Back Issue - February 2002
CREEPING DENIAL
- AND FACING IT HEAD ON
As I start this Boiling Point, gales and floods seem to have
been with us in England for the past two weeks, but their
possible connection with global warming and climate change
has not yet been mentioned in the media - to my knowledge.
Is this a coincidence or are global warming and climate change
slipping off the political agenda, and, if so, why?
Synopsis
This
Boiling Point considers the effects of 'political realism'
on lack of progress with averting climate change and ways
of responding to it, including the Challenge already on the
web-site and the follow-up letter to the UK Minister for the
Environment. Then I consider signs of downgrading of climate
issues because of the lack of progress, leading to 'not wanting
to know' and other aspects of denial.
A
recently published article on 'the psychology of denial' supports
the conjecture in the (now) latest Back Issue that too much
reliance on scientific reasonableness stifles radical action
with the adoption of 'scientific euphemisms', and confronts
the assumption that 'if only people knew they would act'.
The danger of 'not wanting to know' leading to psychological
'suppression' of environmental threats, makes it especially
urgent to lay down our challenge at this Earth Summit, to
make substantial reductions in carbon emissions which are
commensurate with those needed to ensure survival.
This
issue concludes by agreeing with the author: 'the creation
of a large and vocal movement against climate change must
be an immediate and overarching campaign objective', and with
his mentioning specifically: 'debate, protest, and meaningful,
visible alternatives'. We have already recognised the need
for more debate within Save our World, and are trying to rescue
this activity from terminal neglect from the media and fashion
industries. Come what may, there really is no other option
but to combat denial vigorously in all its manifestations.
There
has been a sequel to the printed Challenge (on another page
of this site) but it has run up against the barrier of 'political
realism'. That is, objections to its going further because
the convenor of the Sustainable Energy and Climate Change
Working Group for whom it was prepared, would not present
it to the organisation's next conference on 22 January. He
reasoned the Challenge would not be taken seriously by the
UK government department concerned, which is now called DEFRA
(Department for the Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs).
From
the floor of the conference, I anyway twice raised the principle
of reductions in carbon emissions which are commensurate with
the international scientists' warnings, the second time to
the Minister for the Environment himself. But 'political realism'
is still being raised as an obstacle by those I am consulting
on writing a follow-up letter to the same Minister.
There
is a very legitimate basis for appealing to 'political realism'
if one is to be effective in persuading politicians to do
what one wants. However, I think there is a danger of weakening
one's resolve to keep pressing for commensurate action if
one allows such considerations to determine one's actions
completely. Ideally one seeks an internationally agreed bipartisan
and politically neutral solution to averting calamitous climate
change, but with the adamant 'no deal' approach of the US
Administration and other major dissenters, the chances of
achieving such agreement are in danger of receding just as
time is running out to face up to the physical cuts in emissions
that have to be made.
Trying
to stabilise carbon emissions is like running after an accelerating
bus. If we do not run fast enough now we will never catch
it, and it will go over the cliff of irreversibly disruptive
climate change. For we have not only to board the bus but
change its direction. An added twist is that the bus-driver
(representing the most profligate countries and corporations)
knows we are running for the bus and what the dangers are:
for him, for the passengers and for us, but doesn't care.
As the previous Boiling Point says (now on the Back Issues
page): 'it all comes down to what you care about most'.
To
return to 'political realism... Yes, one has to be as politically
skilful as one can be, in pursuing one's goal to challenge
governments to take commensurate action, but not to the extent
of giving in to persuasion to 'bide one's time' in the hope
that more favourable opportunities may arise later, or sparing
a government from having to choose between re-election on
the basis of populist demands for reducing petrol tax or saving
the planet from irreversible climate change. After all, successive
governments have done precious little to prepare the public
for a non-fossil-fuel-economy, and there is nothing that non-government
organisations (NGOs) like us can directly do to make that
choice easier for them.
Resolving
such conflicts of political interest forms part of the Challenge
that is already posted on this web-site, and such highlighting
of motives is the kind of action that is very important for
us NGOs to take.
The
next challenge to appear on that page is the text of the open
letter to the Minister for the Environment, Michael Meacher.
Its purpose is to persuade Tony Blair to challenge, in turn,
the other world leaders at the Earth Summit to face up to
the scale of carbon reductions that the most authoritative
group of scientists say have to be made. This is in excess
of 60% reductions compared with 5.5% originally agreed at
Kyoto in December 1997, whittled down to almost zero by the
time of the Bonn Conference last July.
There
are other urgent topics of concern to be raised at the Summit,
especially the impact of globalisation on poverty, and given
the choice of Johannesburg as the venue. So, having the challenge
on carbon reductions on the table may be sufficient as a statement
of intent to be pursued in technical meetings elsewhere, but
I regard it essential that it is made there at that time.
Climate change is still the most imminent and greatest identifiable
threat, to date, to the survival of human beings and other
species. If this threat is not addressed, none of the other
objectives can get very far without being overtaken by it.
Climate
change has been high on the UN agenda since 1992, but it is
not specifically one of the key areas for this Summit. Part
of this is eminently understandable, for the reasons already
mentioned. However, I believe there is a very real danger
of it being downgraded in importance because so little international
progress has been made to tackle it properly. Other examples
of downgrading are the local environment action plans which
formed the core of the Agenda 21 resolutions at the 1992 Earth
Summit at Rio. For, as mentioned at the 22 January conference,
the concept of Agenda 21 has largely been subsumed and left
unmentioned within local government 'community strategies',
ironically as part of the UK Government's attempts at increasing
public consultation.
