The Stop Climate Chaos coalition meet tomorrow to present and hear suggestions on Climate Change campaigning in 2011.

How are we going to make it zoom, people ?

From some of my project work with faith groups, I had this suggestion to make :-

Alliance with Ethical Investment groups

“Put your money where your mouth is”

Following on from the Church of England selling its shares in Vedanta :-

http://www.minesandcommunities.org/article.php?a=9871

it was hoped that the Church of England investment portfolio would continue to be “cleaned up”. But there appears to be a long way to travel.

The Anglican Communion worldwide includes environmental protection as its “Fifth Mark of Mission”, and the Church of England is part of the international interfaith “seven year plans” :-

http://www.anglican.ca/search/faq/037.htm
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/news/pr10009.html

but the Church Commissioners report in the last year has confirmed that the Church of England still holds shares in companies such as BP, responsible for ecological devastation of the Gulf of Mexico :-

http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/12234

Groups such as the Alliance of Religions and Conservation, the Ecumenical Council for Corporate Responsibility and National Ethical Investment Week are all active in encouraging communities to put their money where their mouth is – and the faith communities have a very large amount to play with :-

http://www.arcworld.org/about_ARC.htm
http://www.eccr.org.uk/AboutUs
http://www.neiw.org/about

With the launch of the Green Investment Bank – even though severely under-capitalised – there is a chance to tie up the questions to the answers.

If every consumer choice were a green choice, there would be no environmental problem. The only way to reach that point is for every contract, every stock and share, every procurement order, every transport vehicle, every energy source and every material resource to be green.

The choices that companies make in the business they conduct is based on the premise that people want what they sell so much they are prepared to invest directly in them as well as buy their products.

There are several levers for change here. Investment, such as pension funds, if moved in bulk, can have a de-securitisation effect on unsustainable business models. Not so much a “boycott” as a “landslide” of change.

The faith communities have already proved that they can change international commerce with the Fair Trade movement. Now it’s time for the Green Investment movement.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5dca38e0-8ac1-11df-8e17-00144feab49a.html

“Environmentalists have had a disappointing year. The Copenhagen talks fizzled and the economic crisis has overshadowed all other considerations. But the need for countries to repair towering fiscal deficits is an opening for the movement. As treasuries look for ways to raise more revenues, climate change activists should make the case for green taxes.”

So, environmental campaigners should be campaigning for green taxes to plug holes in public deficits caused by crashing banks ?

I think not.

Tax revenue that is collected on the basis of environmental pollution should always be hypothecated, committed to remediation and removal of environmental pollution.

The majority of the populations of the deficit-stricken economies (OK, then, the whole world) are quite right in resisting being locked down into extra taxation at present. Green taxes would be a financial tie too tight for most of the world’s economically stressed.

Green taxes spent on things other than green energy and energy efficiency would be a mockery.

Besides which, only very high levels of green taxation would have any impact on pollution behaviour – the “signal” from green taxes would be lost amongst general economic “instability” (that is, price rises due to other factors).

No. We don’t need to ask for green taxes, Carbon Trading, Cap and Dividend or expensive failed technology funds (I’m thinking Nuclear Power and Carbon Capture and Storage, here).

What we do need is an end to global Fossil Fuel subsidies, to put green energy on a level playing field with Carbon Energy, in the mid- to long-term scenario, which just might convince the world’s top investors and their advisers to create a burgeoning Green Energy economy.

http://www.campaigncc.org/greenjobs

http://www.greenfiscalcommission.org.uk/index.php/site/about/final_report/

“Green Fiscal Commission final report : Green Fiscal Reform (GFR) – a green tax shift : The concept of a green tax shift is simple: taxes on the things that are valued by society; like jobs, incomes and profits; are reduced and the lost revenue is replaced by taxes on things society does not like, such as pollution and environmental degradation. ‘Pay as you burn, not pay as you earn’ as one political formulation has put it. This shift not only reduces pollution, but is a more economically efficient way of raising necessary tax revenues. Taxes on labour at their current level, for example, distort the economy and reduce its efficiency and output. The same considerations suggest that, at times when taxes need to be increased to stabilize the public finances, green taxes should play a more than proportionate role in the increase. : The polluter pays : While a green tax shift does not mean the overall rate of tax will change at the national level, it does mean people and business will see the amount of tax they pay change: the polluter pays. Highly polluting households and businesses will see their tax bill increase where low pollution households and businesses will see their tax bill cut below what it would otherwise be…”

