Jubilant scenes across New York as mass flag-waving breaks out to celebrate.

Are they congratulating Wills and Kate ? The Americans probably reviewed the TV ratings for the right royal wedding and decided they too needed something to boost the morale of the nation. So they went and killed Osama Bin Laden.

Or not. He could have been dead for days, because the plans were made weeks ago. Was he killed pre-emptively ahead of the collective British regal marital hysteria ? Why did the young newlyweds ship out to an “undisclosed location” instead of jetting off on honeymoon, pronto ? Was there a “credible threat” made on their lives in retaliation at the death of the Al Qaeda spiritual leader ? Or was an unarmed Osama bin Laden murdered by a surprise military attack at night at his family home after an Al Qaeda threat was made on Prince William and his new wife ? You have to admit the timing of the news is interesting…

Bin Laden “buried at sea” ? Yeah, right. If his body was dumped at sea, that could cause considerable affront to his supporters, but at least it would cover the fact that he had been dead for well over 24 hours, which would be an even worse affront according to Muslim burial traditions. If the body was no longer fresh enough for a photo shoot a hypothetical burial is necessary, one that can obscure the facts from international cameras and mobile phones. The Americans sent in a hit squad rather than dropping bombs from drones. Why go in person ? To make sure they have video and photographic evidence of the killing to show to Hillary Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama a few days later ? And by what moral and legal justification did Barack Hussein Obama issue a kill order instead of capturing Osama bin Laden for trial for his alleged crimes against humanity ?

Meanwhile, back in Libya, several other funerals have taken place after a NATO bombing raid in Tripoli, at night, targeting the Gaddafi family home, the victims of which included a son and some grandchildren of Colonel Gaddafi (and possibly even Muammar Gaddafi, the Brother Leader, himself, was killed too, although we don’t know that for sure yet) and sparked massive protest, which may lead to foreign troops “on the ground” to “finish off” the war – maybe disguised by gas masks, or under cover of enacting war crimes warrants. Various world leaders have declared they want to see the end of the current regime in Libya. NATO might be used to protect energy supplies. It could get a whole lot nastier now. What had Libya and Libya’s leader done to deserve this ? Declare energy independence ? :-

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/67d1d02a-5314-11e0-86e6-00144feab49a.html#axzz1LD4mxQ1w
“Oil companies fear nationalisation in Libya : By Sylvia Pfeifer and Javier Blas in London : Published: March 20 2011 : Western oil companies operating in Libya have privately warned that their operations in the country may be nationalised if Colonel Muammer Gaddafi’s regime prevails. Executives, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the rapidly moving situation, believe their companies could be targeted, especially if their home countries are taking part in air strikes against Mr Gaddafi. Allied forces from France, the UK and the US on Saturday unleashed a series of strikes against military targets in Libya…”

Osama bin Laden was arguing for a end to foreign interference in Arab territories, which naturally would have involved reasserting national control of oil and gas resources, and retaining wealth in the countries of origin. And many western strategists believe that this “threat” should never be allowed to happen. Osama bin Laden, in poor health, had probably negotiated a deal where he was allowed to live peacefully in retirement, but things changed, and the American Navy stormed his house at night and killed him and attacked his family. If the United States go after a sick man, and nearly murder his wife just because she happened to be in the way when they shot him (no taking prisoners, then), what will they do now ? Take out Pakistan for harbouring him (even though they agreed to host Osama bin Laden’s retirement in the first place) ? Or cut international aid intended for disaster relief in Pakistan ? It is now a distinct possibility that by encouraging universal joy over the death of the “sinner” bin Laden, a great piece of media entertainment, the world audience is being warmed up for overpowering violence against Libya, whipped up by American hawks. The deal breakers. All the wrong actions for all the wrong reasons.