As
a further twist to the earlier mentioned analogy of the driver
of the accelerating bus, maybe he neither cares about impending
chaotic climate change, nor wants to know about it. Then we
would be faced with compounding evident personal and social
denial with international denial as well! Hence the need to
'throw down the gauntlet' at this Summit.
Denial
has featured several times on these pages, most notably under
the title of 'Denial, Justification and Deception about the
Climate Crisis' - now in our Back Issues section. It is all
too familiar in the prevalent attitude all around us, that
life will carry on as normal, come what may, and that it is
just our own pet hobby that we are so concerned about climate
change, threats to other species and the natural world in
general.
So
what is going on here? George Marshall (whom a couple of us
on the Main Committee of Save our World have met and who expressed
an interest in adopting the image of our animated banner for
signing the USA Petition) has written a very revealing article
on 'The psychology of denial' in the Climate Change supplement
to The Ecologist magazine last November. He wrote that he
realised 'people can accept the truth of what is said without
accepting the implications' of it.
He
went on to say: 'we can expect widespread denial when the
enormity and nature of the problem (such as climate change)
are so unprecedented that people have no cultural mechanisms
for accepting them' Moreover 'we find it extremely hard to
accept our responsibility for a crime of such enormity. Indeed,
the most powerful evidence of our denial is the failure even
to recognise that there is a moral dimension with identifiable
perpetrators and victims. The language of "climate change",
"global warming", "human impacts" and
"adaptation" are ... scientific euphemisms that
suggest that climate change originates in immutable natural
forces rather than in a direct causal relationship with moral
implications for the perpetrator.'
Does
the phrase 'scientific euphemisms' remind you of anything?
Remember the reference in 'It all comes down to what matters
to your most' to: 'another system at work which isolates our
feelings and natural intelligence from the political and economic
strategies that we devise with our intellectual minds. This
is the persistent belief, which I keep encountering among
educated people, and with its roots in Western rational philosophy,
that governments will naturally take action when presented
with rational arguments supported by scientific evidence'.
So, behind the assertions of "neutrality" and "objectivity",
we must expect that scientists too to be prone to hiding the
moral issues which they, like everyone else, cannot emotionally
face themselves.
George
Marshall brings home the message to the likes of Save our
World when he continues: 'Environmental campaign organisations
are living relics of Enlightenment faith in the power of knowledge:
"If only people knew, they would act." To this end
they dedicate most of their resources to the production of
reports or the placement of articles and opinions in the media.
As a strategy it is not working. Opinion polls reveal a high
level of awareness with virtually no signs of any change in
behaviour. Indeed there are plentiful signs of reactive denial
(which he explains as 'indulging in deliberately wasteful
behaviour') in the demands for cheaper fuel and more energy'
- both in the UK, and more blatantly, in the USA.
Specifically relevant to 'downgrading those issues upon which
little progress has been made' in the political sphere, is
another type of denial which George Marshall mentioned: "suppression"
(trying to shut out all information). This is to be expected
by governments who want everyone to forget such unsuccessful
issues. For this reason alone, I suggest it is vital that
the urgency of climate change is kept alive by the laying
down of a challenge at this Earth Summit, to make substantial
reductions in carbon emissions which are commensurate with
those needed to ensure survival.
George
Marshall concludes: 'People will never spontaneously take
action themselves unless they receive social support and the
validation of others. Governments in turn will continue to
procrastinate until sufficient numbers of people demand a
response. To avert further climate change will require a degree
of social consensus and collective determination normally
only seen in war time, and that will require mobilisation
across all classes and sectors of society ... The creation
of a large and vocal movement against climate change must
be an immediate and overarching campaign objective'. And he
winds up with mentioning specifically: 'debate, protest, and
meaningful, visible alternatives'.
Yes
we must do all these things. Interestingly, several requests
have recently been made among our local Save our World members
and activists for regular meetings to debate the issues in
which we are involved. Although we have the 'Bravenet' feedback
facility on this web-site, somehow this turns out to be insufficient
for people to feel engaged and move things forward. Without
a lot of printing out of web-pages, it is not really possible
to mull over the points, as one waits for the kettle to boil
or munches a piece of toast.
So
we are looking into opportunities for establishing regular
meetings in London, and maybe you can do the same wherever
you are. The search is revealing that serious debate seems
to be an endangered species in itself. With the exception
of one weekly TV and one or two radio programmes, and one
or two upmarket venues in London (not advertised to the public)
and long-established debating venues in a few universities,
people just do not turn out for serious debate anymore. It
is not helped by widespread distrust of political parties
being all 'spin' and no action. Nor by almost total neglect
by the media and fashion industries, which seem to like the
population to be either passive consumers or high-spending
ravers - but not, heaven forbid, independent thinkers and
activists.
So
this is something else we urgently have to change, if we are
not to succumb to creeping denial, and lose heart ourselves!
Mind you, progressive climate change, resource depletion,
increasing disparities in wealth, and devastating poverty
around the world, will increasingly force their attention
on governments and populations. But we neither want to have
to depend on the effects of calamaties, nor feel so powerless
that there is nothing we believe we can do about these things
- even assuming they get reported or, like 'liberated' globalised
trade, are presented as 'inevitable' or 'immutable' products
of scientific euphemisms.
So
there really is no other option, is there, but to combat denial
vigorously in all its manifestations?
(C)
Jim Scott, February 2002
return
to contents
Feedback
Please
feel free to leave your comments and air your views,first
mentioning the title of the Feature or Boiling Point issue
to which you are referring.
If
you prefer, you can email
your comments directly to Jim Scott, Chairperson of Save
Our World.
|
bravenet.com