http://www.metro.co.uk/news/807821-pensioners-burn-books-for-warmth

“Miles Erwin – 5th January, 2010 : Pensioners burn books for warmth : Hard-up pensioners have resorted to buying books from charity shops and burning them to keep warm. Volunteers have reported that ‘a large number’ of elderly customers are snapping up hardbacks as cheap fuel for their fires and stoves…”

I have taken a fat orange highlighter pen to his more tendentious and incensing statements, and am scratching comments in the margins to indicate my extreme displeasure.

What is it about Anthony Giddens’ phraseology that so irritates me ? I’ll pass over the more nebulous, inaccurate rubbish like his mention of “political scientists” – politics is no more science than the study of fine art. And I’ll try really hard not to call him ideologically-challenged, based on his references to unproven economic theories as if they were axiomatic facts.

My key dislike to his approach seems to be crystallising around his dismissiveness of other peoples’ points of view; his loose, callous talk is likely to alienate a good many people, and he needs repudiation.

Climate Change needs a confederate, collaborative approach. It needs cross-party, cross-sector cooperation. It does not need Anthony Giddens trying to define some kind of unique niche, putting his unique ideological position, and that of his close colleagues, on the pedestal of correctness and efficacy.

Allow me to quote more from Pages 4, 5 and 6 of the Introduction to his book “The Politics of Climate Change”, my copy of which I have so far been able to resist the temptation to shred to make a cosy blanket for my compost bin worms :-

START OF QUOTATION

As for SUVs, so for the world: there is a long way to go before rhetoric becomes reality. Politicians have woken up to the scale and urgency of the problem and many countries have recently introduced ambitious climate change policies. Over the past few years, a threshold has been crossed: most political leaders are now well aware of the hazards posed by climate change and the need to respond to them. Yet this is just the first wave – the bringing of the issue onto the political agenda. The second wave must involve embedding it in our institutions and in the everyday concerns of citizens, and here, for reasons just mentioned, there is a great deal of work to do. The international community is on board, at least in principle. Negotiations aimed at limiting global warming have taken place at meetings organized by the United Nations, starting in Rio in 1992, moving on to Kyoto in 1997 and then to Bali in 2007, in an attempt to get global reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. They are still continuing, but have produced little in the way of concrete results so far.

Much of this book concentrates on climate change policy in the industrial countries. It is these countries that pumped most of the emissions into the atmosphere in the first place, and they have to take prime responsibility for controlling them in the near fuure. They must take the lead in reducing emissions, moving towards a low-carbon economy and making the social reforms with which these changes will have to be integrated. If they can’t do these things, no one else will.

I want to make the somewhat startling assertion that, at present, we have no politics of climate change. In other words, we do not have a developed analysis of the political innovations that have to be made if our aspirations to limit global warming are to become real. It is a strange and indefensible absence, which I have written this book to try to repair. My approach is grounded in realism. There are many who say that coping with climate change is too difficult a problem to be dealt with within the confines of orthodox politics. Up to a point I agree with them, since quite profound changes will be required in our established ways of political thinking. Yet we have to work with the institutions that already exist and in ways that respect parliamentary democracy.

The state will be an all-important actor, since so many powers remain in its hands, whether one talks of domestic or or international policy. There is no way of forcing states to sign up to international agreements; and even if they choose to do so, implementing whatever is agreed will largely be the responsibility of each individual state. Emission trading markets can only work if the price of carbon is capped, and at a demanding level, a decision that has to be made and implemented politically. Technological advance will be vital to our chances of cutting greenhouse gas emissions, but support from the state will be necessary to get it off the ground. The one major supra-national entity that exists, the European Union, is heavily dependent on decisions taken by its member nations, since its control over them is quite limited.

Markets have a much bigger role to play in mitigating climate change than simply in the area of emissions trading. There are many fields where market forces can produce results that no other agency of framework could manage. In principle, where a price can be put on an environmental good without affronting other values, it should be done, since competition will then create increased efficiency whenever that good is exchanged. However, active state intervention is once again called for. The environmental costs entailed by economic processes often form what economists call ‘externalities’ – they are not paid for by those who incur them. The aim of public policy should be to make sure that, wherever possible, such costs are internalized – that is, brought into the marketplace.

