Climate movement in desperate need of renewal? Definitely.

Interesting article in the Guardian about the climate movement and it’s struggles in the last few years. Surprise surprise, when the economy went down, so too did the sexiness of climate change.

But first, I don’t agree with the author’s stance. He’s one of the Ratcliffe activists in the UK who was on trial and convicted of planning to break into Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station to shut it down. The article is about:

If a jury that received extensive education on climate change could not vindicate the Ratcliffe activists, then who will?

Emotionally charged read that received a lot of fiery comments.

Activists that want to cause damage perhaps get the point across that they care about climate change, but it’s an old fashioned way of promoting it. Really, I thought we had already moved away from sort of divisive environmentalism, no?  The outcome of these disturbances just get more people on the other side of the fence shouting back. Great.

How about good old dialogue? Working with stakeholders and creating solutions? During today’s trip from TBay to Ottawa, I saw two interesting articles: one in the Harvard Business Review by the famous Michael Porter about Corporate Shared Value (CSV) vs. CSR. And another in the Pulp and Paper trade magazine about environmentalists and industry folks finally coming to an agreement over a simple beer instead of “throwing tomatoes at each other” for the last decade.

To get back to the climate movement though,  it’s completely lost its sexiness to me. Read, why i don’t care about global warming–  from 3 years ago (gasp! that long?!) but my thoughts rest the same. Climate change exists, I’m not doubting it. But talking about impending disasters that have a lot of political baggage either A) terrify people or B) make people mad. Two emotions that lead to inaction.

When we’re looking to “rebrand” (if I dare say) climate change, we should remember that climate change ≠ sustainability. It is ONE PART. Sustainable development is all-encompassing.  Even if we staved off our carbon emissions, we won’t necessarily be sustainable. And the idea that it’s all about carbon… ugh..

In any case, I agree with the title of the article: The climate movement is in desperate need of renewal. Indeed it is. But I don’t see it getting any sexier with those antics.

Ratcliffe-on-Soar coal-fired power station in Nottinghamshire. Photograph: David Sillitoe/Guardian

Tagged , , , ,

3 thoughts on “Climate movement in desperate need of renewal? Definitely.

  1. rogerthesurf says:

    I think that we are in the grip of the biggest and most insane hoax in history, and unless the public get wise to it soon, we will all be parted from what wealth we have.

    Lets take a simple economic view of what is likely to happen.

    In the absence of sufficient alternative solutions/technologies, the only way western countries can ever attain the IPCC demands of CO2 emissions reduced to 40% below 1990 levels, (thats about 60% below todays) is to machine restrictions on the use of fossil fuels. Emission Trading schemes are an example.

    As the use of fossil fuels is roughly linear with anthropogenic CO2 emissions, to attain a 60% reduction of emissions , means about the same proportion of reduction of fossil fuel usage, including petrol, diesel, heating oil, not to mention coal and other types including propane etc.

    No matter how a restriction on the use of these is implemented, even a 10% decrease will make the price of petrol go sky high. In otherwords, (and petrol is just one example) we can expect, if the IPCC has its way, a price rise on petrol of greater than 500%.
    First of all, for all normal people, this will make the family car impossible to use. Worse than that though, the transport industry will also have to deal with this as well and they will need to pass the cost on to the consumer. Simple things like food will get prohibitively expensive. Manufacturers who need fossil energy to produce will either pass the cost on to the consumer or go out of business. If you live further than walking distance from work, you will be in trouble.
    All this leads to an economic crash of terrible proportions as unemployment rises and poverty spreads.
    I believe that this will be the effect of bowing to the IPCC and the AGW lobby. AND as AGW is a hoax it will be all in vain. The world will continue to do what it has always done while normal people starve and others at the top (including energy/oil companies and emission traders) will enjoy the high prices.

    Neither this scenario nor any analysis of the cost of CO2 emission reductions is included in IPCC literature, and the Stern report which claims economic expansion is simply not obeying economic logic as it is known in todays academic world.

    The fact that the emission reduction cost issue is not discussed, leads me to believe that there is a deliberate cover up of this issue. Fairly obviously the possibility of starvation will hardly appeal to the masses.

    AGW is baloney anyway!



    • janeporter says:

      Thanks a lot Roger for you reply. Although I don’t agree with you, I’d like to have a dialogue. I’m going to take your comment and write my responses to it in the next post. Would you be willing to respond back to my comments on your comments? My goal is to showcase a dialogue from two very different people – without getting into name calling;)



  2. rogerthesurf says:


    Of course,

    but please be aware that I am in the habit of publishing the more interesting conversations I have at my other blog



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: