Environmentalism: Its All In the Presentation

I had a discussion with my girlfriend the other day about a subject which is quite dear to both of us.  That is the world's efforts to take greater care of the world we live in and combat the phenomenon known as Global Warming.  Sometime it is nice to talk to someone who agrees with you, preaching to the choir as it were.  When I talk her about this subject it is clear she has strong feelings about this subject, that people aren't doing enough to prevent damage to the Earth, she usually has stronger feelings than myself about this. 

Strong feelings about global warming and the state of the planet in general can be positive.  They get people motivated into either thinking constructively or better yet towards equally constructive action.  But you can only learn so much from people who agree with you.  I find often far more interesting discussions can be had with people who either disagree with you or half believe you.  It really gets you testing your arguments to defend your beliefs and hopefully advance them, on the unconvinced or nearly convinced.

I had the opportunity to engage in one of these debates with a more right wing leaning friend of mine, over a drink (which turned into four).  I put it to him that the planet is clearly being abused.  He agreed.  I declared that sensible and constructive legislation should be put through to regulate human activity (the 'r' word often being a toxic one in the right wing vocabulary).  He agreed on principle.  Wearing my politics a bit more on my sleeve I said that is near lunacy to declare that man made global warming is anything but a solid fact.  My right wing friend looked uneasy, and then decided to intervene.  And shock horror he presented himself as a climate change denier. Given my strong feelings on the subject you would have thought I would have taken a disliking to him after this.  For an instant I was, but then I got to thinking: he cares about the planet but he is unconvinced about global warming, perhaps he isn't alone.

Indeed he is not.  And he has a right to that opinion, and he has the good fortune to live in a society where different opinions are expected.  But all too often I feel conformity is an even more expected element of modern British society.  Not just in British society either, I sense the US is not much better.  Over there the global warming issue in the wake of political polarisation between Republican and Democrat have regrettably turned this issue into a political football.  I am admittedly naturally left leaning which stereotypically would incline me to more readily accept the more pro-environmentalist camp, which at the moment does not look like the Republican side.  Over in the US it seems as though in some quarters global warming scepticism or indeed denial is shown as a badge of honour.  In Britain I find a general acceptance of global warming is the accepted norm, with the other extreme almost being treated as the ugly sisters of our society.

This I feel is the ultimate logical flaw in the ideological minds of both extremes in the political spectrum, left and right.  The more readily you write people off, be they an alleged murderer, an anti-capitalist, a hippy, an unemployed person, a climate change denier or even someone who just simply disagrees with you, you are in some way taking easy way out, and avoiding the easy answers.  There aren't always easy answers for difficult questions.  And simply erasing people who are seemingly in the way of a solution to a big problem is ultimately a fools’ errand.  Especially since you will likely need at least some of those people on your side, if not at least listening to your position.

I share the environmentalist's frustration at people who are climate change sceptics.  For myself the evidence is overwhelming, and as far as I can tell a majority of the world's scientific community believe that climate change is in part at least due to man-made activity.  But wishing away people with frustrating opinions never works.    And railing at them like they are puppy killers and baby eaters (which I feel some pressure groups do) I feel does massive harm to the cause of environmentalism and its supporters. Some people just are not interested in what may or may not be happening now that may have severe consequences later.  They want pragmatic solutions, and to be talked to like a human being, not a simpleton.

At the last party conference for my party in Liverpool I had a long talk with some of the Green Liberal Democrats at their stall.  I ended up having a long conversation with one of them, subtly moving us away from talk about me giving them a joiner’s fee to their group (it cost me enough to stay in the city); we ended up talking for a while about practical ways of promoting sustainable living.  I have to say, many of the examples I had been shown amazed me.  What I particularly found interesting was the introduction of so called Smart metres to homes, thus allowing people to monitor and regulate their energy use.  I thought this could potentially be marketed to people less sold on the global warming concept, since they would likely be a lot more interested in saving their pennies.  Before I left on a high though I decided to confront the man before me with the question of nuclear power, and where he stood on it.  Judging by his unease he agreed with our party's critical stance on it.  He mentioned that this issue was being debated.  Sensing another donation drive coming on in the conversation, I stated my views politely and bluntly.  Nuclear power isn't perfect but it is statistically safer than the media portrays it as, and it is a damn-site cleaner carbon-wise than coal.  I thanked him for his time and then left the conference for the day.  On the way out I dodged a small kid with his trade unionist family jumping in my face and calling me a right wing Tory-Nazi.