And what did Barack Hussein Obama say ? “No Americans were harmed“, whilst “bringing Osama bin Laden to justice…Justice has been done“. Internal moral compasses may flinch at these words. Justice normally involves a court of law, not the President of the United States watching an “enemy of America” being liquidated on a secure webcam. Two victims of extensive and enduring negative American propaganda have been attacked with full military might whilst tucked up in bed at home. Who’s next ? Julian Assange ? Hugo Chavez ? Some other man made out to be a demon ? And while Ed Miliband, Labour Party leader in the United Kingdom says the world is now a “safer place”, Americans are being issued with travel advisories.

Image Credit : Marrickville Greens

Everywhere in the world that Renewable Energy subsidies, grants or guaranteed unit price contracts have been set, there has been a gradual, or sometimes even rapid, development of new Renewable Energy assets. Which seems like quite a good reason for the State to partly finance the development of Renewable Energy systems, if you take the long view. (Note : I’m using the word “asset” in its proper, original sense here – something that has value long after it has been created, and long after it has been paid for.)

By the end of the lifetime of German roof-top solar panels, or British wind turbines, the economic signal to assist the deployment of these technologies will have long since vapourised, leaving behind a functioning electricity supply that runs without the use of expensive fuel and doesn’t run the risk of major failures and huge drops in power output – unlike large centralised power stations.

The need to invest in long-term non-fuel widely-distrubuted generation assets plugged into the electricity network is essential for its future stability – the more reliable Renewable resources of all scales the National Grid can call on, the cheaper it will be to guarantee a solid supply for all.

The large energy companies most likely consider investment in small- and medium-scale Renewable Energy by individuals and communities as a threat to their monopoly on electrical generation. And so they should. It is time for big changes in the way energy is supplied and managed in this country.

New, large, centralised power plants that the large energy companies want to build will cost their customers dearly in the form of higher energy prices – and there have been continual battles over the planning for and the financing of large new energy plants.

This is why the Feed-in Tariff (FIT) scheme in the UK is so important to keep – a stimulus to create small-scale Low Carbon power resources that will still have value in 20 or even 30 years time with very low maintenance schedules.

The threshold level of the economic stimulus for small-scale Renewables is comparatively low when compared to other forms of investment. The incentive scheme to install principally solar resources can work with funds much lower than those required to underwrite a new fleet of Nuclear Power stations, for example, and yet create a resource that could rival the new reactors without all that cost of nasty radioactive clean-up at the end of a nuke plant’s life.

But, being Great Britain, the Government have had their heads turned by the large energy companies yet again, it seems, as there are rumours that the FIT will be scrapped :-

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/339acf30-c757-11df-aeb1-00144feab49a.html

“Solar power subsidy under review : By Fiona Harvey, Environment Correspondents : Published: September 23 2010 : The recent mini-boom in solar power could be in jeopardy, as the government has privately indicated that new feed-in tariffs that have fuelled the industry could be slashed. If such cuts are adopted, renewable energy experts fear that it will scare off investors – with repercussions throughout the industry. “To change the subsidy system just when you can see the success it has had beggars belief,” said one. “Renewable energy investors . . . will lose faith in this government.” Industry insiders also accused the government of hypocrisy. They say that while Chris Huhne, the energy and climate change secretary, was promising the Liberal Democrat conference 250,000 green jobs as part of a “revolutionary” deal to cut emissions, government advisers were holding meetings in back rooms at which they flagged up potential cuts to the feed-in tariffs (FITs)…”

Don’t blame me or anybody in the Green Party or Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth or a number of other Non-Governmental Organisations or independents if in 15 years time there is still not a significant Renewable Energy resource in the United Kingdom. We have expended a lot of personal energy calling for sensible levels of sustainable funding for the renewables revolution. We can do without the limitations of a stop-start regime.

If you want new energy systems, you need to pay for them. It’s called investment, and we need to do it because our current energy systems are decrepit and high carbon. The large energy companies are not prepared to put their own capital into small-scale Renewables, so it falls to the taxpayer to fill the gap. Why not pay the least for the most by directly incentivising small-scale Renewable Energy with a long-term Feed In Tariff scheme ?

