggest you read the WGI scientific reports and ignore the summaries. Even then you have to be cautious, because many of the authors have a vested interest in promoting only one side of the scientific evidence.

Posted by Phillip Bratby | January 12, 2009 9:50 PM

Dr Bratby. I am not a scientist, but the members of the IPCC are. To quote the UN run IPCC website "The IPCC is a scientific body: the information it provides with its reports is based on scientific evidence and reflects existing viewpoints within the scientific community. The comprehensiveness of the scientific content is achieved through contributions from experts in all regions of the world". I'm willing to accept that their opinion is objective and that there is little or no political bias in their reports. I have only read summary reports etc from the IPCC but their conclusions are very worrying.

- It is very likely that human activities are causing global warming

- Probable temperature rise by the end of the century will be between 1.8C and 4C (3.2-7.2F)

- Possible temperature rise by the end of the century ranges between 1.1C and 6.4C (2-11.5F)

- Sea levels are likely to rise by 28-43cm

- Arctic summer sea ice is likely to disappear in second half of century

- It is very likely that parts of the world will see an increase in the number of heatwaves

- Climate change is likely to lead to increased intensity of tropical storms

I know there are many scientists who doubt the evidence, but it seems to me that the overall effects of climate change are real, are man-made, and consensus suggests the effects will be catastrophic. As to whether or not we can "wait and see" if the consequences are going to be catastrophic, I tend to favour action now, and why not? If there is a risk of a catastrophy, why not try to do something about it?

Posted by 4fooey | January 13, 2009 5:53 PM

4fooey:

So you prefer the IPCC political statements you listed above rather than the IPCC scientific statement that global circulation models results should not be used as forecasts of the future climate?

Note that all the political statements you listed are opinions using the words 'likely' 'possible' and 'probable'. These are the opinions of the politicians who write the summaries. There is no scientific justification for the 'likelihood'.

Posted by Phillip Bratby | January 15, 2009 12:54 PM

On the substantive point of the New Politics of Climate Change pamplet and this blog peice I wholeheartedly agree that the third sector, and civil society more widely, has a key role to play in showing leadership, mobilising to demand better and faster and progress to meet our obligations under the Climate Change Act, and developing and demonstrating new approaches to a range of social and economic issues that can help us to mitigate and adapt to climate change.

Where I disagree with the analysis put forward by both Stephen Hale and Jonathon Porritt is in the assertion that the third sector is asleep.

The Every Action Counts programme has been delivered by a consortium of voluntary and community sector organsiations to help the sector become more sustainable in its practice.

In addition to producing a range of guidance and resources for community organisations it has also developed the Third Sector Declaration on Climate Change (www.everyactioncounts.org.uk/declaration. Over 200 third sector organisations have signed up to the Declaration and have made a committment to addressing the issues of climate chnage and environmental justice with their staff, volunteers and service users.

Every Action Counts includes not just 'green groups' but also organisations addressing a range of social issues, and this partnership has enabled different parts of the sector to understand the links between environmental, social and economic concerns. This work is progressing through a range of other initives including:
- the roundtable on Climate Change and Poverty in the UK led by Oxfam and the New Economics Foundation
- the Carnegie inquiry into the Future of Civil Society
- the Barings Foundation special initative focussing on providing support for non-environmental civil society organsiations to address climate change

At a local level there are a myriad of community led initiatives ranging from low carbon communities to transition towns which are demonstrating what a low carbon future could like.

Is this enough? No absolutely not.
The need for action is immediate and urgent and the lack of leadership shown by the third sector is a real issue. However it is both wrong and unhelpful to state that the sector is not joining the debate rather than acknowledging the actions being taken not just to address the issue of climate change but to ensure that in tackling it we also address wider issues of social and environmental justice.

There are some continuing barriers. There remains a sense that the climate change is an environmental issue and not a social one although this is rapidly changing. There remains a lack of knowledge and expertise on the issue in some of the major national third sector organsiations which makes them relunctant to speak out or act decisively. There is also a lack of resources to enable organisations to address the issue effectively - espeically at a local level where so much of the energy and creativity to drive forward real change to strengthen our communities and enable them to take action to reduce and adapt to the impacts of climate change will come.

As the Every Action Counts programme comes to an end it is essential that the new partnerships and projects developing to address this issue continue and grow. We are actively engaged in talking to Green Alliance about how to address the deficit in leadership identified in this paper and with others across the sector and in Government to ensure that we can enable the collective shift in both attitude and action that we need to see if we are to address the challenge of climate change.

It is absolutely right to identify the challenge -and the deficit between our current action and the scale of that challenge. However we will not motivate others to join this movement if we fail to identify and acknowledge the progress being made in some quarters and build on it.

Posted by Mark Walton | January 21, 2009 12:58 PM

"addressing climate change effectively will literally transform all our lives." Climate change has been going on for 4.5 billion years, it's a fantasy to think that we can redirect it, particularly as the complex drivers of climate are still far from understood. Attempts to "address climate change" may transform our lives adversely, e.g. by increasing government interference and direction and negative economic impacts. Not to mention calls from you to limit families to two children. I think that human life is a precious gift, not something to subordinate to alarmist claims on global warming.

Posted by Faustino | January 31, 2009 10:20 PM

Dear Mr Porrit,

Thank you for recasting the notion of Original Sin in 21st century terms.

...

Now what about Grace?

Posted by Trialanderr0r | February 3, 2009 1:03 AM

Dear 4fooey, since you are such a devout believer in the myth of significnt human-made climate change perhaps you'd be good enough to take up the challenge that I issued to dedicated environmentalists Jonathan Porritt, his "Forum for the Future" charity, his "Sustainable Development Commission", Mark Lynas, etc. etc. etc. This challenge is to refute the scientific findings of the experts summarised in my paper "Politicization of Climate Change & CO2", available on the Climate Science Coalition Web-site at:-
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=374&Itemid=1.

I refer you to my post of 28th Feb. on Jonathan's "Green New Deals" blog. This challenge has been persistently ignored by environmentalists because you have no sound scientific facts to back up your support of the myth about significant human-made global warming.

Regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made global warming agnostic

Posted by Pete Ridley | April 6, 2009 8:11 PM

Search

Feeds

Recent Posts

Categories

Archives