Back in 2006 while on holiday in St. Ives Cornwall, while enjoying the sun I also enjoyed a lot of reading.  It was then that I read a book which blew me away, when I least expected it.  This book is "The Revenge of Gaia" by James Lovelock.  James Lovelock a British independent scientist is known in environmentalist circles for advancing the Gaia theory.  This theory represents the entire planet as one giant self sustaining and self regulating organism.  Not as an organism in the same self aware sense in which we exist, but still very much living, and to a certain extent self healing.  That is self healing to a finite amount. 

With this theory laid out Lovelock drawing on a massive crash course about how the basic chemical processes that sustain life occur, and how ancient natural cycles and processes are being disrupted by man, proceeded to deliver a well aimed wrecking ball at many myths held up as true in Green circles.  Buying organic food is basically an expensive con scheme tells Lovelock, which represents farming practices often more damaging than those using more 'artificial' methods.  Nuclear power isn't perfect but it is suicidal to the planet to completely disregard it, therefore more nuclear plants should be built.

The book was incredible.  It was like being hit by a sledgehammer made of years of scientific research, the bluntness of an old man (Lovelock is 92) who hasn't got time for wasting, his awe for a truly incredible planet trampled by mankind's ignorance,  and most importantly; sheer common sense.  If anyone has to read just one book about the cause of environmentalism, take my word for it that this one is worth it.

After reading Lovelock's book, talking to my right wing friend and putting my door step canvassers' and my politician's brain on I re-evaluated my thoughts on environmentalism.  It struck me that as Lovelock pointed out, that the awful truth is that anything we do now will in some ways be too late.  The Earth will be damaged one way or the other, the various crises will inevitably come, so any plans now will have to involve crisis management (flood defences, learning to adapt etc).  My second thought is that not everyone is going to buy the same argument.  Some will need reasoning as much as coercing.  Door step canvassing by experience nurtures a certain instinct within you about which are the right buttons to push, when trying to put your point across.  But what most people loathe and are quick to rebel against, is being treated like an idiot, or being made to feel that they are not being listened too.  Certain interest groups point at the shrill cries of environmentalist groups, and cry hysteria and extremism.  In my view the response to these attacks should be a counter-attack with reasoned debate, and a respect for the other side's position.

When it comes to the offensive on interest groups that either claim that the environmentalist case is flawed or exaggerated, parties on the side of environmentalism may find it an advantage to advance a charge on several fronts. It is a fact that global warming is not the only issue facing this planet.  Soil erosion, deforestation, the mass extinction of species, water pollution/shortages and air pollution are debating points to advance for starters.  Many of which have their own scientific data built up over years to back up their case.  Much of the talk I hear from the tub-thumping front runners of the Republicans concerning environmental policy is that they simply think global warming is a phantom menace.  A paper tiger made out of hundreds of alarmist reports released by liberal leaning members of the scientific community.  The way to deal with these people is to simply outflank them.  People may be in doubt about global warming, but you can't ignore trees disappearing, water becoming toxic, tuna becoming contaminated and air in cities becoming toxic. 

While watching 'Gasland' a documentary about Shale Gas drilling in the US, my girlfriend sighed when she heard the Chairman of a Senate Committee mentioned something about their concerns about "the economy and the environment".  At first I didn't understand the distaste she was expressing, then I realised the point she was making.  We humans have become the masters of self delusion.  We routinely reshape the world how we want it, cutting down stuff here and concreting stuff there.  Until we kid ourselves that we are completely separate.  Separate from plants, animals and ultimately the planet.  That we are the masters of all we survey.  And within this little fantasy land we create our precious economy which dictates our lives, to the point where the planet and thus life itself becomes cheap.

This is the point we need to get across most I feel.  We are not and will never be separate from the planet.  And like it or not, the Earth is much more likely to survive us than the other way round.  I believe that as we trash the world, we will ultimately be the ones to suffer.  Recessions will seem like cakewalks when we really reap what we sow, as a result of our actions and inactions.  The only question now is how much life will be left on this planet other than human life, when we finally change our ways.  Like it or not the changes we have to make come into conflict with some of our long held beliefs.  The long held belief of man's superiority and omnipotent intelligence on this planet needs to be taken down a notch or two.  I feel some although not all of this human arrogance has its roots in some aspects of religion.  But that is not likely to just disappear, so we come back again to pragmatic reasoning.

