Andy Wimbush is nef‘s Communications Assistant and blogmaster.
Image from Andrzeg Krause/New Scientist
A recent poll suggests that the majority of people around the world think that governments should be doing more to tackle climate change. The survey, carried out by WorldPublicOpinion.org, asked 18,578 people in 18 countries – representing 60% of the world’s population – about government priorities on climate, as well as the attitudes of their fellow citizens.
Earlier this week, Jeremy Williams pointed out that in the UK, people are far more concerned about the effects of recession that they are about any environmental issue. And while this won’t come as a surprise to any environmentalist, it can be disheartening to see the wide disparity between concern about economy and concern about environment. Especially given that, as Herman Daly once said, “the economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment, not the reverse.”
Still, this latest poll might give climate change campaigners some reasons to be cheerful. Asked how much their Government prioritises climate change – on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the highest priority – UK respondents to the poll answered 5.92. Asked how much the Government should prioritise climate change, and they answered 8.2. Which means that most of us want the Government to take considerably more action to fix this problem.
The UK was actually among the countries who recommended that Government make climate change a high priority, trumped only by Turkey at 8.34, China at a revealing and impressive 8.86, and finally Mexico with a whopping 9.09. The fact that Chinese people are this concerned should be cause for hope.
But China’s ascendency to superpower status in no way diminuishes the importance of American attitudes which are, unfortunately, lacklustre in comparison. 4.71 out of 10 is the priority which, according to Americans, their Government should place on climate change. And while this figure does show that people believe that Obama and co. should being doing more on climate – Americans believe that global warming is currently prioritised at 3.84 out of 10 by Government – the number is still the lowest level of concern out of all the nations surveyed, including those who, like Iraq, have arguably more immediate things to worry about.
The United States is schizophrenic in its attitudes to science and science policy. It tends to be very pro-technology in some areas, and then baulks at stem cell research. It produces some of the best scientific research anywhere in the world, and is home to top-class universities and experts, and yet its populace remain so susceptible to the dishonest peddlars of creationism and climate change denial. The existence of such double standards and contrary attitudes can be baffling to external observers, and yet, when given the chance to see how the American media covers these issues, you begin to understand why.
The following story is a case in point. Anthony Watts is a meteorologist weather reporter at a Californian radio station owned by Fox News, and host to the usual line-up of right-wing cronies, including Michael Savage and Sean Hannity. Watts wanted to pick some holes in the climate change argument, which he did by challenging the accuracy of many of the thousands of weather stations dotted across the USA. Many of these stations, Watts argued, were in locations where microclimates created by machinery, by concrete or by other human infrastructure were skewing the data, and creating the false impression of temperature rise. Of course, climate scientists, unlike most of American talk radio, do not devote their attentions to the particularities of one country alone. The dubious accuracy of American weather stations would have little bearing on the overall science of climate change. But, anyway, Watts was actually completely mistaken. The handful of ‘good’ weather stations which he selected out of thousands, still show the same basic pattern of warming over recent decades.
While Watts’ claims got him plenty of coverage in the American media, he wasn’t willing to share the limelight with a man who challenged his conclusions. Peter Sinclair, who produces an online video series called “Climate Denial Crock of the Week”, turned his attentions to Watts, pointing out the problems with the weather station argument. Watts tried to silence his critic, not by making a well-argued response, but by trying to claim that Sinclair infringed his copyright. Fortunately, Watts’ knowledge about copyright law is as poor as his grasp of climate science, and so the video is back online. Watch it triumphantly, but also consider it a reminder of what we’re up against when crooks like Watts can sound so convincing to the American public.
Perhaps Mexico could offer some sort of educational programme?