Unlike the United Kingdom, where political sensibility can quash the most logical enactment of energy policy, plans for progress voiced so tentatively you can bearly feel a ripple, or hear it over the whispering swoosh of a new wind turbine blade, over in Deutschland, what they say, they intend to happen, and they’re making serious proposals about how that’s going to be done :-

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,716221,00.html

“09/07/2010 : Green Visions : Merkel’s Masterplan for a German Energy Revolution : By Stefan Schultz : Giant windparks, insulated buildings, electric cars and a European supergrid: the German government on Monday unveiled an ambitious but vague blueprint to launch a new era of green energy for Europe’s largest economy. SPIEGEL ONLINE has analyzed the plans…”

It appears to be time to wave bye-bye to German coal, incidentally, even as a strong commitment to renewable, sustainable energy is put on the table.

I wish the British Government could take a long hard look at themselves in the mirror of the future and realise what a bunch of dithering duffers they appear to be.

What we need is a proper Energy Policy, chaps, and since you’re in the hot seat you better come up with it. Elected or not, our ministers and officials need to get up out of their deep leather chairs, extinguish their pipes, don their working breeches and get digging for Britain, and I don’t mean Shale Gas or Old Coal.

Matt Phillips of the Claverton Energy Research Forum, had this to note :-

“Last week the German government released its major conclusions of a review of energy policy in its Energiekonzept. If your German is up to scratch, here it is: http://www.bmu.de/files/pdfs/allgemein/application/pdf/entw_energiekonzept_kf.pdf”

“Some major highlights of interest in the UK are:”

“1 CO2 targets affirmed: Germany firmly commits to a 40% by 2020 CO2 reduction target.”

“2 Grid and 80% RES: Germany now commits to very high levels of RES and much greater integration of Germany into the European grid. Germany’s RE electricity targets are now: 35% by 2020, 50% by 2030, 65% by 2040, 80% by 2050. It also has a very substantial set of plans around grid expansion and integration in Europe. This would have implications for the rest of the European grid – as if Germany looks for greater integration this would have a major impact on grid across Northern Europe. Germany sees offshore wind as a major growth area with a substantial investment/incentives plan to make it so. The Energiekonzept proposes a €5bn loan scheme for the first ten German offshore wind projects, guarantees to cover losses, support to build specialist vessels, special offshore FIT design and improvements in permitting arrangements. The loan scheme will be financed by KfW – the government bank (equivalent of the Green Investment Bank proposed in the UK – but with major question marks at the moment over the extent of its capitalisation).”

“3 Financing: Germany has committed to recycling its €2bn ETS auction revenues for energy efficiency, renewable innovation and climate adaptation. In addition, the proposed life extension of existing nuclear will be accompanied by a windfall tax on the utilities that will benefit as a result. This €2.3bn tax will also be used explicitly for advancing renewables.”

(Note : none of the ETS auction revenues are proposed for Carbon Capture and Storage, unlike European-level statements on ambition that have been made previously).

“4 Energy Efficiency It calls for halving Germany’s primary energy consumption until 2050 (base year 2008), for doubling the yearly rate of modernisation of buildings (1% to 2%) and for an emissions standard for ALL buildings. And it proposes some instruments in order to reach these targets: An efficiency fund (€500m per year), tax exemptions, monetary incentives for energy management systems for industry, a pilot programme on white certificates, investment incentives for house owners, etc”

“Much of the media and political focus in Germany is the row over nuclear life-extension which has overwhelmed the rest of the content. But it is worth noting that in terms of the reaction, many on the renewable industry side fear nuclear life extension will chill new investment in RES. However it is also important to note the situation with new coal projects in Germany. Ten projects were given permissions more than three years ago and most of those are now under construction. There were 25 other projects in planning. In the last two years 15 of those have been abandoned. It is quite likely that the 10 in the planning pipeline would be affected by nuclear life extension. All of these are anyway are facing substantial public opposition.”

