Climate Change denial was invented in the United States of America, but has since been imported into the United Kingdom and Australia, tripping up intellects and intelligences everywhere it shows up.

It makes a person look really uneducated when they recite the mantras of Climate Change scepticism and denial. Trouble is, it’s so pervasive and seemingly anodyne when you first encounter it, that many people just fall for it hook, line and sinker.

What’s so wrong about saying “The climate has always changed” for example ? Yes, of course it has, but not like it’s changing now.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer?printable=true

“COVERT OPERATIONS : The billionaire brothers who are waging a war against Obama. : by Jane Mayer : AUGUST 30, 2010 : On May 17th, a black-tie audience at the Metropolitan Opera House applauded as a tall, jovial-looking billionaire took the stage. It was the seventieth annual spring gala of American Ballet Theatre, and David H. Koch was being celebrated for his generosity as a member of the board of trustees; he had recently donated $2.5 million toward the company’s upcoming season, and had given many millions before that. Koch received an award while flanked by two of the gala’s co-chairs, Blaine Trump, in a peach-colored gown, and Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg, in emerald green. Kennedy’s mother, Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, had been a patron of the ballet and, coincidentally, the previous owner of a Fifth Avenue apartment that Koch had bought, in 1995, and then sold, eleven years later, for thirty-two million dollars, having found it too small. The gala marked the social ascent of Koch, who, at the age of seventy, has become one of the city’s most prominent philanthropists. In 2008, he donated a hundred million dollars to modernize Lincoln Center’s New York State Theatre building, which now bears his name. He has given twenty million to the American Museum of Natural History, whose dinosaur wing is named for him. This spring, after noticing the decrepit state of the fountains outside the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Koch pledged at least ten million dollars for their renovation. He is a trustee of the museum, perhaps the most coveted social prize in the city, and serves on the board of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, where, after he donated more than forty million dollars, an endowed chair and a research center were named for him. One dignitary was conspicuously absent from the gala: the event’s third honorary co-chair, Michelle Obama. Her office said that a scheduling conflict had prevented her from attending. Yet had the First Lady shared the stage with Koch it might have created an awkward tableau. In Washington, Koch is best known as part of a family that has repeatedly funded stealth attacks on the federal government, and on the Obama Administration in particular.
With his brother Charles, who is seventy-four, David Koch owns virtually all of Koch Industries, a conglomerate, headquartered in Wichita, Kansas, whose annual revenues are estimated to be a hundred billion dollars. The company has grown spectacularly since their father, Fred, died, in 1967, and the brothers took charge. The Kochs operate oil refineries in Alaska, Texas, and Minnesota, and control some four thousand miles of pipeline. Koch Industries owns Brawny paper towels, Dixie cups, Georgia-Pacific lumber, Stainmaster carpet, and Lycra, among other products. Forbes ranks it as the second-largest private company in the country, after Cargill, and its consistent profitability has made David and Charles Koch—who, years ago, bought out two other brothers—among the richest men in America. Their combined fortune of thirty-five billion dollars is exceeded only by those of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett.
The Kochs are longtime libertarians who believe in drastically lower personal and corporate taxes, minimal social services for the needy, and much less oversight of industry—especially environmental regulation. These views dovetail with the brothers’ corporate interests….”

Despite the best early morning wide-eyed televised efforts of Carol Browner this week, the BP Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill story just will not die :-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/05/oil-spill-white-house-accused-spin

“Gulf oil spill: White House accused of spinning report : Scientists say it is ‘just not true’ that the vast majority of oil from the BP spill has gone : Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent, guardian.co.uk, Thursday 5 August 2010″

Use all the dispersants you want (or are just about legally entitled to), but an ecological catastrophe like this will not go away and die quietly, even though a large number of marine animals will be forced to :-

http://motherjones.com/environment/2010/08/feds-giving-spill-data-to-bp-not-public

http://unearthed.earthjustice.org/blog/2010-august/lets-celebrate-and-mourn-plugging-bps-gulf-oil-spill

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/07/30/30greenwire-oil-spill-dispersants-shifting-ecosystem-impac-95608.html

“…to use dispersants…doesn’t make the oil go away, it just puts it from one part of the ecosystem to another…”

