I am hereby delighted to invite all my readers to indicate (by voting on a question [on the Survey Monkey website] that I have created) why they think our politicians continue to fail to respond effectively to the increasingly stark warnings (such as IPCC AR5 reports) from the scientific community? With reference to my response to a recent comment on my blog, the choice seems to me to be either: (a) they understand the risk of continuing inaction but believe taking action would be electorally suicidal; or (b) they discount the warnings because they choose to believe that technology alone will solve the problem. What do people think? Is there another explanation? Please vote at https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/TKNBN5P If you feel you must insert an alternative explanation (the survey question allows this but I would prefer that people choose from the above options), please feel free to comment below as well (or instead). N.B. This survey will close on the 13th of May and is not part of my PhD research.
-
Archives
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- December 2014
- July 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
-
Meta
Anthropocene Reality 
Unfortunately, I am unable to submit an answer to your poll because complying with your stated preference (ie “that people choose from the above options”) would make the result of your little poll meaningless; and your 200 character limit on option three (‘none of the above’) isn’t large enough to offer my opinion there… I don’t believe there is concensus on this by politicians. Some believe one thing, some another. It’s my belief that sufficient of them are subject to cognitive dissonance in one way or another so as to to perpetuate inertia. And as the concept of product inertia is anathema to the mechanism of the “invisible hand” of the free market, this is a further barrier to their realisation of their dissonance, as all our politicians are stuck in growthmania.
LikeLike
PS (and, please, feel free to delete this comment if you consider it off-topic or spam): I would be grateful if you would offer my two current petitions to your readership… Please consider: + signing my 350.org petition asking the BBC to include a regular climate change report + signing my petition to HM Government about the IPCC (closing date 22Oct2014, needs 99,994 more signatures to get a hearing in the House of Commons: fat chance!)
LikeLike
Thanks Colin. You now only need 99,993 signatures for the latter. 😉
LikeLike
Awesome!
LikeLike
Thanks Colin. I am sorry you feel unfairly constrained by my attempted dichotomy. It seems we are agreed on a great deal and disagree about very little.
LikeLike
🙂
LikeLike
Hi – an either or doesn’t really quite fit although both are likely possibilities. Ed perhaps would say that he and Labour were committed to dealing with AGW having introduced a legally binding Act of parliament. Osbourne would claim that exploiting shale gas will bridge us toward new technology whilst keeping us prosperous – because there is no point bankrupting the country! Cameron- has been to the N Pole, – blah blah, vague vague. all would believe they are doing the right thing – it is about timing, and some may think it won’t be that bad. perhaps you could send a questionnaire or rather seek a statement from all MPs.
LikeLike
As implied by my most recent Tweet (i.e. “Peer-reviewed science in #NationalClimateAssessment dismissed only by #Industry funded #MerchantsOfDoubt and #Denial” linking to Guardian article), I think that continuing inaction / inertia from politicians can only really be explained as a refusal to face reality or unjustified optimism in technology being able to avoid hydrocarbons becoming toxic assets comparable to sub-prime mortgages (i.e. as in Jermey Leggett’s ‘Energy of Nations’ – see my recent Geoscientists get all ethical about climate change post)
LikeLike
Hi Rick, as usual the problem (of politicians not acting on climate change) is probably more complex than covered by your two questions. Certainly, I expect that the answer will vary from politician to politician, and very possibly for the same politician vary from day to day. Politicians may have to be better at living with cognitive dissonance than others (hmm – could there be a PhD in that question?), although I suspect that economists would do well in the cognitive dissonance stakes, since so much of neoclassical economics is clearly wrong. My answers to your very good question would start with the free market fundamentalism identified in The Merchants of Doubt, and that would cover a fair number of the right-wing politicians. In addition, I don’t think that we should discount the effect of group-think: people like the current Australian Prime Minister live in a bubble surrounded by like-minded people who simply don’t let alternative views of the world through without first smothering them with ridicule. In addition, I would not be at all surprised if vested interests did not seek to subtly influence the group-think by seeking to plant people in inner circles who can take on the role of thought police – in other words, the bubble may contain some deliberately manufactured components. I would like to think that an honest politician who fits in with your choice (a) would decide that making inaction on climate change electoral suicide would be a good political challenge, and would take it on, and for that reason wonder how many politicians (particularly those with well-developed egos) would fit into that category. A politician to whom (b) applies could well arrive there via fear. Even the most narrow politician should realise that properly addressing climate change would threaten business as usual, and many people, I think, would quickly blanch and look away, clinging onto the hope of a technological solution like a man dangling over a cliff desperately holding onto a small plant.
LikeLike
Thanks David. Please correct me if I am wrong but, you appear to think the answer is (b)…? If so, I agree with you. This is the view of the majority of relevantly-qualified scientists, who have recognised that politicians live in a bubble and are surrounded by fossil fuel lobby funded misinformers. This is the problem that James Hansen recounts in painstaking detail in his book Storms of my Grandchildren. https://anthropocenereality.wordpress.com/2011/10/27/how-does-james-hansen-sleep-at-night/
LikeLike
Can I just add that David Hamilton makes a very good point about politicians living in a bubble. However that does not only apply to the Australian Prime Minister, but also to the leaders of the UK political parties and to those of most of the world. The big question is how do we change this, for that will bring us closer to a solution to the problem of inaction on climate change.
LikeLike
You can, Brian, and you did. Thank you. Once again, of course, I agree. However, sadly, I think it will take a few more sequential winters with 1-in-100 year flood events before the public pressure on politicians to act overcomes the fossil fuel lobby pressure not to act.
LikeLike