Environmentalism under attack

So two weeks away from Copenhagen and environmentalism is finally sparking real and sustained argument. After nearly three years of writing this blog it feels like real dispute has finally come to the surface. After a period of cosy consensus that we “must act” sharing tips on curbing your carbon impact and sighing at pictures of dwindling icecaps it’s now well and truly kicked off. I see it in the national media (to a degree) with voices such as Nigel Lawson and Christopher Booker being increasingly heard, at events I attend, on my blog (where one commenter was labelled a “twat” last week) and from the other side of my office, with the climate change debate instigated by my colleague Amanda Baillieu in BD this month.

It’s uncomfortable but if that debate and others are doing anything it is highlighting some deep-seated qualms, objections, questions and reasoning that environmentalists need to meet head-on. I think it explains the problem we’ve all been grappling with for the past couple of years: why the gulf between talk and action? Why yet another political pledge (step forward shadow chancellor George Osborne today for the latest one)  delivered to a largely apathetic public? I think Solar Century founder Jeremy Leggett put his finger on it last week at a pre-Copenhagen debate at the Danish Embassy, organised by industry ginger group the Edge. In trying to work out the disconnect between us needing to act but seemingly being unable to Leggett said he has been driven to study psychotherapy and anthropology to try and understand the dynamics of inaction. He concludes that there is a “culture of quasi institutional denialism”. By that I think he means that we are all collectively kidding ourselves.

Politicians still believe that there’s some popularity in setting bold targets but still fall back on what really drives voting patterns (taxes, economy, security etc.). We as consumers listen to the advice on turning off plug switches and not flushing toilets but ignore the more challenging stuff. Businesses form committees and groups and launch actions plans… then abandon most of the fluffy stuff when the economic storm starts to rage.

So the phony war is over. After we collectively start to make the small steps in considering our environment we then kick back when the serious steps are presented to us. I can think of no more powerful example than this: authors Brenda and Robert Vale in their book Time to Eat the Dog point out that big dogs emit more CO2 than a 4X4. Imagine if the government planned a curb on dog ownership? Middle England would revolt.

So how does this impact on Copenhagen? I think in the fact that collective political confidence is not there. Leggett’s point last week was that if Copenhagen is to fail it needs to “fail noisily”. Admitting to see-sawing wildly between optimism and pessimism Leggett hoped that the potential failure at Copenhagen would lead to action not from Governments, but from people. That behaviours could reach a tipping point as we do begin to clock what’s around the corner and that environmentalism could go “crazy viral”. It feels a far way off right now but we live in anything if not unpredictable times. Perhaps real dispute will spark real action.

Related posts:

1. Environmentalism as miserbalism: the backlash begins It’s good to be challenged once in a while. It...
2. The Copenhagen problem It’s good to see that Mark Brinkley’s considerable intellect is...
3. Optimism out of the gloom On a pretty grim night (driving sleet, collapsing Copenhagen discussions...
4. Political and artistic principles ...
5. Copenhagen: death by square brackets Having read the initial gloomy summaries of how disastrous the...