Barack Obama said that things were nearly sorted out :-

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5a1970b4-9fd7-11df-927b-00144feabdc0,dwp_uuid=ed81e81c-0753-11df-a9b7-00144feabdc0.html

“Obama says BP Gulf spill near end : By Anna Fifield in Washington and Sylvia Pfeifer in London : Published: August 4 2010 : President Barack Obama said the “long battle” to combat the Gulf of Mexico disaster had reached a turning point as a new government report showed that the majority of the spilt oil had disappeared. In his most positive statement on the crisis since the accident on April 20 that killed 11 workers, Mr Obama said the battle “is finally close to coming to an end”. His comments came as the British oil company announced it had reached a “significant milestone” in its attempts to seal the leak in the Macondo well by pumping heavy mud into it from the top. A new study, led by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said the majority of the 4.9m barrels of oil that had spilt from the Macondo well was no longer in the water…”

Carol Browner claimed “good news” this week. She said much of the oil has “disappeared”. No, it hasn’t. It may not show on the satellite monitoring, the surface of the sea may indeed look cleaner, but what counts is what lies beneath :-

http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/deepwater-disaster/index.ssf

And what’s this ? The Gulf of Mexico may actually benefit from this oil spill ? I expect nobody except stockbrokers will believe this yarn :-

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1300532/BPs-Gulf-Mexico-oil-spill-lead-increase-fish-stocks.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

“How BP’s Gulf of Mexico oil spill could actually lead to an increase in fish stocks : By MAIL FOREIGN SERVICE : 5th August 2010 : The massive BP oil spill could lead to increased fish stocks and improvements in biodiversity in the Gulf of Mexico, according to marine expert. The White House admitted yesterday that the leak was less catastrophic than previously thought. In a humiliating climbdown, the Obama administration conceded the ‘vast majority’ of the oil that gushed into the ocean from the ruptured well has already gone. The rest, it says, is probably so diluted, it does not appear to pose much of a threat…”

Public Relations Rule Number One : Don’t lie to the public. They won’t forgive you.

I have a pertinent question. Why is it that Barack Obama called the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill such a tragedy on 14th June 2010 – and then, after BP sells its Colombia operations, and after rumour they may sell their Siberian operations, Barack Obama says the oil spill is not as bad as he thought it was and that it’s nearly all dealt with ? :-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10307782

“14 June 2010 : Obama: Oil spill ‘an environmental 9/11′ : US President Barack Obama has said the oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico will have the same impact on the US psyche as 9/11. The disaster will “shape how we think about the environment… for years to come”, he told US website Politico.”…”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/15/obamas-oil-spill-speech-w_n_613642.html

“Obama’s Oil Spill Speech: What Was The Point? : First Posted: 06-15-10″

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-05/bp-russia-talks-stoke-rally-for-tnk-bp-bonds-erasing-loss-since-oil-spill.html

“BP Russia Talks Stoke Rally for TNK-BP Bonds, Erasing Loss Since Oil Spill : By Jason Corcoran and Denis Maternovsky – Aug 5, 2010 : Talks between Russia’s government and BP Plc’s newly appointed Chief Executive Officer Robert Dudley are stoking the best rally in 17 months for bonds of TNK-BP on expectations asset sales will help the Moscow-based affiliate…The worst oil spill in U.S. history has brought Dudley back to Moscow two years after he fled Russia as the chief of TNK-BP, citing “sustained harassment” and visa difficulties. Dudley met yesterday with Igor Sechin, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s deputy for energy. TNK-BP, Russia’s third-largest oil producer accounts for about 25 percent of BP’s output and a fifth of the company’s reserves, and may boost that share as BP sells projects to cover the $32.2 billion charge linked to the leak…Dudley, who succeeds Tony Hayward on Oct. 1, will oversee as much as $30 billion of asset sales…”Maybe in the longer term there will be some new ideas that surface that unite us further,” Sechin said during the meeting with BP’s Dudley and Hayward last night in Moscow….”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TINzvWrtjYI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyutuErxPo8

Carol Browner, Director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy in the United States of America, has been all over the Media, announcing the policy to “kill kill kill this” BP nightmare story, telling the world that a turning milestone point has been reached :-

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/PDFs/OilBudget_description_%2083final.pdf

Have they decided that BP have been punished enough now for the Gulf of Mexico oil gusher, and the reputation of the company needs to be rehabilitated sharply in order to protect the Economy ?