“On coal/CCS the Energiekonzept suggests there will be three commercial scale CCS projects by 2020 – two on coal plants and one on industrial emissions. It is worth noting that progress on this has proved very hard in Germany and the obstacles may not have been overcome just through this declaration of intent. In addition there is a proposal for a regulation to phase out inefficient coal. On the whole the ECF analysis is that the Energiekonzept has not delivered a coal/CCS policy that is sustainable as it does not grapple with the challenges of having a firm pathway for CCS on the plants being built now and nor does it remove the risk of unabated-coal-lock-in. But it is a helpful policy direction to open up the timetable for phasing out ‘old’ coal. As a footnote to this issue, you may not have seen recent comments by RWE that it is pulling out of all new coal projects as coal is uneconomic. While this was only announced in Germany, last week RWE pulled out of a new coal project in Poland.”

“The Energiekonzept is a proposal. It is perceived in Germany as a ‘centre right’ positioning on the issues. But it is important to understand that the mainstream consensus in Germany is now that the future is large scale RES. There is no political constituency in Germany calling for new nuclear plants. The Energiekonzept will almost certainly be subject to legal challenge and the proposals underneath it will be introduced in legislation or policy and so controversial measures will face political challenge.”

Image Credit : Gilbert & George, “Nettle Dance”, White Cube

I’m in the Climate Union. Are You ?

Soon we could all be, if the expansionist plans of a group of social campaigners come to fruition.

Taking in the unions, faith communities and the usual rag-tag bunch of issues activists, the Climate Union aims to establish itself as a political force for Low Carbon.

First of all, however, it has to tackle the uneasy and prickly problem of the exact name of the movement, and the principles under which it will operate.

The flag has been flown : a set of principles has been circulated for discussion amongst the “Climate Forum”. I cannot show you the finalised document yet, but I can offer you my comments (see below).

If you want to comment on the development of this emerging entity, please contact : Peter Robinson, Campaign against Climate Change, mobile/cell telephone in the UK : 07876595993.

Comments on the Climate Forum Principles
Jo Abbess
28 June 2010

I am aware that my comments are going to be a little challenging. I made similar comments during the review of the ClimateSafety briefing, which were highly criticised.

I expect you to be negative in response to what I say, but I think it is necessary to make sure the Climate Forum does not become watered-down, sectorally imprisoned and politically neutered, like so many other campaigns.

Comments on paragraph :-
“While there is an increasing awareness of the climate science, many governments are in practice opposed to implementing radical measure[s] to combat climate change [largely] because…such measures would appear to be in conflict with the interests of business, but also because they are uncertain if they would carry the majority of the public with them. The problem is that those in power do not necessarily have the will to bring about the legislation and the required actions.”

I would contest the assumption that “governments are in practice opposed to implementing radical measure[s]“.

My reasons are that I think that the reality of the situation is that governments are a little bit like mushrooms – kept in the dark and fed rotten sewage.

Although the governments do have access to the best Scientific information about Climate Change, they don’t always absorb it. On the other hand, they often do not have access to the best Economic information.

Governments often listen to some of the best Scientific information, and invest trust in the Scientific institutions. However, they have both a demon and an angel on their shoulder when it comes to Economic information.

The European Union is a classic example, of attempting to mesh together the best of Socialism and the worst of Neoliberalism. There are agents of Capitalism whispering into the ears of the inner circle policymakers the whole time, as evidenced by the work of such organisations as the Corporate Europe Observatory.

In the United Kingdom, when the “Recession”, sorry “Downturn” hit, Keynes and his pluralism was resurrected, but he has now been slain once more by the “Emergency Cuts Budget”.

The fight in Government is not over the Science. The anti-science crowd have picked off a few Members of Parliament with their vulture media tactics, but most MPs are on the ball as regards the Science of Climate Change, as are most of the Government Civil Services and Departments.

The synaptic gap is in translating that knowledge into effective Economic Policy, in my view. Pricing Carbon is not the solution, and even if it has an impact, it will not be a very large part of the solution. Public Finance for such things as Carbon Capture and Storage and New Nuclear will not achieve much – they are classic money pits schemes (or “boondoggle”, another American expression).

