How to get politicians to take global warming seriously | Global Dashboard - Blog covering International affairs and global risks

How to get politicians to take global warming seriously Jules Evans

March 14, 2009 | More on Climate and resource scarcity | 8 comments

Political leaders are driven by a desire for power. They will tend to follow whatever is politically expedient in order to gain power. Right now, it is politically expedient only to make token efforts to try and prevent climate change, without making the electorate fore-go habits to which they have become accustomed.

But leaders are also driven by vanity, and have a powerful desire to be seen well by ‘posterity’ or the ‘history books’. Just look how long Tony Blair spent, while leaving office, in trying to explain his ‘legacy’, or at George W. Bush’s mea culpa last press conference.

This, it seems to me, is one way political leaders might be persuaded to take dramatic action now on climate change: scientists explain to them very clearly what will happen if the level of CO2 does not fall, they explain very clearly the huge loss of life this will cause,and the actions that need to be taken now if this situation is to be avoided.

And then you tell them that history will judge them. If you consider the infamy in which Adolf Hitler is now held: Hitler was responsible for the deaths of, how many, 40 million people?

That is, unfortunately, a drop in the ocean compared to how many will die in the coming decades if this generation of political leaders fail to do what is necessary.

The terrible suffering of World War II was, on the whole, confined to a generation. If the world warms by 4-6 degrees, the suffering will be felt by many generations, all of whom will look back to the beginning of the 21st century, when political leaders were clearly warned what was going to happen, and what was needed to be done to avoid it, and who failed to do what was necessary.

What this means is, it’s a terrible time to be a politician. Never has the chalice of power been so poisoned. On the one hand, you have to tell an electorate grown complacent with prosperity that they must radically alter their lifestyles and fore-go many activities they now take for granted. As a result, they may very well be voted out of office, or even laughed out of office, for doing do.

On the other hand, if they don’t do this, their names will be mud for decades, even centuries.

They will say ‘we didn’t know’ or ‘it wasn’t politically possible’ or ‘we didn’t have enough time’. But the history books will show that they were told what needed to be done, and they failed to act.

On the other hand, if they do act, if they finally recognise the gravity of the threat facing us, explain to the electorate what needs to be done, and begin leading their electorates through the necessary changes, they will win a place in the history books as great as Churchill, Gandhi, or Martin Luther King .

The line between historic hero or historic catastrophe is very thin right now, and it is not leaders’ response to the credit crunch which will decide their place in the eyes of posterity.

8 comments »

Daniel Korski on March 15th, 2009 at 2:14 pm:

Jules,

Though I know what you are trying to say and support your message, I find your references to Hitler and the damage he caused as being “easier, and quicker, to recover from” both shrill and unfortunate. If you are trying to persuade people to act against climate change — which I understand to be your noble purpose — then I would suggest avoiding Hitlerian references that will only serve to distract from your point and annoy even supportters like me.

Daniel
Jules Evans on March 15th, 2009 at 2:20 pm:

Apologies Daniel, no offense meant to you or others. Ive taken that sentence out.
Best
Jules
michael polowy on March 16th, 2009 at 4:57 am:

hmmmmm,why has the climate NOT been getting warmer since 1998?
Mark Weston on March 16th, 2009 at 9:37 am:

Actually it’s even more thankless for politicians because if they avert the catastrophic consequences of climate change the general public won’t notice, because life will continue pretty much as it was before. If they are successful, some observers will no doubt argue that climate change wouldn’t have happened anyway. You get a lot more credit for fending off a visible disaster (eg Churchill fighting off the Germans, Luther King fighting off racial repression) than an invisible one. So politicians who are concerned about their legacy might have to be content not with public glory but with their own private knowledge that they’ve done the right thing.
Cllr A on March 16th, 2009 at 9:54 am:

Jules,

Thanks for this piece. Like Daniel, I feel deeply uncomfortable with the Hitler references.

Passing over that, though, whilst I hear what you are saying, I think you genuinely have overestimated where our politicians and the electorate are at in terms of understanding of the issues and engagement with the challenge. I’m an elected member of a small British local authority; we have won a few awards from societies who recognise commitment to tackle climate change, and we have an ambitious target for CO2 reduction, which in year 3 starts to encompass our city rather than just the council’s own buildings and activities. Tackling climate change is one of our six priorities, enshrined in corporate plans and LAAs. We have an intelligent and motivated senior officer corps, a dedicated CC unit and a set of elected members many of whom care deeply about the issues and all of whom are pretty aware and engaged (NB – across all parties – too often it is thought to be “Green” politicians that lead this area. In my authority, Liberals and Labour are at the forefront).