I made the mistake of taking in a BBC TV news bulletin on the matter. I heard several talking heads say it’s “good news” that roughly three quarters of the accountable oil from the spill has “disappeared” :-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10870159

Breaking this story is “good news” for the stability of pension funds, maybe. But what is the real extent of the real damage to the real world, the world of oceans and fish and plankton ? Will the world be watching as the researchers scavenge data and clues to the marine ecotastrophe that is still unfolding ?

Barack Obama hopes there’s nothing left to see of this car crash, and that we can all move along. It leaves a number of unanswered questions. Pre-eminent in my mind is the question “how likely is it that another deepwater drilling oil spill could happen ?”

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Business/BP-Oil-Spill-US-President-Barack-Obama-Says-Gulf-Of-Mexico-Battle-Finally-Coming-To-An-End/Article/201008115676765

I bet Barack Obama is slightly regretting announcing more “unconventional” oil drilling in March, and he’s attempting to patch up his own reputation, possibly why he’s pushing so hard to get this “good news” out now about BP’s clean-up operation :-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APOMoS0s7xI

Of course the White House want to clear the trouble from peoples’ minds and move on to other matters because the administration of the United States of America is peppered with oil-made men (and women). Plus, there’s heaps of fossil fuel lobbyists on every carpet, in every corridor, in every chat, in every consultation :-

At some point this difficult question will have to be answered : if oil spills and other hydrocarbon problems are going to become more frequent in future, as exploration, discovery and production become more and more “unconventional”, how is this going to impact on the profitability of oil and gas companies ?

Will there come a time when “growth” is no longer possible in fossil fuels, as the profit margin between production costs and sales revenues tightens to a thin wafer ?

Who is paying for the BP spill clean-up, by the way ? The American Government are all over it. Has the work been partly paid for by the taxpayers ?

Video Credit : Journeyman Pictures

Big green energy news of the month : President Barack Obama of the United States of America has announced direct investment into solar :-

http://climateprogress.org/2010/07/04/obama-solar-pv-csp/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jul/04/obama-hands-solar-firms-2bn

Let there be light in the soul, and solar energy in the land.

This looks like a tipping point. Let’s flip some more trip switches in our personal networks and get the oil-producing bloc in the Middle East to see the value of going wind and solar (instead of expensive, risky Nuclear) :-

http://www.arabianbusiness.com/591358-qatar-awaits-new-solar-wind-tech-before-investment

http://www.uaeinteract.com

http://www.gizmag.com/shams-1-concentrated-solar-power-plant/15389/picture/116110/

“The largest concentrated solar power (CSP) plant in the Middle East is to be built in Madinat Zayed, approximately 120 km (75 miles) southwest of Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). When it becomes operational in 2012, the plant, dubbed Shams 1, will feature some 6,300,000 square-feet of solar parabolic collectors, cover 741 acres of desert and will produce enough electricity to power 62,000 households.”

What ? That soon ?

Image Credit : McClatchy

Tough on grime; tough on the causes of grime.

American President Barack Obama declares that as regards environmental pollution, “we shall fight them on the beaches”.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-nation-bp-oil-spill

“Already, this oil spill is the worst environmental disaster America has ever faced. And unlike an earthquake or a hurricane, it’s not a single event that does its damage in a matter of minutes or days. The millions of gallons of oil that have spilled into the Gulf of Mexico are more like an epidemic, one that we will be fighting for months and even years.”

“But make no mistake: We will fight this spill with everything we’ve got for as long as it takes. We will make BP pay for the damage their company has caused. And we will do whatever’s necessary to help the Gulf Coast and its people recover from this tragedy.”

“Tonight I’d like to lay out for you what our battle plan is going forward: what we’re doing to clean up the oil, what we’re doing to help our neighbors in the Gulf, and what we’re doing to make sure that a catastrophe like this never happens again.”

…

“Tomorrow, I will meet with the chairman of BP and inform him that he is to set aside whatever resources are required to compensate the workers and business owners who have been harmed as a result of his company’s recklessness. And this fund will not be controlled by BP. In order to ensure that all legitimate claims are paid out in a fair and timely manner, the account must and will be administered by an independent third party.”