‘The state’, of course, comprises a diversity of levels, including regional, city and local government. In a global era, it operates within the context of what political scientists call multilayered governance, stretching upwards into the international arena and downwards to regions, cities and localities. To emphasize the importance of the state to climate change policy is not to argue for a reversion to top-down government. On the contrary, the most dramatic initiatives are likely to bubble up from the actions of far-sighted individuals and from the energy of civil society. States will have to work with a variety of other agencies and bodies, as well as with other countries and international organizations if they are to be effective.

One can’t discuss the politics of climate change without mentioning the green movement, which has been a leading influence on environmental politics for many years. It has had a major impact in forcing the issue of climate change onto the political agenda. ‘Going green’ has become more or less synonymous with endeavours to limit climate change. Yet there are big problems. The green movement has its origins in the hostile emotions that industrialism aroused among the early conservationists. Especially in its latter-day development in Germany in the 1970s and 1980s, the greens defined themselves in opposition to orthodox politics. Neither position is especially helpful to the task of integrating environmental concerns into our established political institutions. Just what is and what is not valuable in green political philosophies has to be sorted out.

END OF QUOTATION

Anthony Giddens writes : “As for SUVs, so for the world: there is a long way to go before rhetoric becomes reality.” He fails to address one of the key problems with politics – a general inertia, a resistance to change. By constantly making reference to “public opinion”, often constructed by the Media, politics dare not tread outside the narrow trammels of expectation. As it has been, in policy, so shall it be.

He also omits to see the larger picture : that politics must move not only faster, but wider, into the strange realm of change. Voluntary targets on Carbon Emissions can never be enough. There must be Zero Tolerance on Carbon. But this cannot be completely managed from Central Government.

Anthony Giddens writes : “Yet this is just the first wave – the bringing of the issue onto the political agenda. The second wave must involve embedding it in our institutions and in the everyday concerns of citizens…” Here he is taking quite a liberty in defining what is happening, taking the credit for what is happening, and showing remarkably fascistic tendencies in asserting the need for central politics to influence the minds of the electorate. Is it the responsibility of the Central Government to impress upon all the national institutions and the peoples the necessity of policy on Climate Change ? How is democracy involved in this process ? And are not people responsible for their own approach to their growing knowledge of the onset of Global Warming ?

Anthony Giddens writes : “The international community is on board, at least in principle.” Is that “on board” with his ideas ? Is Anthony Giddens somehow in command of the ideological framework that is necessary to communicate to get movement on Climate Change ? Is Anthony Giddens setting the agenda ?

Anthony Giddens writes : “The state will be an all-important actor, since so many powers remain in its hands, whether one talks of domestic or or international policy. There is no way of forcing states to sign up to international agreements; and even if they choose to do so, implementing whatever is agreed will largely be the responsibility of each individual state.”

There is a huge element that he does not discuss here : the corporate organisations to which most governments outsource functions of trade, social utilities and Energy. Many transnational corporations are global companies of such size they dwarf the economies of individual governments.

In a sense, it does not really matter if the nations sign up to a treaty on Climate Change. Without the cooperation of the corporations, a Climate Change treaty ain’t going nowhere, fast.

The question of how individual nation states can implement Climate Change depends to a huge extent on how they can break the tourniquet of “business interests” that dictate or lead many national policies on trade, manufacture and infrastructural provision.

Many corporates have viewed signing up to Climate Change control as signing their own death warrants. And it’s the corporates that will be relied upon to implement nations’ Climate Change policies.

Anthony Giddens write : “Emission trading markets can only work if the price of carbon is capped, and at a demanding level…” Er, no. The amount of Carbon needs to be capped, not the price. There are always going to be forces that operate to keep the price of Carbon low. In fact the theory of the “efficiency” of markets leads to this potential outcome – that Carbon will be priced according to the needs of the international business community. The amount of Carbon available as permits or national allowances needs to be capped and ratcheted downwards, year on year, in order to stimulate Carbon reductions. If a “floor price” on Carbon is deliberated, it will guarantee large sums of money are made available to expensive technological approaches to Carbon Emissions reductions, such as Nuclear Power and Carbon Capture and Storage. However, that would mitigate against cheaper or near-zero-cost options, as all the funds would be sucked out of the economy to pay for the expensive stuff.