To sum up, I feel that environmentalism at the moment is a cause that will only today go so far.  The often impatient and dogmatic approach taken by many of the movements supporters I feel will only do push it further towards irrelevance, in the eyes of the public mainstream.  Changes will have to be made most definitely, but they must be workable ones.  And they must not be at the price of people's freedom, most importantly their freedoms of speech and expression.  I despise smug middle class Greens preaching against air travel, now budget airlines is making international travel more accessible for millions.  I care about the environment, but I myself will still fly.  The carbon emissions of planes, needs a pragmatic and effective solution.  Not the severing off of my country into a permanent island.

Environmental damage and green house gases need to be reduced quickly.  Common sense is what we ultimately need a lot more of.

Riots Debate: Reloaded

The past fortnight has been an unusual one for Britons.  First and foremost the country experienced sudden outbreaks of rioting in many of the country’s major cities.  More surprisingly the leaders of the three major parties in the UK abandoned point scoring at the expense of each other, for the duration of the worst of the violence.  Then barely after the fires were put out, it was business as usual.

Throughout the worst of the violence all parties (including those of the Coalition Government) called definitively for order to be restored.  Speaking in Peckham on 9^th August Ed Miliband said “There can be no excuses for the violence, the intimidation of people. That can never be excused, that can never be justified. That is why the immediate priority is to restore public order and public safety”.  Aside from a few comments about the government protecting people’s property, criticism of the government was kept to a minimum.  

The Labour Leader’s conciliatory approach did not last long.  On the 15^th August he spoke of his distaste at the government’s “knee-jerk gimmicks rushed out without real thought”.  This covers his view of the government’s expansion of riot training, the tough sentencing of rioters, the authorisation of the use of new crowd control tools for the police and Cameron’s initiative to channel public funding towards some of the UK’s poorest families.  To explain why so many young people took part in the riots Ed Miliband highlighted societal factors such as greedy bankers, expenses fixing MPs and phone hacking journalists. These were all blamed for increasing resentment among young people.

Ed Miliband’s statements outlined above may have an element of truth about them.  Many of the measures Prime Minister David Cameron put through to aid the police were arguably not helpful to restoring order.  For instance police sources have pointed out that fairly atypical to average riot outbreaks, gangs of assailants in this instance tended to move in small packs of four at most, as oppose to larger mobs more typical of riots.  Because of this the unwieldy Water Cannons have limited usefulness in hitting their mark without causing collateral damage.  So called baton round bullets travel approximately at the twice the speed of a well thrown cricket ball.  Consequently these types of bullets can often be dodged by targeted parties, possibly leading to innocent bystanders being injured.  Since these measures have been authorised there are very few instances of the police actually using these weapons to quell the riots. 

It could be argued that stronger communication between the police leadership and Number 10 could have ensured the implementation of measures more useful to the police.  Or was this a PR move by Number 10 to send a message to the public and the rioters about how willing the government was to raise the stakes?  While both points have merit it is possible that Number 10 practised a bit of selective hearing while communicating with the police.  The police have an interest in seeing the cuts to their service curtailed, and they are not alone in their protestations.  Cameron is allegedly at odds with Boris Johnson over the potentially detrimental cuts planned on police numbers within London.  Certainly PR was on Cameron’s mind with his consistently defiant message of maintaining order throughout the riots.  He also consistently displayed an approving attitude at the courts running overtime and giving out consistently harsh sentences.  I believe here Cameron may have opened himself up to a charge of hypocrisy.

A few months ago Cameron made much of his disapproval towards the rise of so called ‘super injunction’ media censuring court orders issued to protect certain high profile figures from media harassment.  Cameron argued that it was the job of Parliament to decide laws, and the judges to interpret them and not create them.  Many court judges have issued tougher than average sentences for offences to rioters.  They argue is that the offences occurred at the time of an uproar of violent behaviour, by implication making other people’s actions influence an accused person’s sentence.  I for one believe this is a very disturbing trend.

I believe David Cameron, Ed Miliband and even Nick Clegg are putting political motives before finding pragmatic solutions that this country urgently needs.  David Cameron arguably has an interest in appeasing coalition-sceptic Tory backbenchers with a tough law and order approach.  Ed Miliband is hardly credible citing societal factors that allegedly caused the riots, having been in a government that had 13 years to take action on any of them.  There are credible reports that Nick Clegg was involved in arson in his youth, and avoided prosecution.  Overall I believe the people of the UK will unlikely to have the sensible and balanced debate it deserves from its elected representatives.