…

“The third part of our response plan is the steps we’re taking to ensure that a disaster like this does not happen again. A few months ago, I approved a proposal to consider new, limited offshore drilling under the assurance that it would be absolutely safe –- that the proper technology would be in place and the necessary precautions would be taken.”

“That obviously was not the case in the Deepwater Horizon rig, and I want to know why. The American people deserve to know why. The families I met with last week who lost their loved ones in the explosion — these families deserve to know why.”

…

“So one of the lessons we’ve learned from this spill is that we need better regulations, better safety standards, and better enforcement when it comes to offshore drilling. But a larger lesson is that no matter how much we improve our regulation of the industry, drilling for oil these days entails greater risk. After all, oil is a finite resource. We consume more than 20 percent of the world’s oil, but have less than 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves. And that’s part of the reason oil companies are drilling a mile beneath the surface of the ocean — because we’re running out of places to drill on land and in shallow water.”

“For decades, we have known the days of cheap and easily accessible oil were numbered. For decades, we’ve talked and talked about the need to end America’s century-long addiction to fossil fuels. And for decades, we have failed to act with the sense of urgency that this challenge requires. Time and again, the path forward has been blocked — not only by oil industry lobbyists, but also by a lack of political courage and candor.”

“The consequences of our inaction are now in plain sight. Countries like China are investing in clean energy jobs and industries that should be right here in America. Each day, we send nearly $1 billion of our wealth to foreign countries for their oil. And today, as we look to the Gulf, we see an entire way of life being threatened by a menacing cloud of black crude.”

“We cannot consign our children to this future. The tragedy unfolding on our coast is the most painful and powerful reminder yet that the time to embrace a clean energy future is now. Now is the moment for this generation to embark on a national mission to unleash America’s innovation and seize control of our own destiny.”

…

“All of these approaches have merit, and deserve a fair hearing in the months ahead. But the one approach I will not accept is inaction. The one answer I will not settle for is the idea that this challenge is somehow too big and too difficult to meet. You know, the same thing was said about our ability to produce enough planes and tanks in World War II. The same thing was said about our ability to harness the science and technology to land a man safely on the surface of the moon. And yet, time and again, we have refused to settle for the paltry limits of conventional wisdom. Instead, what has defined us as a nation since our founding is the capacity to shape our destiny -– our determination to fight for the America we want for our children. Even if we’re unsure exactly what that looks like. Even if we don’t yet know precisely how we’re going to get there. We know we’ll get there.”

“It’s a faith in the future that sustains us as a people. It is that same faith that sustains our neighbors in the Gulf right now.”

As Homer Simpson would say if he were a real person : “Whoo !”

Will he, or won’t he ?

Will Barack Hussein Obama formalise, finalise, documentise the “endangerment finding” in an EPA declaration, that Greenhouse Gases endanger public health under The Clean Air Act ?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-obama-environment8-2009dec08,0,3159719.story

If he does, he should be awarded the epithet “Endangermouse”, the more-than-mouse hero, for subverting the slow and ineffective grinding of the United States Senate and Congress.

Without waiting for them to chew and chomp and perhaps spit out the Climate laws currently before them for their consideration, Obama could impose change through the Environmental Protection Agency; the back door, but the fast door.

We’re going to get sense and speed on Global Warming legislation. It could be faster than you think.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/nov/25/monbiot-climate-leak-crisis-response

“Pretending the climate email leak isn’t a crisis won’t make it go away : Climate sceptics have lied, obscured and cheated for years. That’s why we climate rationalists must uphold the highest standards of science : Posted by George Monbiot : Wednesday 25 November 2009 : I have seldom felt so alone. Confronted with crisis, most of the environmentalists I know have gone into denial. The emails hacked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, they say, are a storm in a tea cup, no big deal, exaggerated out of all recognition. It is true that climate change deniers have made wild claims which the material can’t possibly support (the end of global warming, the death of climate science). But it is also true that the emails are very damaging. The response of the greens and most of the scientists I know is profoundly ironic, as we spend so much of our time confronting other people’s denial. Pretending that this isn’t a real crisis isn’t going to make it go away. Nor is an attempt to justify the emails with technicalities. We’ll be able to get past this only by grasping reality, apologising where appropriate and demonstrating that it cannot happen again. It is true that much of what has been revealed could be explained as the usual cut and thrust of the peer review process, exacerbated by the extraordinary pressure the scientists were facing from a denial industry determined to crush them…”

Look, George love, we’d like to do something useful, but the problem is one of sheer exhaustion. People are tired of the relentless waves of hysteria and mania coming from the “denial community”. Nothing we say makes them stop, not even for one second. On and on they moan and clatter and hammer.

