Almost all people believe
the climate is changing,
probably because
it's always changing.
But not that many people
buy into a coming climate
apocalypse.
They pay lip service
to "climate change"
beliefs to avoid
ridicule and character
attacks.
The shallowness of climate
concern among the public
is a rarely discussed
secret of climate alarmism.
There have been surveys
that asked how much money
each month the respondents
would be willing to pay for
'fighting' climate change.
I assumed people
would virtue signal
and claim they'd
contribute a lot
of money ...
because it was
just a survey,
not a bill,
so no cash was
involved.
I have been
repeatedly
shocked by the
'believers', who
consistently say
they would be willing
to contribute only
small amounts,
such as $10
a month, or less !
A recent poll by the
American Energy Alliance
confirmed that U.S. voters
are much more interested
in economic issues than
“climate change.”
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse
(Democrat-RI)
lamented earlier this year:
"There is
no company
that shows up
in Congress
on climate,
except maybe
Patagonia.
Tech associations
barely mention it.
I am involved in a number
of secret climate conversations
with some of my Republican
colleagues but they can’t find
a single corporation that will
come out and say
‘I’ve got your back.’
It should not be too much
to ask corporate America
to align their lobbying
with their stated values."
The United Kingdom
seems to be similar
to the United States:
A disagreement
has developed
between the UK
and the EU
over climate policy,
detailed in
a Reuters article
of May 25, 2020,
“Bust-up over
climate weighs
on EU-UK talks,
risks trade rifts.”
Both sides have
the same long-term
CO2 emission goals.
But long-term
aspirational goals
are just talk.
What to do now, and
how much to spend
now, is a big issue.
From a recent analysis
by Rebecca Willis,
who seems to be
a climate alarmist,
in The Guardian,
“‘I Don’t Want to be Seen
As a Zealot’: What MPs
Really Think About
the Climate Crisis"
(May 21, 2020),
tells the story.
Quotations from the
long article follow --
the bold print was
added to emphasize
sentences that I found
to be most interesting:
“[The MP] told me she regularly speaks for her party on climate change, telling people about the need for action to tackle emissions. And yet, she said, there was a catch: lots of people in the constituency she represents have jobs in an industry responsible for huge amounts of carbon pollution…. She was simultaneously backing and opposing climate action.”
“There is very little honest debate about the major changes to our economy and society that will be needed if we are to meet this challenge. Like my interviewee, we’re all in favour of climate action, but we haven’t yet had an honest conversation about the power and the vested interests involved, or the choices that will have to be made if we are to achieve significant reductions in emissions.”
“I have come to think of this as the dual reality of climate politics. We know that things need to change, and yet we’re embedded in our current lives and our current politics. We exist in both realities at once.”
“Politicians make grand statements about the threat of climate change, then flip straight back into politics-as-usual. They find it hard to imagine, and to get others to imagine, how we might talk about and bring into being a politics with climate at its heart. It’s easier to look away.”
“Covid-19 is, understandably, taking up all the political and media attention there is, for now. But the need for fast, radical carbon cuts – and a political strategy that will allow this to happen – has not gone away. Will green investment be prioritised in the economic stimulus packages that are undoubtedly needed? Will people think differently about travel or food security? Will we emerge with a politics that focuses more on a collective approach to global challenges such as climate? Or will we fall back into desperate attempts to rekindle the old economy and the old ways? For now, there are only questions. But my research offers some clues about how the recovery could be climate-proofed.”
“Politicians quietly passed a radical act of parliament [Climate Change Act of 2009] committing the UK to serious change – and then carried on as normal.”
“With the backing of Green Alliance and some philanthropic funders, I set up a training programme. We offered parliamentary candidates and new MPs the chance to learn about the science, policy and politics of climate in a series of tailor-made workshops…. And then, at the end of our workshop, they walked out of the door and back to their normal lives.”
“All the politicians I spoke to accepted the science of climate change. And yet they downplayed the consequences. They showed a reluctance to discuss how climate change would reshape human society.”
“I asked [the MP] why, if it’s so significant, [climate] wasn’t discussed much in parliament. But he didn’t answer. He couldn’t, or didn’t want to, linger on this point: he steered the discussion on to electoral cycles, the health service, the economy. He was back in the manageable normality he knew, rejecting the reality of a climate-changed future that had, just a few moments before, terrified him.”
“The way politicians responded to climate didn’t just depend on what they thought about the science. Instead, it became clear to me that there were two main reasons why MPs struggled with the issue: first, because it didn’t fit easily into the culture of political life and their own identity as a parliamentarian; and second, because they worried that public support for climate action was limited, and that, as representatives, they needed to be led by their electorate.”
“One former MP, who had been an active climate campaigner in parliament, said: ‘I was known as being a freak.’ Another told me about how he tried to avoid being seen as a ‘zealot’. These remarks were common in my conversations with politicians.”
“Some [politicians] said they avoided any mention of climate for fear that it would put an unhelpful label on them. One confident, outspoken MP who worked on energy policy told me that he did what he could to promote policies that would reduce carbon, but justified his proposals on other grounds, such as reducing fuel bills. ‘I don’t use climate change as the word because I think it’s just toxic,’ he told me. ‘As is the way in these issues which are contentious, you won’t take people with you politically.’”
“Socially organised denial is alive and well in the [House of] Commons. It is exacerbated by very deliberate strategies from those who have a stake in high-carbon activities: countries, and companies, that depend on fossil fuels.”
“Little has been done to curb carbon-intensive activity. New coal mines are opened and new airports built with little discussion of climate impacts. If we are constantly finding new ways to dig up and burn carbon, it won’t be enough just to ramp up renewable energy.”
“Study after study shows that meeting climate goals means phasing out the extraction and use of oil, coal and gas – yet no mainstream political party has a coherent plan to do this.”
“… no MP felt that their voters were putting them under particular pressure to act. As one said to me, ‘I’ve knocked hundreds, literally thousands of doors, and had tens of thousands of conversations with voters … and I just don’t have conversations about climate change.’”
“With climate – a complex, global issue with no clear beginning or end – it’s more complicated. Politicians have to work quite hard to make a claim for why acting on climate is in the best interests of their electorate.”
“Another told me about proposals for a new road in his constituency, which he opposed. If he had used a climate argument, he said, ‘there would have been a rolling of eyes and saying: “Oh, here he goes again”.’ Instead, he made the case on economic grounds, saying that investment in public transport was a better option.”
“In this new world of the coronavirus pandemic … some have cheered the unintentional environmental benefits of lockdown. It’s certainly true that the air is cleaner, the streets quieter. We can hear the birdsong. Carbon emissions have taken a dive, too. But this is in no way a model for climate strategy.”