Yet still, tackling CC is in no way central to the operations of my authority. The CC unit are isolated, separate from the mainstream of council life. CC priorities are delivered and celebrated for the money they save. There is little context to the actions we are taking. And frankly, the difference we can make and the impact that action has are so intangible that it is hard to consistently prioritise.

And, last, but not least, our electorate are nowhere on this. I came into politics to tackle poverty and inequality; I have a full caseload of people on the estate I represent who need help to access barely-adequate housing, benefits and social care. Since being in politics climate change has risen up my agenda, and my understanding is high; for many of us in politics, that battle has been won – we know what needs to be done, or, at least, we know how to find it out. But having an informed set of elected politicians who must seek election from a public who are as yet unpersuaded of the problem, is a recipe for inaction. In a democracy, action far in advance of public attitudes is unsustainable.

I will continue to consistently vote for and prioritise measures to tackle climate change. But I need people who care about climate change to carry some weight too. Real recognition that people in the UK living on moderate and low incomes have a genuine concern about their standard of living would be a start. Spokespeople that are mainstream would help – rather than these middleclass young women that throw green gunge and stop people going on holiday, waving their dreadlocks and beads at the planes. Not being happy about the carbon reductions a recession will force just as many are losing their jobs would be good. A campaign that sets tackling climate change in the context of preserving the British way of life and helping people leave something for their kids rather than appearing to attack the lifestyles of the majority of British people would be useful.

Apologies for this comment being a bit locally-particular; this is internationalist space, I know! Keep up the good work – it’s always an education.
Jules Evans on March 16th, 2009 at 1:59 pm:

Thanks for your comments Antonia,

Maybe this film will do something to galvanize public opinion:

http://www.ageofstupid.net/

Its opening this weekend, we should all go see it.

Jules
Jason on March 16th, 2009 at 5:16 pm:

“..without making the electorate fore-go habits to which they have become accustomed.”

I think a better article could be written about how you get politicians to give up global warming as an issue once they realize how much power they wield while claiming to serve the public interest. The one sentence I referenced from your article tells me you’d like to skip convincing the populace and go straight to making them do what’s best for them. Scary stuff.

The moment the thick-headed politicians figure out that they can write laws saying:

* How often I can flush the toilet. And what it costs per flush.
* Who gets to wash their cars and when.
* Who can drive what car (exceptions for politicians of course).
* Where we can go, how fast we can go.
* How much I should pay in taxes rebuilding the dams for a city built below the water table and filled with people that refused to fix it for themselves and refuse to consider living somewhere else…

It’s the ultimate end game. The moment they realize they can control essentially every aspect of our lives in an effort to control global warming, and that to fight them is to be labeled the scum of the planet… they win. End game.

What’s laughable is that global warming can’t be fought locally. Pick any country you like, even the US or China, make them 100% green, and guess what, the rest of them can keep the trend going just fine. The ONLY way you can force the kinds of changes most of you feel-good-better-than-you-hippies (for lack of a better word) feel are necessary is if you gave complete control to a world authority to divvy up the planets resources and control who gets to use em. Do that and the illiterate / unproductive masses of the third world will decide that the developed nations of the world need to suffer their fair share and we can all go back to living in little socialist communes.

What’s really scary for me, is that I think most of the people behind fighting global warming know you can’t have our current level of civilization and freedom (barring major technological breakthroughs) and they are comfortable with that. Their goal isn’t saving the planet, it’s power. Power to tell others that they are evil, that they know a better way, blah blah blah. They can’t convince, they aren’t interested in technology, they wont acknowledge that all the recycling in the world won’t help a bit with the population growing like it is… they just want to tell you how to live your life.

I want a healthy planet too, I want happy grandchildren with a place to live and grow. But I’m not willing to be forced to make changes I KNOW can’t solve the problem in an effor to appear nicer, appear hip, and on the green bandwagon. Major technology breakthroughs from the private sector, or population control… those are the two options I see. Personally I’m hoping for technology to save the day, because if not, not only will I have a hippy overlord telling me how to live my life he will also be able to tell me that I can’t have three kids, because all I need are two. And it should be one boy and one girl and they should not wear diapers and they should wear recycled clothing and…..
Jules Evans on March 16th, 2009 at 11:54 pm:

Thank you for bringing your views to our attention, Jason. Please remain calm and in your habitation unit, and representatives of the Ministry of Adaptation will be round shortly. Britannia forever.

Tags

8 comments »

About Global Dashboard

Follow us

Authors