Plus, we do all have other things we really should be doing, like living, talking to our spice (is that the real plural of “spouse” ?), earning a living, cooking lunch, that kind of stuff. Having to turn 180 degrees, sharp left or whatever metaphor is appropriate, and applying ourselves to the abstract concepts of the intimate details of a broad range of Climate Change scientific fact and what the data all means, correcting denial propaganda and outright non-science nonsense, well, that all feels rather taxing.

Whose job is it to counteract the Climate Change sceptical malaise ? Isn’t there somebody high up, a Government official or a Minister or something that could come on the telly and tell the nation to calm down, it’s only a crowd of troublemakers, actually the reality of Global Warming is worse than it was even just a few months ago, and yes, the floods Up North were quite probably something to do with the changing weather ?

Why should the job of unpicking the denialist arguments be left to independent or freelance writers, people in charitable organisations or students with a bit of free time on their hands ?

Climategate will all blow over, eventually, like a shed in a slightly stronger hurricane. The truth will out. Out the punishments will be meted. Some more education will be made available for people to help them re-orient their views.

Yes, some science guys exchanged some botched e-mails. Big deal. The IPCC reports still stand. Obama is coming to Copenhagen with a promise of 83% by 2050 from a 2005 baseline in his warm, smart, capable and friendly hands.

I know Climategate is a real crisis, but it’s not that big a crisis for me to totally re-prioritise my life. Climate Change is the real crisis, and that already takes up a significant proportion of my waking hours.

In my view, Climategate only really damages the people who “liberated” the e-mails from CRU. What a shambolic midden of thieving cowards, say I.

To be honest, he was taller than I expected, and more Eastern in appeareance, a kind of lanky version of Mehmet behind the deli counter at my local Turkish International Food Emporium.

David Miliband was also considerably thinner than I would have liked, considering he might one day rule the New Labour Party, who might just rule my country again. We wouldn’t want him blown away by the slightest breeze, surely, would we ? He needs feeding in my opinion.

“Should be starting any minute now”, assured one of the event stewards as the clock ticked resolutely onwards after the advertised 11:00 am starting time for the Fabian Society’s “The Global Change We Need” one-day conference, hosted by Amnesty International.

We were made to wait by the interminable rise of “celebrity politics”, as Mr Miliband the Elder needed a commanding entrance, a long and powerful walk to the podium in full view of all the big fat cameras and young, shiny-faced campaigners and researchers.

David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, was terribly aware of his facial expression, holding himself in a way to under-accentuate his off-balance face, but he was a human, too, as he had a broad smile when he was amused by something. He is, as Private Eye have cartooned him, a schoolboy character.

He spun a load of goop, even sometimes putting his finger under the words on the page, probably written for him while he was on the plane back from yesterday, where was it this week ? Istanbul or Sarajevo or Belgrade. He mentioned all three.

I didn’t think he was convincing, not on Foreign Policy, not on the illegal and immoral warfare the United Kingdom military is engaged in; not on the key issue of Climate Change; not on social political engagement.

His theme was ostensibly, allegedly, about the new relationship between people and governments – addressing the disconnects in the public discourse resulting from the loss of trust in public institutions. He decried populism as dangerous. He applauded the (Barack) Obama campaign for the American Presidency last year, which he said was defiantly optimistic. That it was internationalist and unifying. That it was fresh and radical.

David Miliband said that his personal starting point was the realisation of how ambitious Obama was, and how it addressed the issues of the times – the deep recession and the closing window on Climate Change. He went on to mention other aspects of Foreign Policy which I shall not go into here, about which I strongly disagreed with.

Miliband constructed a narrative surrounding what he defined as the rise of soft power – how people doing media for themselves has “fuelled change”. How graphic media images have changed the course of events around the globe, by raising public support for various policies and measures. How that “our own enemies” have also exploited social media in the civilian population for their own ends.