The question arises : since our lifestyles are causing deadly Climate Change for people in other parts of the world, maybe we should have communications based around pictures of suffering children ?

I disagree. I point out that when the environmentalists put out posters about Polar Bears, that the audience pretty quickly realised that the Polar Bears were being used as a “poster child” for Climate Change, and they started to mock the campaigning.

Ten years ago, or even less, a poster depicting a tragic human or endangered animal was still a useful communications tool, but the potential recipients for these communications are now highly sceptical of this device, this attempt to pluck at their emotional/heart strings.

A poster is not useful, I say. What would be useful would be to have a long-running television series on how Climate Change is impacting a town or city in the Global South, or in the Arctic region – sort of like the engagement factor of a soap opera, but with a real-life Reality TV flavour.

I say, we have to get Climate Change under peoples’ noses, in their faces, all the time. More and more information needs to be presented to people, from old and new Media, establishment and informal web stuff.

I said that there has been a lot of criticism of one-shot shock communications, like the UK drink-drive infommercials, the UK Government’s “climate-drive” and “bedtime stories” infommercials, the National Health Service “cancer, sticks” advertisements, and some of the Greenpeace “phaser set to stun” environment campaign materials.

This kind of thing no longer gets through to people.

Even the really successful Smoking Causes Cancer tobacco product labelling is losing its impact – pictures of blackened lungs or no pictures of blackened lungs.

The young female American activist, with the obligatory nose ring, of course, took up my theme, and explained that where she comes from in the United States, if somebody is involved in a drink-drive accident, they are made to face the family of the victim, to see the results of their actions.

People need to be made aware, on an ongoing basis, of the results of the Global North’s use of Fossil Fuel energy.

It’s not a personal thing – communications should not be targeted at individual readers or viewers. If somebody tries to inform somebody else of the risks and realities of Climate Change, the message should not carry the idea that the hearer or viewer is personally responsible; and that they should repent in sackcloth and ashes and never use their car again.

Yet if all Climate Change communications are reduced to “this is a problem, and you need to believe this is a problem”, what can people do when they come to believe it ?

How do we take people on a journey of awakening, guiding them towards effective social and political engagement with the underlying causes of Climate Change ?

After all, it’s not the fault of ordinary people that Climate Change is happening. It’s the fault of those who continue to sell fossil fuels to us, who have made us dependent on products that they should be diversifying out of.

Climate Change is the fault of weak government, who dare not regulate against the monopoly on energy markets that the Oil and Gas (and Coal) companies have.

Climate Change is the fault of the Economy, with its constant drip-feed of messages to Consume.

Ordinary people are just doing the best they can, with the information they have.

People need more information about Climate Change.

For example, we need to have every weather segment on TV and Radio prefaced with a report on the state of the Cryosphere today – how far the Arctic has melted, how much snow and ice has been lost from mountains.

We need to have weather reports outlining the freak weather and extreme droughts and flooding taking place around the world.

We need business programmes and newspaper articles covering the failures in the grain harvests and other crops, the moves by governments and businesses to protect freshwater supplies, analysis of how heatwaves and other extreme weather are damaging enterprises and infrastructure.

You can’t just put up a poster and not deal with the emotional and political reaction it can cause. If you put up a poster, and the viewer has no way of interacting with the information, they will discount it, and become immune to the guilt that they think the poster is designed to trip.

Communications clientele are smarter than they used to be – they know when people are trying to manipulate their feelings – or even when they suspect people are trying to manipulate their feelings.