Anthony Giddens writes : “Technological advance will be vital to our chances of cutting greenhouse gas emissions, but support from the state will be necessary to get it off the ground.” Here he buys into several myths at once. He seems to be assuming that technology can continue to advance at the same pace as it has in the past. Many technologies have reached their zenith. Some recent proposals investigated violate the Laws of Physics or use more Fossil Fuel Energy than in the past. For example, some forms of BioDiesel, trumpeted only a few short years ago as the ultimate vehicle fuel solution, have turned out to have shortcomings in several of its incarnations.

Plus, throwing more money into Research and Development will not necessarily guarantee the same kinds of returns on investment in future. The reason ? Most technological advances deployed to markets cause higher Energy consumption.

In addition, we don’t need yet more Research and Development, effectively delaying concrete action. Most, perhaps all, of the technologies we need to solve Climate Change are already tried and tested.

Any new Energy infrastructure requires massive investment. If the current corporate network feels they cannot do this kind of investment, because they don’t want to hurt the feelings of their shareholders, then states around the world will have to stump up taxpayer cash for the Energy Revival. In this case, the nation states should retain the profit from these investments. The states should own the new technologies and plant and pipeline and wire grids.

Anthony Giddens states the Classical Economist’s golden rule : “In principle, where a price can be put on an environmental good without affronting other values, it should be done, since competition will then create increased efficiency whenever that good is exchanged.” But Carbon is an environmental “bad”, not “good”. Nobody wants Carbon Emissions to be on their books, but they are stuck with Carbon Assets. And as always, Carbon Emissions will be hidden in trade, as nobody wants to buy it. People will resist accounting for Carbon Emissions in all forms of exchange. They call this “Carbon Leakage”.

And here is my big question : how is putting a price on Carbon Emissions going to stop them ? Carbon Emissions are one of the foundations of the global Economy. Taxing Carbon is like a universal tax on everything.

Anthony Giddens writes : “The aim of public policy should be to make sure that, wherever possible, such costs are internalized – that is, brought into the marketplace.” No, not “internalized” – Carbon Emissions externalities should be eliminated, not costed. This is where the notion of environmental taxation really falls down in a heap. The aim of public policy should be to eliminate Carbon Emissions, not charge people for them.

Anthony Giddens writes : “To emphasize the importance of the state to climate change policy is not to argue for a reversion to top-down government. On the contrary, the most dramatic initiatives are likely to bubble up from the actions of far-sighted individuals and from the energy of civil society.” But these “far-sighted individuals” don’t have any influence beyond “civil society”, and even there, they don’t have much influence. It’s patronising to ask people to Keep Calm and Carry On Campaigning and lobbying and marching and writing letters and Climate Camping when experience shows that policy is unaffected by these actions.

Anthony Giddens carries on patronisingly, “One can’t discuss the politics of climate change without mentioning the green movement, which has been a leading influence on environmental politics for many years. It has had a major impact in forcing the issue of climate change onto the political agenda.” He omits to alight on a huge ideological problem : that the political agenda effectively ignores the green movement.

Anthony Giddens then gets my goat : “The green movement has its origins in the hostile emotions that industrialism aroused among the early conservationists. Especially in its latter-day development in Germany in the 1970s and 1980s, the greens defined themselves in opposition to orthodox politics. Neither position is especially helpful to the task of integrating environmental concerns into our established political institutions. Just what is and what is not valuable in green political philosophies has to be sorted out.”

It is at this point that I throw the book on the floor, uttering choice words of dubious meaning. I do then have to apologise to the people around me, as I pick up the book.

What was it that so disgusted me ?

The key to any democratic evolution is debate – it is people taking up a position and opposing others who have another position. Opposition is the heart of politics. Being in opposition to the “ruling” party, or the prevailing dogma is not wrong; it’s not “hostile”.