I think that the emphasis should be on educating the Government about the need to totally reform the Energy systems, the sourcing of Energy, and the use of Energy.

The reason why I think this is important can be seen in the approach taken to tobacco control. Since there was an enormous amount of money, both public and private, invested in the tobacco industry, it was not politically possible to close down the corporations that produced cigarettes.

Yet a total ban on cigarette smoking was indicated as necessary to the maintenance of public health.

Instead of shutting down the industry, the European governments began a two-pronged campaign, to outlaw smoking in various environments, and also to educate people.

After about 10 years, the tobacco industry saw the way things were going and went off to kill teenagers in China instead, in pursuit of the profit they continue to owe their shareholders.

I don’t think we have 10 years to effect a proper Climate Policy, and we certainly cannot continue to outsource Carbon Dioxide emissions to China through globalisation.

We need something more radical. For example, I suggest that we should call for a ban on the use of Coal to generate Electricity.

The other strand of the current situation is what the public appear to think when they answer opinion polls. Firstly, and importantly, their views don’t actually count towards setting Policy, as the Government is responsible to enact the Climate Change Act, not follow the whims of anti-wind farm lobby groups, pro-Carbon and anti-tax groups (for example).

Climate Change is not an issue about which people are entitled to vote. The cross-party imperative for Policy action is there, regardless of what Nigel Lawson, Christopher Booker, Steve McIntyre and James Delingpole think.

The Government has a mandate from the Climate Change Science, not from the people. However, it would be helpful if the people were more educated about the Science, and I would urge that the Climate Forum addresses directly the anti-science problems in the Media, where most people get their beliefs from.

Also, if would be helpful if the public could be asked to rally behind a basket of sensible, inclusive Policy measures – not taxation – but targeted spending and selective subsidies.

This is where the “One Million Green Jobs” initiative from the Campaign against Climate Change and the unions is so pertinent. A common, progressive agenda would help public debates to have better cohesion and less acrimony.

As for the phrase, “uncertain if they would carry the majority of the public with them”, I don’t believe that the public need to be encouraged to give the Government a “mandate”.

I believe it is naive, foolish and a waste of time and personal energy to suggest that the public need to be rallied to give the Government “a message”.

The Government already have the necessary information to act. What is needed is a general education of both Government and public about what is likely to work in terms of Social and Economic “engineering”.

It’s not about “voluntary behaviour change”. The Act on CO2 campaign asked everyone to drive 5 miles less a week. But over 50% of the population of driving age don’t have access to a car.

Public guilt-tripping is not only irrelevant, it’s unproductive. People who care are already doing the 10:10 initiative, or gave up flying and most home heating years ago.

People who know the problems and have decided to take personal action have already started their journey. The travel that needs to happen is in the field of those who provide us with our energy and fuel.

There has to be a new understanding that the Energy corporates must change – that BP, for example, must turn its production to Renewables or face corporate extinction.

There has to be massive disinvestment away from Carbon Energy and investment into Renewable Energy.

That can start with each one of us expressing a consumer “preference” in the way that we use our money, but it has to be carried higher and wider, with such activities of those of FairPensions.

In the end, it’s not the way we are taxed, but the way the whole Society uses money that determines our survival.

The Church of England, for example, has recently reported that their Commissioners have made a handsome profit on their investments. Which companies are in the top 20 shares held ? BP is one of those companies.

Yet the Church of England, in their Fifth Mark of Mission, say they want “To strive to safeguard the integrity of creation, and sustain and renew the life of the earth”. They can’t do that if they continue to invest in BP.

It is this kind of dilemma that needs to be addressed, not the debate about whether it is more energy efficient to use paper towels or hand dryers in public toilets.

If all the energy supplied to our homes and all the energy used in our transport systems were green, then it would not matter if we left the porch light on overnight by mistake.

There has to be a major shift in campaigning perception in my view. The energy system itself needs to be overhauled, not public opinion.

And anyway, what counts in Government is not public opinion, but the usual tendency of political views to be compromised by whichever business lobby is in the ascendance.