Vimeo
Twitter
Flickr
the nef triple crunch blog 
3 comments
Comments feed for this article
2 August, 2009 at 2:00 am
JamesGardiner
The issue is a bit more complex than you think. Watts is in fact a strong believer in solar power, promoting solar panels and with a solar car. The report which purportedly debunks Watts has been analysed by someone else you might not like on principle – Steve McIntyre – but I’d encourage you to read here to see from the other side for a change:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6370
McIntyres analysis is damning! I had initially thought that NOAA had been using a software algorithm to show that they could adjust for poor station sitings, which are very well known to be a proven problem. Software can indeed do this though and that is what Giss and Hadley Centre both use. However NOAA weren’t doing that, they were pretending to simply compare raw station data to get this unlikely result. How? Well, the upshot is that they seem to have adjusted both these 70 stations and also adjusted the remainder specifically in order that they’d agree. And the final trend on these adjustments is 0.7C/century for the USA ABOVE that of the Giss anomaly. Rather a lot of adjustment and not quite the same as is pretended. Now while it is true that NOAAs chart is unimportant because their temperature chart isn’t used for policy, and those USA adjustments won’t really carry through to the rest of the world anomaly plot, the upshot is that we can’t trust the agency who are providing most of the temperature data which is driving the climate policy. Hence it’s just another another own goal by the scientist-activist cabal who seem to have forgotten that real science welcomes a skeptic challenge.
It’s all really quite strange because Watts, who is actually a qualified meteorologist, was warmly welcomed and congratulated just last year by the NCDC, a branch of NOAA, for this volunteer effort and he even gave a talk there. They seem to have had a change of heart since. The instigator of this pointless Talking Points memo seems to be Dr Tom Peterson, the author who tried to be anonymous, but who as it turns out, has a reputation to protect. Tawdry indeed. Sinclair means well but he is being misled. Is that important? I think truth is always important and the facts about the need for greener energy can stand on their own. None of this was even necessary because the Giss algorithm for data adjustments actually seems to work (despite the rotten coding). NOAA would have gained in stature by continuing to admit the data collection problems and it would not have affected the f¡debate one iota.
Now I am also passionate about alternative energies, though i admit to working in both the nuclear field (7 years) and the oil industry (2 years), which frankly only reinforced my initial beliefs about the need for alternatives. I point this out because I believe in truth and the vilification of individuals as liars when they are in fact being honest is harming the green cause. Yet none of it is necessary. If the alternative technologies were really cheaper then people would buy them – even global warming skeptics – and it is only the cost of the change that hinders this aim. People just cannot afford the upfront costs for geothermal heating or solar panels. It’s surely not beyond our wit and wisdom though to come up with easy credit terms at a time when the interest rate is near zero percent.
Yet while skeptics are at least open about their unwillingness to change, governments are just basically lying to us. The UK government is bought and paid for by the nuclear industry and hence their green promise is merely a promise of more nuclear power. Sheer hypocrisy. Yet I just read today on “the register” that Walmart are installing solar panels on several shops via a new type of financing structure where they don’t pay the costs upfront. They are doing it because they will save money in the future, ie purely commercial. These types of easy financing initiatives are all that’s required to get the green energy tech moving. And when it gets moving the costs will start to plummet.
We don’t need Goldman Sach’s latest trading scam or the extra bureaucracy of taxation. Nor do we need the expensive boondoggle of nuclear energy or the totally false anti-wind, anti-solar propaganda that the pro-nukes churn out. And we really don’t need all this self-righteous commentary by pretend planet-savers about deniers, liars, bogus Exxon-funded conspiracies, nor documentaries made by the idle rich calling poor people stupid. It is all truly counter-productive.
Cool site by the way. I’m bookmarking it. You are doing a good job. Please don’t screw it up by refusing to see both sides to an argument.
3 August, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Andy Wimbush
Hi James,
Thanks very much for your comments. We do try to keep things balanced on these pages as far as possible, so the points you highlight are very welcome.
I completely agree, for example, with your point about the UK Government being in cahoots with the nuclear industry. If you look at the Government’s consulation documents, you’ll find that the survey questions were weighted strongly towards presenting nuclear as solution to climate change. Respondents were actually asked whether they would reconsider their concerns about nuclear power if it was the only option in the fight against climate change. As I remember, “reframing” was the slightly Orwellian word they used. But nef’s 2005 report, Mirage and Oasis (accessible here: http://www.neweconomics.org/gen/uploads/sewyo355prhbgunpscr51d2w29062005080838.pdf) showed that, because nuclear power plants take so long to build, we don’t actually have enough time to get them online in order to tackle climate change. Now this isn’t an argument against nuclear power per se, just a rejection of the Government’s idea that it can tackle climate change without us drastically reducing our energy consumption and investing in renewables before then.