He said that the rise of the Peoples’ Media did not signal the end of traditional diplomacy. How rulers were becoming more constrained by the power of public opinion. How he was emotionally engaged by the marching monks in Rangoon, Burma. “They knew we were standing up for them”. And so on.

During this I was thinking, there are some issues where we really can’t benefit from having more “soft power”. The people of Great Britain, for example, have a significant and vocal minority who live a British National Party kind of life, a Climate Change denier, petrol-head kind of life. If the Brits are politically apathetic, generally, then these small dangerous minorities will have too much influence if the Government is seeking to follow or respond to the “soft power” mood of the public mind.

David Miliband talked about “soft persuasion”, how “success will come when people start switching sides”, when people can see justice and fairness…we need a genuine political settlement…where people don’t refuse to engage with the other side. On Climate Change, he said he valued the ability of businesses and people to have their voices heard. Governments should not be afraid of public opinion.

On which I reflected – does he not understand about the wrecking agenda that some businesses have spent money on ? That the self-interests of some businesses, especially those who are resolutely hanging on to the Energy technologies of yesterday, are undermining progress ? How public opinion is based on falsehoods propagated by some businesses ? There is documented evidence of both the undue influence of corporates on government policy and the way that corporates have misled people. If we listen to public opinion, that opinion is tainted. Just look at the Wind Farm refusal brigade !

And “switching sides” is useless in the Climate Change and Energy debate without real action being possible to reduce Carbon Dioxide emissions. Often people make the decision to Go Green, but then end up with making token gestures of change, because they are hampered in their ability to make real changes. Because our Energy supply is dictated by the business of Fossil Fuel companies, and our whole society is managed by the Energy provided by the Fossil Fuel companies, and nobody can escape that without great personal sacrifice.

David Miliband talked about his big three challenges. Without values, soft power is more fragile. How it breeds distrust, value-free politics, “grey” areas, a tendency to “slip back”. He cited the case of the extreme right-of-centre politicians who used the “tunes” of freedom and democracy. David Miliband said that progressives should not be scared of being, what was it, “decisive” ? A different approach, holding firm to the “good life”. Responsible, but still open to being held to account through the system of law.

David Miliband praised the value of institutions – “how to put values into practice”. The importance of the European Union…we have to support our institutions, a durability that supports democracy. Then he went on to discuss the need for mass public mobilisation. In the run up to Copenhagen, he said, there has to be a lot of debate.

Mr Miliband worried that citizens may not be part of the debate. He mentioned that there are still many people who don’t believe the risks of Climate Change, and that was why the Government had worked with the Hadley Centre to put out the Four Degrees map of the world. He anticipated mass migration, sea level rise, issues with food security. He said this was “not catastrophism, but reality”.

David Miliband said that we need to prove the “first mover advantage” for businesses enacting the changes to reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions by 2050. He also said we need to engage in the ethics of Climate Change. It’s not just about technology or science, he went on, it’s about the need for mitigation and adaptation for people around the world. He praised the European initiative on pledging money for developing nations, and how this commitment could “enluc” a global deal. Or that’s what I heard him say anyway. The Spanish verb “enlucir” means “concreting”, “plastering”, “parget”, you know, firming things up.

“The ethics of Climate Change are in the end going to determine the potential”, David Miliband said. He said that soft power is more important, and that we need to have “progressive means as well as progressive ends”, whatever that meant. He said that the power to change the world is distributed, that no country has the power on its own to “bring the world to heel”. (“What control language”, I thought). “We all have a role to play”, he said. “That is the change we need.”

In questions from the floor, somebody asked about legitimacy, about how important it is to get citizens involved in democracy. David Miliband said that the experience shows that we need to have democratic process build from the bottom up – like the institutions have been built from the bottom up. That we need transparency, that public opinion should be a regulator, that we have suffered from a centralising of power. “You can’t engage people in politics if you don’t give them power”. “It’s very hard in mass organisations to give people power…can give people a sense of purpose and agency – feel that they’re making a difference.”

My internal reaction to this centred on my understanding of the nature of Science and Technology – and the knowledge that many peoples’ opinions about Science and Technology are nowhere near reality. If you give people power over issues of Science and Technology, and they have no idea about the realities of the Science and Technology, then they could be an unhelpful political power. There are many examples of “Bad Science” in the Media and in popular campaigning groups.

