The dichotomy first – science, IPCC and Lord Stern among many are clear climate change is real and is a challenge; on the other side of the coin we have the general public – which do not believe climate change is real or of serious concern. How will the dichotomy between those two play out in our politicians minds and aims as they sit down to negotiate in Copenhagen. Which way will the ‘tug of war’ go?
I am concerned that we the public are confused by the science and its argument and the dream of increasing affluence and freedom.
Do we see climate change as restricting our freedom? Do we all know that our planet has weathered climate changes before? And do we really understand that what is at stake this time around is less about our planet’s survival and more about our survival with all the "modern comforts" of live that we now have? I am old enough to remember dinner parties where it was acceptable to light up a cigarette at the dinner table while eating. Social attitudes have changed, well before we got legislation, and it has for a long time not been acceptable to smoke in other peoples homes. For me there is an analogy here. We will only see the public buying into climate change when social attitudes have changed. We need policies and other actions that change perceptions – interesting to have talked to Sean in the Copenhagen energy podcast on the ‘rebound effect’ which is highlighting the importance of understanding the full consequences of any policy.
I am also worried about the battle to gain headlines on climate change related issues. Take the examples of yesterday's smart meter headlines. The news that energy suppliers will have to install them across the UK by 2020 was one of the headline print and TV stories yesterday. The angle taken by most media was the cost of the units, not the results of early tests that show a significant positive change in energy usage behaviour by consumers who already use a smart meter.
So why am I concerned about the public views? Because one of the cornerstones of any deal is funding and we the taxpayers will in one way or another be contributing to the adaptation fund. That may be as consumers - tax on bunker fuels -or as taxpayers. In reflecting on this I come back to Lord Stern’s report of 2006 and its finding that “one percent of global gross domestic product (GDP) per annum is required to be invested in order to avoid the worst effects of climate change, and that failure to do so could risk global GDP being up to twenty percent lower than it otherwise might be.” So I would, as a taxpayer, rather we took action sooner rather than later.
We shall see how the funding argument plays out but it is a critical part of any deal that is reached in Copenhagen.
No comments:
Post a Comment