Your final point is where I’d differ from you. You say we shouldn’t talk about deniers and about Exxon-funded conspiracies, and to be honest I wish we didn’t have to. But it remains the case that there are still powerful interests out there who still fund unqualified climate sceptics. ExxonMobil may have changed their image to show they’re concerned about “energy security” and even the environment, but they are still funding organisations who put out information which clouds the debate:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/5720655/ExxonMobil-funds-climate-change-sceptics.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/01/exxon-mobil-climate-change-sceptics-funding
http://www.newsweek.com/id/32482
Or how about this latest piece of news, in which forged letters, purportedly from grassroots citizens organisations, were sent to a US Senator asking him not to support action on climate change:
http://www2.dailyprogress.com/cdp/news/local/local_govtpolitics/article/letters_sent_to_perriello_called_fakes._area_advocates_names_forged_by_d.c./43439/
It would, in my opinion, be counter-productive not to talk about these well-funded lobbyists. If we do want to ensure genuine energy security and tackle climate change then unfortunately we need to highlight and expose everyone who is polluting the debate with vested interests and bogus science.
11 August, 2009 at 1:02 pm
JamesGardiner
Andy
See this for some encouragement:
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1850679
especially “Moreover, in 2008, Moody’s noted that traditional technologies have fixed designs whose costs are rapidly increasing. Renewable technologies, it said, are still undergoing advancements in terms of energy-conversion efficiency and cost reductions.”
To my mind it’s the nuclear lobbyists who had been more effective up to now, though the “clean coal” lobby are hot on their tail. Eventually though the hard realities of cost have to dominate the debate.
I strongly suspect though that Exxon don’t give a monkeys chuff about the greenhouse effect one way or the other. It is a plain fact that they made most of their recent money through scarcity concerns which was partly caused by environmentalism (ie limiting refinery construction) but mostly via rampant speculation from (former) investment bankers (G Sachs etc), who now want to make a killing from carbon credits. Environmentalism therefore is actually good for Exxon’s bottom line. Meanwhile BP, Shell and all the others have been encouraging and investing in green tech. Moreover, the price of oil is increasing again because these Wall Street traders are being given free money to speculate in commodities by the US government in the mistaken belief that Wall Street profits help rather than hurt their economy. In one sense that is good though – more green investment but in another it means more profits for Exxon. Ergo you might be better encouraging Exxon to go green too rather than demonizing them. If there’s money to be made then they are interested.
Some other considerations about Exxon though are worthy of consideration:
1. They do in fact put much, much more money into alternative, green tech (via grants to universities) than any supposed skeptic funding that Greenpeace have identified.
2. Despite Greenpeace’s anti-Exxon campaign, Greenpeace now lament the nuclear greenwashing that their knashing and wailing has inadvertently wrought. ie Greenpeace have almost shot themselves in the foot by playing the global warming card too strong. They should have played the “future energy shortage” card more strongly instead, because the resurgence of nuclear power delayed the alternative energies far more than any oil company subterfuge.
3.Exxon doesn’t even command very much oil worldwide. Most oil in the world in controlled by nationalised oil companies from countries who nominally profess to want to be green.
4. Oil is not that important for electricity generation anyway, where coal and gas dominate, so until biofuels, bioplastics and electric cars take root, Exxon are not affected one iota by carbon regulations, except perhaps to make more money out of future scarcity scares. Profit maximisation doesn’t come from volume selling but by volume times price. They are likely more concerned about windfall taxation but then that would only make them move to offshore havens.
Meanwhile my prediction is that the UK will finally realize they have no money for nuclear power anyway and they have to concentrate on a) coal to gas conversion, and b) geothermal heating. We’ll see.