“The White House wasn’t shamed: it won†- New Scientist. http://forum.campaigncc.org/?q=node/502 The Kyoto process is in tatters. At the US’s insistence, it was agreed at Montreal that further talks will not lead to any binding commitments for the USA, Australia or developing countries. In essence, this is an agreement that the MOP/COP will NOT deliver the cuts needed to avert dangerous climate change with good confidence. In addition to USA and Australia still doing nothing, developing countries will have no incentive to constrain growing emissions unless developed nations will pay for them to do so under clean development mechanisms. As it is, we see Chinese industry well able to undercut western manufacturing with its browner industry (as warned by critics of Kyoto) - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4542104.stm In any case Russia is poised to muddy any agreement by the club of MOP developed countries. Within EU itself, only the UK and Sweden may be on course to meet their 2012 Kyoto targets, see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4561576.stm It should now be abundantly clear that the necessary emissions curbs only stand a reasonable chance if determined nations, independently of the UN process, take sound action both to reduce their emissions and to guard against leakage by imposing protective tariffs against cheap, brown imports. The axis of this action will be the EU, New Zealand and possibly Japan. The New Economics Foundation, in its report “Free Riding on the Climate†(www.neweconomics.org/gen/z_sys_publicationdetail.aspx?pid=167) argues several grounds on which the EU can do this under WTO rules. (The EU was happy enough to stall imports of Chinese smalls in its own interest!) They may also need to use other economic sanctions/trade and aid leverage. This issue must be regarded as bigger than the WTO or Earth Summit principles, which good leaders should be willing to renounce. Until this is well under way, the UN talks, confounded by Russia and fossil fuel interests in the US and Oz, must be viewed as a distraction or a charade. The only leaders and delegates who should be flying anywhere, if at all, should be those keen to agree actions amongst themselves, or those selling the need for action or public awareness, or conveying scientific or technical expertise. In particular, I believe informed governments and science academies must develop a huge public awareness drive, such as normally occurs upon national emergencies, of the stark choices we face. This vital second prong can reach far more people than live in the initial tariff-setting axis. Green campaigners need to say that Nairobi etc will be worthless until we have leadership with a strategy to drive change (such as I have outlined above.) Leadership that must be consistent, i.e. not building runways / weakening building regs / encouraging more oil extraction. A principal stage being the EU. So I would suggest messages along the lines of: STOP HYPOCRISY: STOP AIRPORT AND OIL GROWTH Beware that many major NGOs don’t dare call for protection against uncooperative countries because they have or seek branches in them (unlike New Economics Foundation). As I've stated before, CCC was able to think for itself in doing anti-Bush and anti-US embassy protests. Will it continue to think for itself as a group? |
|||
 |
Campaign against Climate ChangeUK activists portal |
|
|
|
A Churchillian stance against climate change
"...I believe informed governments and science academies must develop a huge public awareness drive, such as normally occurs upon national emergencies, of the stark choices we face."
This would be awesome. It's also a theme CCC could play upon.
My suggestion for this year's campaigning theme would be to shift emphasis from Bush and put it on... Churchill.
Yep, that's right. There's much that could be done through comparing climate deniers to appeasers, calling for a tough stand against the threat we face, and rousing nostalgic images of wartime rationing. Kyoto is not the end, it is not even the beginning of the end, etc.
At the very least, this stylistic focus would differ considerably from the Stop the War-style campaign slogans and atmosphere that has predominated so far (nothing wrong with it, just we need a change).
I've a good mind to get to work on some of the old WWII rationing 'Waste Not, Want Not' posters, altering them slightly to incorporate messages related to CO2 reduction - why not everyone give it a go? Perhaps we could put them up on the CCC resources page.
And the costumes ideas are easily adaptable - gas masks, for one.
Naturally, there are serious aspects to adopting this theme too. It would give publicity to a practical proposition, that of rationing (Contraction and Convergence); would champion our commitment to equality; and emphasise the need for a concerted effort against a common foe. We would be saying more than simply 'climate change is bad' - we'd be advocating a (the) solution, too. And remember: the media always, always crave novelty...
Appeasers, deniers and economic instruments
In this context/analogy I’d say the appeasers are those who try to make tawdry deals with those resisting curbs, and then seek public acclaim for this. Norman Baker last year compared Tony Blair to Neville Chamberlain for the manner of his approaches to George Bush.
Climate change deniers - they're more like the historical revisionists. Bush himself is not a denier, he admitted to Trevor McDonald that man is changing the climate.
I agree with highlighting economic instruments, which include carbon rationing and carbon tax/duty. I think it's most effective to say that there is a range of options and combinations to consider.
As regards wartime rationing or indeed service, I think it's worth saying "look how much people then made sacrifices for a greater good", but also "we can still afford a better standard of living in most ways than most people had until 20 years ago"
A Martin Luther King of environmentalism?
Today's Observer article "Al Gore: the second coming" discusses the sudden buzz around Al Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth" about his climate change crusade.
Will Dana, editor of Rolling Stone, said "We almost need a Martin Luther King of environmentalism, a one million march on Washington. I'd like to see Al Gore at the forefront of that".
Critics have remarked on the amount of flying Gore has done in between speaking engagements on both sides of the pond.
Lester Brown and Andrew Simms invoke Churchill
Lester Brown of Worldwatch Institute calls for environmental Churchill:
http://www.oneworld.net/external/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.freedomblog.us%2F...
Andrew Simms of New Economics Foundation has also called for Churchill-style focus
http://portal.campaigncc.org/?q=node/502#comment-176
Good!
Excellent... more power to this theme. See my picture in the artwork section, and suggestion for some street theatre.
Am tempted to set up a separate site with 'World Warming' as the theme... WWII meets global warming. Anyone wanna help who can do web design?? :)
As for who will really be an 'ecological Churchill'... well, I don't see one on the horizon, yet.
Actually, though individual leadership is needed, a movement is just as good, as Churchill himself said:
"Never has so much been owed by so many to so few"...
Warms the cockles of yer 'eart.