Let’s be honest, here. Quite a lot of Climate Change communications is deliberately of the “shock” variety – a one-way, short-term, quick-fire informational payload via Media.

But this has no value if it is not backed up with a narrative – an ongoing narrative – about how Climate Change is already impacting our lives and, more severely, the lives of the poorest – how it is a risk-multiplier in everything from freshwater supplies, through food growing to energy supply.

The threats are mounting. A catastrophe is possible.

We have to be prepared, and we have to help others be prepared.

A poster child will not suffice.

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.

We assemble in the briefing room. On one side of me was a Price Waterhouse Cooper employee admiring the “soft focus” of the RSPB campaign document in the delegate pack. On the other side of me was a Labour activist asking “where are the media ?” the answer to which has to be “we are the media”. And over the shoulder strides a woman carrying a Friends of the Earth flyer that reads “Carbon Trading : The greatest con trick in the world”.

When he came into the room, the first thing I noticed was that Ed Miliband’s hair was most exceptionally shiny and glossy. This sharply-suited baby father. He should be doing hair advertisements.

Tim Horton of the Fabian Society introduced the Minister for Energy and Climate Change by saying he’s recently returned from paternity leave, and that we wouldn’t be asking him whether he is using reusable nappies [diapers], and that he would answering some questions put to Twitter.

Ed Miliband stood up. “Thanks everyone for turning out. I hope we can use [the time] to think and discuss about how to get the deal we need [at Copenhagen]…about how we can make sure it happens…good spread from across society [represented here]…The UK Climate Impacts Programme [reported recently about the] scale of what will happen. [We can no longer say] “it won’t happen to us”.”

“Look at the impact on our own region – [we can] see quite stunning impacts if we don’t act. [The effects of heat in the year] 2003 [was] bringing home [what] Climate Change in action [is like]…Two years ago in my constituency, the High Street was flooded and people were being hauled out of first floor windows. [We can't say whether any particular storm or flood is the direct result of Global Warming but] due to Global Warming we’ll have more [and more of this].”

“Two months ago in China I went to Minchin – remote back of beyond – off the beaten track – I was talking to a farmer. He was concerned about the advancing of two deserts. [If they meet] it will make the livelihoods of 300,000 people impossible [because of] water [scarcity] and cause sandstorms in Beijing. [Places hand on heart] I think they relate, better than statistics, the anxiety [of ordinary people].”

“More and more governments get this. China get this. [Many governments now see Climate Change] as a problem to be tackled. The view of the Chinese leadership is different than a few years ago. The US debate has been transformed by Obama. We are increasingly seeing governments alive to the scale of the problem…I was in Paris for the Major Emitters Forum…tomorrow I’ll be in Mexico…”

“On the other hand, Governments face difficult and compelling constraints to getting a deal. This is the thing that keeps me awake at night [not the baby, then] – how to match the scale of the science challenge with the political response. In China there are 500 million people living on less than a dollar a day and they want 8% [Economic] Growth. The US needs to get 60 votes for legislation, 67 for the international treaty…The European Union [is facing] a time of economic difficulties but needs to be part of financing the global deal.”

“The Climate challenge for us as campaigners and politicians is how we move the politics in the next few months. As far as possible (I’m on the “art of the possible”) [so that the policy] matches the science. [It will be] stunningly difficult to and from Copenhagen to build consensus. Got to span parties and different political systems. [Climate Change has to] become part of the political landscape. We have to change [the] policies to match the science as far as possible.”

“(1) The political argument – central for tackling Climate Change. I think that what’s important to realise – if we leave this as a debate (green organisations get this better) about numbers, [accounting and] financial managerialism we will put people off. We have to make it a much bigger [approach] about the society we believe in. The central point is about future generations. [It's not] a recipe for defeatism. The action we take now has an impact in 40 or 50 years’ time. I’m hoping to be around in 50 years time, just not in this job !”