Do my opinions count ? Why do my opinions, as an ordinary citizen count ? And if my opinions are based on fallacies, falsehoods or poor reasoning, should I be allowed to have power in the political dialogue ?

I know that lack of knowledge and understanding don’t prevent people taking up opinions about things; but are those opinions valid ?

I also considered the role of the Coal industry, documented in the United States as having spent large amounts of money building fake “grassroots” organisations to support “clean” coal. How can “building from the bottom up” be authentic if there are deliberately manipulative pressures ?

David Miliband talked about how mass organisations can give people power. He gave the example of the RSPB, mobilising people around the EU Habitats Directive, which would otherwise not evoke mass participation.

In questions from the floor, Charlie Kronick, Chief Policy Advisor to Greenpeace, tried to challenge David Miliband about his call for mass mobilisation around Climate Change. He asked whether it was right to assume that the “agencies” (including the environmental campaign organisations) representing the voice of people will propagate the voice of the people to the Government, or just the voice of the Government to the people.

David Miliband slipped out of this one. “The great thing about democracy”, he said “is the right to disagree.” He mentioned the advice “beware of being captured by the NGOs (Non-Governmental Organisations”, and that progressives are sick of “interest-group liberalism”. He said that was how the Green New Deal in the United States broke down – caught between the interests of capital and labour. That this was a lesson for politicians, to engage people and not just groups. By tweeting and blogging you can meet millions of people without meeting them. Just as he does. Rather than “campaign in poetry and govern in prose”, Obama shows how you need to campaign in government. The biggest lesson is the art of persuasion.

Somebody else asked from the floor, that since on Climate Change people have had an expectation of a massive treaty that now people will be disillusioned (as everybody is now predicting a “political agreement” but not a “binding agreement” on emissions at Copenhagen in December). The questioner asked how we can overcome the void between leading and following. How we can make the leaders willing to lead ?

David Miliband said that we need people to mobilise and not to start with low aspirations. He said there must be a global legally binding agreement. Every country in the world, acting on common but differentiated responsibilities – which means the rich countries should do most. He said “You have to persuade from office…a challenge to campaigners to put pressure where necessary.”

In other words : we, the people, are expected to rise up and follow the lead from Government. I’m not convinced. The Government is not leading on communication with the people about the reality and seriousness of Climate Change. There is no educational television backed by public money, fronted by the Government’s expert advisers/advisors explaining the Science of Global Warming and the demands of creating an entirely new and Renewable Energy economy. The Government does not sponsor or promote initiatives that expose and remove right-wing, industry-funded propaganda about Climate Change from the Media.

Only 20% of the British people care enough about Climate Change to attempt to do something about it. Without massive financial backing, the educational charities cannot correct the lack of comprehension in the public about where we are heading as the world warms.

The public will not respond in masses to calls to support Climate Change action. All Climate Change regulation and measures involve things that appear like sacrifice and being asked to give up a life of easy Energy and cheap Transportation and mass market consumption.

People can work out that the Government have already decided what to do, and that they are being asked to support it, not challenge it. We are not putting pressure on the Government through our campaigns. We are merely acceding to their agenda. And not in huge numbers, because the Government is not being fully open with us about what they know (or rather, their Scientists know) about Global Warming.

The Government is only painting a water-colour picture of concern about the impacts of Climate Change. What is needed is a blockbuster surround-sound IMAX 3D all-action action-hero film. I know, I know, there is the film The Age of Stupid. But what I’m talking about is replacing BBC 24 News with Climate Change education programmes; pushing The Sun newspaper to feature regular features on visions of a future Low Carbon world; pulling sceptics and deniers from their influential positions in newspapers and online newspaper websites. I’m talking about a rather more active Government engagement with the people – full of honesty, Science and frankness.

We need more information and less preaching.

That’s the astonishing and very welcome news from Team Obama in the United States :-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/19/obama-carbon-emissions-auto-industry

Strict requirements for automobile efficiency have been set out today, a move that could cut America’s Global Warming Pollution by a third.

Yes, it’s taken extensive fudgy bailouts to keep the country’s car manufacturers afloat – but the financial crisis has proved an opportunity for regulation – changes that might have taken years otherwise.

