« Green Panzers | Main | The Twelfth - A Glorious Day to Celebrate Freedom »

Beddington - Use Disasters To Pass Green Laws

Foreign disasters ‘can justify costly climate measures’ | The Times

Climate-related disasters overseas should be used by the Government to persuade British voters to accept unpopular policies for cutting carbon emissions, says Sir John Beddington, the Government’s chief scientific adviser. Droughts, floods and storms in foreign countries could be used as “policy windows”, making it easier to introduce “bold actions” that would otherwise be politically unacceptable.
Sir John yesterday published a report entitled International Dimensions of Climate Change, which identified “a very real gap between people’s expressed concerns about the environment and their actions”.
The report concluded that the Government must find ways of overcoming growing scepticism and “fatigue with climate change as an issue” to convince the public of the need for “costly environmental policies”.
It said the impacts of climate change on Britain would be too modest over the next two decades to convince people of the need to place the country on a “war footing” to address emissions. Politicians should instead take advantage of disasters overseas in the same way that their predecessors had used natural catastrophes in Britain to push through expensive measures.
“These would allow legislators the licence to take specific bold actions which they ordinarily believe would not otherwise be possible or politically acceptable, such as the introduction of the Clean Air Act after the London smog, and the development of the Thames Flood Barrier after the flooding of East Anglia in 1953,” the report said.
It pointed out that people needed to be persuaded to take personal responsibility for climate change. A survey last year found that only 10 per cent of people thought that the main responsibility for action on climate change lay with individuals and their families.
The report said that the Government should also seek to use voluntary groups and campaigning organisations to help to persuade the public of the need for action on emissions. It said these groups could be more trusted on the issue than politicians.
“If public trust in government messages and authority remains relatively low, it might be necessary to put more effort into indirect influencing via trusted third parties in civil society, through new forms of public engagement and policy dialogues,” the report said.
It conceded that it would not be possible to justify curbs on emissions by claiming that there would be significant direct impacts on Britain’s climate by 2030. It stated: “The UK, compared with many other parts of the world, is not expected to experience significant adverse direct climate change effects over the next two decades.”

More behind the paywall - the report referenced is here.

Comments

"The report said that the Government should also seek to use voluntary groups and campaigning organisations to help to persuade the public of the need for action on emissions. It said these groups could be more trusted on the issue than politicians.

“If public trust in government messages and authority remains relatively low, it might be necessary to put more effort into indirect influencing via trusted third parties in civil society, through new forms of public engagement and policy dialogues,” the report said."

But this is not what will happen. Taxpayer funded groups will simply claim to speak for the people and the Government will in effect lobby itself to pretend it is listening. As it has done on food labeling, salt in food, smoking and other things.

Beddington's got previous for this.

Gareth is right, the State will try to mobilise its fake charities to push its point of view - this has been the MO for a while, along with the concept of the "beneficial crisis" - beneficial to them, that is - very expensive for us the payers.

We need a couple more hard winters to finish these idiots off; looking at the latest solar data, that may be just what we get. Of course, loads of old people will die because they can no longer afford to heat their houses now that Huhne's forced up the price of energy so much, but hey, eggs, omelettes, and all that.

As a child, I was told to eat things I did not like because "children in [pick a far-away place] are starving." It made little sense then or now, and as then "So, ship it to them" was ignored or punished.

I suppose Sir John never complained as a child.

As a child, I was told to eat things I did not like because "children in [pick a far-away place] are starving." It made little sense then or now, and as then "So, ship it to them" was ignored or punished.

I suppose Sir John never complained as a child.

Didn't we used to just call this "lying to people"?

Post a comment