If the Government could be encouraged to make a clear statement about complete energy transition, a step far, far beyond the work of the Low Carbon Transition plan set out last year, then the tipping point might be near at hand.

It’s true that tackling the belief system of the Government would be helped by seeding the right ideas into the “Twittering classes”, who are strongly networked to the Government, but the major thrust of the Climate Forum surely has to be Government-facing, not public-facing.

I don’t want the Climate Forum to be a Government stooge. I don’t want the Climate Forum to end up as an outsourced public relations exercise – the Government have been using the NGOs to propagandise their plans for years. Gordon Brown and his Office were famously behind the Make Poverty History campaign from its inception.

I’m not against the whole concept of Government. In fact, I think organised government is the only way forward out of the Carbon mess. However, I think the Climate Forum needs to pitch itself as being opposed to lax regulation and weak thinking in Government, more than simply being a Social tool for change.

Reply from Ruth :-

=x=x=x=x=x=x=

“Jo, really interesting stuff – thank you. I can’t quite see how the Climate Forum could be “government-facing”, with any clout without a huge supporter base, demonstrated by ralleys, lobbying post cards etc?”

=x=x=x=x=x=x=

Reply to Ruth :-

=x=x=x=x=x=x=

Hi Ruth,

The current “campaign” mechanism has its focus on what individuals should be doing. The central theory is about how to change the behaviour of citizens and consumers. Even the 10:10 campaign is a glorified “Are you doing your bit ?”, “Lights Off” or “Save It” campaign.

When campaigns want people to act politically, the message is all about how the people have to mobilise, the people have to carry placards, write postcards, write to their MP, lobby Parliament, e-mail the media. The people have to take all this action. And for what ? To get our million man marches ignored by the political elite, or our petitions fobbed off by the Secretary of State.

Taking the message to Government doesn’t need to be backed up by getting 2 million people on the streets. In fact, in 2003 we managed to get 2 million people on the streets against the scheduled assault on Iraq. Did it make any difference ? No. Because the Government are not obliged to listen to “campaigners” and “protesters”, or act on what they demand.

The Government has to be analysed and critiqued within its own walls, using its own language, deploying its own policies. What level of authority do we need to accumulate to make a real difference ? Do we need maximum “bums on seats” in a campaign, or maximum political crowbars ?

Christian Aid and Oxfam love postcard campaigns. It means the paid staff need to do little work to respond to peoples’ concerns. Worried about Climate Change ? Fill in one of our postcards, then. I have heard an Oxfam campaigns worker recently say that much of their campaigns activity is “outsourced” to local activists, implying that it gave people something to do, even though it was ineffective.

Not cynical, just observant.

jo.

=x=x=x=x=x=x=

Reply from Tony :-

=x=x=x=x=x=x=

Dear Jo

Could you suggest a specific rewording of that paragraph that you referred to (and any others) based on your considered arguments? That is what Peter and Ann are looking for.

…

Regards

Tony

=x=x=x=x=x=x=

Reply to Tony :-

=x=x=x=x=x=x=

Dear Tony,

Thanks for asking for my wording.

What I was trying to explain in my comments is that I disagree pretty fundamentally with some of the theories the principles document is based on.

My comments are therefore in relation to the whole document.

My re-wording would take in an entire re-write of the document to place emphasis on effective political engagement with all those who have genuine decision-making authority, particularly and especially in regard to the energy companies.

Those mostly private organisations that provide us with energy and fuel need to be changing their behaviour, not our neighbours in our streets.

Those citizens who care are already committed. We don’t need another “campaign”. We need a networked research and response unit, continuously analysing the state of play in policy and corporate activities and feeding this back to everyone involved in a common, plain language.

I think that the focus of the Climate Forum should be holding the government and corporations genuinely and concretely accountable. And that is not going to be done by the normal “campaign” methods.

I have no idea whether other people feel the same way, so I don’t know if it’s worth trying to put in the energy to do another re-write of the document now, myself.

All I know is, if views like mine are not taken into consideration, then the membership of the movement risks being confined to “the usual suspects”.