I’d hate to have a conversation with Anthony Giddens over dinner. If I took up a position that was different to his, he’d call me “hostile”.

This is where Anthony Giddens has “demonised the opposition” and loses all shreds of intelligent analysis.

At least Anthony Giddens in his book “The Politics of Climate Change”, attempts to get beyond that kind of gutter press and move into the heady air of the moral mountain heights. But he takes with him some extraordinarily unhelpful baggage, Classical Economics being part of it. Plus, an inability to see the wood for the trees.

Allow me to quote from his Introduction :-

http://books.google.com/books?id=yXJKxmd2tWgC&printsec=frontcover&cd=1&source=gbs_ViewAPI#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Page 1

START OF QUOTATION

INTRODUCTION

This is a book about nightmares, catastrophes – and dreams. It is also about the everyday, the routines that give our lives continuity and substance. It is about SUVs – Sports Utility Vehicles, or 4x4s. The book is a prolonged enquiry into a single question: why does anyone, anyone at all, for even a single day longer, continue to drive an SUV ? For their drivers have to be aware that they are contributing to a crisis of epic proportions concerning the world’s climate. On the face of things, what could be more disturbing than the possibility that they are helping to undermine the very basis of human civilization?

In case it isn’t obvious, I hasten to add that SUVs are a metaphor. If I can put it this way, we are all SUV drivers, because so few of us are geared up to the profundity of the threats we face. For most people there is a gulf between the familiar preoccupations of everyday life and an abstract, even if apocalyptic, future of climate chaos. Almost everyone across the world must have heard the phrase ‘climate change’ and know at least a bit about what it means. It refers to the fact that the greenhouse gas emissions produced by modern industry are causing the earth’s climate to warm up, with potentially devastating consequences for the future. Yet the vast majority are doing very little, if anything at all, to alter their daily habits, even though those habits are the source of the dangers that climate change has in store for us.

END OF QUOTATION

He asks the question : “The book is a prolonged enquiry into a single question: why does anyone, anyone at all, for even a single day longer, continue to drive an SUV ?”

The underlying assumptions here are that car manufacturers have every right in the world to sell SUV motor vehicles; and that every travelling consumer has the right to purchase a motor vehicle for the purpose of travelling.

He asks : why do people continue to drive SUVs ? I ask : why are SUVs still on sale ?

If I, as a consumer, have the right to a full smorgasbord of choice, then every choice open to me should be the “green” choice, the Low Carbon choice. Then I could not be held responsible for choosing to drive a dirty car.

Anthony Giddens writes : “Almost everyone across the world must have heard the phrase ‘climate change’ … Yet the vast majority are doing very little, if anything at all, to alter their daily habits, even though those habits are the source of the dangers that climate change has in store for us.”

My issue with this is to summarised in this question : how is it that my daily habits and my consumer choices are at fault, here ? Why does Anthony Giddens feel so free to blame the poor citizen-consumers ?

It’s not the habits of the ordinary citizen-consumer that need changing, it’s the production habits of the world’s Energy and Mining corporations. If they didn’t dig up Coal, Oil, Natural Gas and Uranium so messily and sell them on to people who use them wastefully and cause pollution, then there would be no problem.

Colin Challen MP, an elected Member of the United Kingdom Parliament, has written a very helpful critique of Climate Change politics : “Too Little, Too Late : The Politics of Climate Change” :-

http://www.celsias.com/article/colin-challens-too-little-too-late-politics-climat/

The Daily Telegraph, and others, tried to string him up over the MPs’ expenses scandal :-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5390053/MPs-expenses-Colin-Challen-sold-flat-to-senior-researcher-then-rented-it-back-nightly.html

http://www.garforthtoday.co.uk/5311/Rothwell-MP-is-asked-to.5735414.jp

Is this perhaps connected to the fact that he is such a strong campaigning force on Climate Change ? Or that he called for a ban on domestic flights ? Time alone will tell :-

http://news.cheapflights.co.uk/2009/12/labour-mp-wants-total-ban-on-domestic-flights/

You can join his newsletter group to receive his “Carbon2Share” publication :-

http://www.colinchallen.org.uk/record.jsp?type=page&ID=6&contact=contact

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.