“[Our political argument has to be] an argument that goes beyond our lifetime. [What Anthony Giddens styles] the Gidden’s Paradox. Shouldn’t shy away from making a very long-term argument. An argument about equality between generations. The promise of life in human progress, [we must] ensure that continues. Fairness to future generations. Custodians of the planet. It’s partly about how do you want to be remembered by history. Do we want to be remembered as the last generation not to get it, or the first generation to get it.”

“There is a danger, a tendency to moralism, but it’s an important part of the argument. The most profound effects on now and future generations. An argument about altruism and an argument about interests today.”

“Unless we can make it an argument about prosperity not austerity we can’t get the Chinese to [join in]. Transition Towns, important though that movement is (I was a Keynote Listener at one of their conferences), I got into an argument with people there about about no-growth hair-shirtism. I don’t think anti- or low-growth policies will work with us. It won’t work with China and it won’t work in my constituency. Lots of aspects of Copenhagen people don’t like, [we need to] come to terms with. [There are] other things in life besides lifestyle – a sense of duties to future generations and about about self interest.”

“The Government has been weak in showing a greener world. We are trying to ensure a better Quality of Life. All of those things (Transition Towns community etc are) partly about saying we can do this on the basis of combining to meet needs. Different growth. Different quality of life.”

“(2) The nature of a global deal: There is a seeming paradox – we need to find a way of transcending it. [The problem that the developed countries caused most of the emissions so far in history that has already caused] 0.6 degrees, or is it 0.8 degrees Celsius rise in global temperature. It’s not a result of our (developing) country actions. It’s a result of your actions.”

“Reference is made to the expression “You’ve taken up lots of [my] Carbon space !” This is the first half of Miliband’s Paradox. The second half is – if you look you will find three quarters of Growth to 2050 will be from developing countries. Even if we shut down our emissions tomorrow [we will] still not be able to [stablise process]. [To] overcome this apparent paradox, developed countries leadership is incredibly important. Go first. Do more. The per capita emissions in developing countries still lower. We have to go as far and as fast as we can.”

“In the US this is what is hard. US has set a goal of reducing by 20% by 2020, but the science says 25% – 40%. Push as far and as fast as possible. Not too far off targets. Get developing countries to move away from Business As Usual. Our emissions will increase for some time to come but we have got to get back to a lower level later (see article in The Guardian).”

“China is incredibly serious about Renewable Energy. China’s interim target for 2020…If we can get 6 countries by December it will be possible to get a projection. Surely about finance and technology, we have got to be candid. Make the argument to accept our responsibility to finance developing countries. Even if we didn’t think it’s right in principle. We have an economic interest in making these, financing these, changes. We’ll see all the effects in the UK.”

“We also have to see the global Carbon market as part of this. Why is this an important thing to have ? Given the scale and the costs. Do need to find ways to get least cost. If we can find ways to get funds to flow to developing countries – to China and others. Not to say that Carbon market on its own is [important]. We need institutions, [of the] right weighting and voice. Let’s find a new mechanism and institutions to reflect balance.”

“Our Copenhagen manifesto will be published on Friday. We hope will stimulate debate. Global deal has got to meet the demands of the science. Got to find a way to avoid dangerous Climate Change – 2 degrees Celsius of warming. We need developed and developing countries to be part of this. Don’t let either side off the hook.”

“(3) The kind of campaign we need. It’s too important to be left to Government. All the great campaigns [came about] because people demanded they happen – not just Government thought [they should]. All of them seemed impossible, but…The campaign about New Coal in the UK. It is sometimes hard for green movement to make strides forward. It’s true that the green movement campaign has changed the debate. We’ve come out with a policy – widely acknowledged – we are no longer building unabated coal [no development without] Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS).”