Peter and Ann are looking for a re-wording of some of the paragraphs. Unfortunately, I question the whole of the document and the theories on which is is based.

If we want the same-old same-old piecemeal campaigning, then by all means, go ahead on the basis of the social theory that you need to “mobilise” people in order to have political change.

If you want a really different kind of organisation, with urgency and scope, you need a really different kind of movement tool.

Regards,

jo.

=x=x=x=x=x=x=

(Wim Mertens, Quatre Mains)

Classical musicians are still welcome to form a chamber orchestra for the Climate Vigil to be held at St Martins in the Fields, London, on the night of Saturday 15th May 2010, just over a week after the local and General Elections in the United Kingdom. For more details, please contact Ruth Jarman :-

http://www.christian-ecology.org.uk/vigil.htm

http://www.campaigncc.org/overnightvigil

Let us have hope in our hearts : hope for reason, collaborative effort, commonsense, Science and survival, and a fearless new Parliament.

http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=6084

One of his many views was that there should be a more permanent nature to the ongoing international Climate Change negotiations, and I entirely agree.

Ed Miliband said he didn’t think that there should be a “repeat” of what happened at the Copenhagen UNFCCC conference in December 2009. I also agree with that.

Goodness gracious me ! I find myself in agreement with Ed Miliband !

http://www.youtube.com/cop15

There is an unelected, shadowy organisation in the United Kingdom; a cultish community of thousands, and their minions, that plots to dictate the leadership of the whole world, starting with the minds of the central Government.

You’ll see them at work in the run-up to the General Election, possibly suspicious figures masquerading as angels of light in brightly coloured costumes and carrying jokey banners; meddling in democracy at every level – leafletting, holding meetings, putting posters in their front windows and holding consciousness-raising green-fests in their local Town Halls.

These people will propagandise the nation, wearing stickers and tee-shirts in an eerily ominous pink. They will wangle their way into live broadcast television shows, issue Press Releases, force candidates for Parliament to commit themselves to seemingly impossible, unreasonable pledges; on record, too.

Their campaign bus will tour the marginal wards, where floating voters still waver; their children, hypnotised by fervour will sing strangely beguiling songs in school assemblies. This conspiracy will enter into what could be construed as an underworld pact with political activists of every hue, embracing business people and Climate Camp hippies alike.

These people are quite possibly frightening; they will colonise your communities, thrust themselves onto your favourite radio shows, throw down the gauntlet to sceptics, and cause immeasurable disturbance to the proper process of voting by doing one solitary thing : raising the question of Climate Change.

They will ask you to write electronic mails, you know, e-mails (or emails) to your Member of Parliament and local party political networks; they will invite you to mass meetings, to media events, to scratch letters, to give your views on your websites, to bring up the subject of Climate Change at your local branch meetings, in your workplace, at your children’s schools.

They will sneak the Climate Change question into Local Authority Council debates, into local newspapers, into viral advertising campaigns. They will ask us all to pledge to do something for their campaign. They will market positive visions of a nauseatingly-squeaky-clean green new world.

Climate Change must be the number one voting issue of this General Election. It’s too important to get strangled by the unhealthy Economy and the budget-stressed public services.

What we need to do to fulfil the demands of the Climate Change Act is too critical to be left to the wiles of mandarin policy-writers.

Climate Change is me and you : it is our future and our destiny to live in a Climate Changed world, to adapt to the changes and to prevent further disaster.

Within our lifetimes, Global Warming will haunt Europe, bringing damages we cannot compensate for, on the land, at sea and in the weather.

This is not a trite environmental cause : this is not about saving Polar Bears – it’s about saving humanity. Our politicians need to know our demands, and they need to represent us. Stop Climate Chaos are campaigning for that very outcome.

When a Parliamentary Candidate of any Party comes knocking on your door, hold up your pink speech bubble and Ask the Climate Question : what are you going to do about Climate Change ?

http://www.stopclimatechaos.org/

Ask the Climate Question.