The two sectors of the American Economy where Carbon Dioxide emissions are still rising are transportation and electrical power generation.

Since road transportation has been rising inexorably until very recently, the imposition of fuel efficiency is going to be a major force in the short-term to get American emissions downward trending :-

http://bioage.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2008/06/19/dotapril2.png

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/06/us-vehicle-mile.html

And that’s quite a drive !

Notes :-

American Department of Energy chart of changes in Carbon Dioxide emissions :-

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/images/fig_6.jpg

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/carbon.html

Transport accounts worldwide for nearly 20% of Carbon Dioxide emissions :-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Greenhouse_Gas_by_Sector.png

[ I can hear choral singing in the background and see white clouds on a blue, blue sky; but it's not the title sequence for the "propaganda" film "The Great Global Warming Swindle". ]

Of course you have, all of you. You’ve followed the First Yellow Family for years, and so you know all about the great glass dome that the EPA swings over Springfield to protect the rest of America from their toxic lake.

Well, in a strange case of life imitating art, the Environmental Protection Agency, the aforementioned EPA, are swinging into action for real. It’s a really big deal, and so all-encompassing that a nationwide glass dome will really not be an option.

They’re going to ban Carbon Dioxide emissions and several other Greenhouse Gases, under the Clean Air Act !

http://blogs.ft.com/energy-source/2009/04/17/epa-decision-
big-news-but-the-real-impact-is-some-way-off

“EPA decision: big news but the real impact is some way off : April 17 by Kate Mackenzie : The US Environmental Protection Agency has made its much-anticipated decision that greenhouse gases should be regulated under the Clean Air Act, which it enforces. This is important for two reasons: it clears the way for regulation on carbon emissions, and it is also a formal declaration that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases are endangering health and wellbeing.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/17/obama-administration-emissions-warning

“Obama administration breaks with the years of ‘climate change denial’ : Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent : guardian.co.uk, Friday 17 April 2009 : The Obama administration took a bold first step towards limiting the gases that cause global warming today after formally declaring that such emissions are a danger to public health. The official finding by the Environmental Protection Agency that carbon dioxide and five other gases threaten public welfare sets the stage for regulation of emissions from coal-fired power plants, and for forcing US car manufacturers to make cleaner and more fuel efficient vehicles.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8004975.stm

“Page last updated at 17:29 GMT, Friday, 17 April 2009 18:29 UK : Obama to regulate ‘pollutant’ CO2 : By Richard Black : Environment correspondent, BBC News website : The US government is to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, having decided that it and five other greenhouse gases may endanger human health and well-being. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the move following a review of the scientific evidence. The decision marks a major change from the Bush presidency, when the EPA argued it could not regulate CO2 because the gas was not a pollutant.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-moves-toward-climate-change-rules-1670321.html

“US moves toward climate change rules : By H. Josef Hebert, Associated Press : Friday, 17 April 2009 : The US Environmental Protection Agency concluded today that greenhouse gases linked to climate change “endanger public health and welfare,” setting the stage for regulating them under federal clean air laws. The EPA action marks the first step toward imposing limits on pollution linked to climate change, which would mean tighter rules for cars and power plants. Agency officials cautioned such regulations are expected to be part of a lengthy process and not issued anytime soon. Limits on carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases would have widespread economic and social impact, from requiring better fuel efficiency for automobiles to limiting emissions from power plants and industrial sources, changing the way the nation produces energy.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/5173549/US-declares-greenhouse-gases-are-threat-to-public-health.html

“US declares greenhouse gases are threat to public health
America has signalled a fundamental shift in its stance on global warming with a declaration from the Obama administration that greenhouse gases are a threat to public health. : By Tom Leonard in New York : Last Updated: 7:07PM BST 17 Apr 2009 : The US Environmental Protection Agency ruling is expected to mean new regulations of cars, power plants, building sites and factories : The statement issued by the US Environmental Protection Agency is expected to pave the way for new regulations of cars, power plants, building sites and factories by identifying carbon dioxide and five other gases as pollutants. Environmental groups applauded it as a landmark decision that would allow Barack Obama to meet his call for a low carbon economy but industry groups warned that the so-called “endangerment finding” could cripple the struggling US economy.”