“Unfortunately the Copenhagen task is even bigger than Coal. I don’t know if we have the kind of campaign we need – the sense of popular mobilisation – the sense that we have a make or break month [December 2009]. Despite the differences we can still get a global deal. It can’t wait. How do we spread this message more widely – galvanise people ? How do we make sure the [legitimate] domestic campaign doesn’t mean we lose sight of how we do the bigger deal ? It’s important for the whole green movement eyes to be kept on the much bigger prize. Part of it is about a much simpler “ask”. Partly about the widest possible coalition. A whole range of organisations want to be part of this but haven’t found a way [...] put off. Unless politicians’ feet are held to the fire won’t get [action] we need.”

“The sense of global movement is not what I hoped. But we have more of a chance of a global deal than when I got this job. Clever people said to me “Obama will have other things to worry about in his first year. Maybe he’ll to it in his second year. The first speech he said, “send me a Cap and Trade bill”. Major landmark. Other people told me China will not be interested in a global deal. They are desperate for a global deal because they see effects, see it happening. Australia was really inadequate – negative ambition there. Now they’ve upped their targets.”

“There are important reasons for optimism if we get it right. Don’t let anyone tell you Copenhagen is too complicated to get a deal by the end of the year. [There are] financial and technological developed and developing nation targets. It will be a major and historical step forward. We need the deal to be right. We need the campaign to be right.”

Later in questions :-

“We are not going to reach 40% reductions by 2020…the art of the possible. Find environmental pathways that can meet science demand with commitment that we will be setting out…40% will be a working aim…”

But seriously, if he really wanted to engage the people in the room, he would have been more careful not to be so dismissive of the magician outside the front door who was trying to show everyone very theatrically that Carbon Trading doesn’t work.

Plus, he would have showed that after all this time in full view of the facts on Global Warming, that he understood that sooner or later Government policy must match the scientific requirements, instead of harping on about “the art of the possible”.

Here are a few more reactions :-

P : “The Developing Countries don’t want Carbon Trading. There’s this Financing Proposal coming out…”

P : “Ed didn’t react properly to the very strong critique of Carbon Trading from Friends of the Earth. Ed was not even challenged about whether there were any concerns about Carbon Trading and the Clean Development Mechanism. He dismissed the magician and dismissed the Developing World’s perspective when he made the joke “you’re taking up my Carbon space”. We’ve polluted the sky, leaving no room for Development !”

http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefing_notes/dangerous_distraction.pdf
“Dangerous Distraction : Why offsetting is failing the climate and people: the evidence”

M: So how was Ed Miliband for you ?
J: Charming, ebullient and patronising. All the things I thought he would be.
M: So you weren’t disappointed, then.

When I explained to Paul Hilder, Campaign Director of Avaaz.org and co-founder of openDemocracy that I had no energy for campaigning for the Copenhagen Treaty as Ed Miliband is asking us to, because it was full of things I could not agree with, he said :-

“We’re not rubber-stamping Copenhagen !”

Andy Atkins : “[It's no good Ed Miliband saying] do us a campaign and we’ll do what you want ! You were elected to lead. Lead ! You can change the political space in an instant ! We have to challenge them [the Government]. They’re being cowardly. There are votes to be lost. In history [you can see it was] sometimes [necessary to] take risks.”

Ken Livingstone in response to Andy Atkins : “Margaret Thatcher took risks every day…she had guts. She was mad. But she had guts.”

People seen at the conference included : Guy Shrubsole of Public Interest Research Centre pirc.info, Nicky Gavron of C40 Cities, Bryony Worthington of Sandbag and AMEE, Mark Dowd of “God is Green” Operation Noah, Franny Armstrong of the film Age of Stupid, (not the Age of Supine !), Leo Murray ex-of Plane Stupid now of Team Stupid, Climate Camp Jester Steve, Phil England of Climate Radio, Andy Atkins of Friends of the Earth, Sian Berry of the Green Party, Ken Livingstone formerly London Mayor, John Ackers of the Campaign against Climate Change, Tina Davy senior researcher for Colin Challen MP, Dr Keith Allott of World Wildlife Fund, Ben Branzel of MoveOn.org and now also of the new Barack Obama technology campaign team.