marklynas.orgClimate change is no longer just a middle-class issue 02 July 08
Today's poll shows that public concern about climate change has reached a critical mass and now includes the less well-off
The news was depressing, to say the least. Two weeks ago, a poll conducted for the Observer found that a majority of the British public still think that the scientists are arguing about the causes of climate change. The reality, as I and many others have repeated more or less ad nauseum, is that the debate was settled a long time ago, and that the major areas of scientific uncertainty are about how far and how fast, not whether climate change is happening at all.
I blame the media almost entirely for this discrepancy between public understanding and scientific reality. The Daily Telegraph, for instance, still pumps out climate-denialist articles on a regular basis, and carries frequent antideluvian commentary on the subject from the likes of Christopher Brooker (whose latest piece excoriates “fanatical upholders of the [climate change] dogma”). The Mail does likewise, though Melanie Phillips has been curiously silent on the subject for several months.
Like the tobacco lobbyists who spent years denying the links between smoking and cancer, global warming denialists don’t have to win the debate – they simply have to confuse the public indefinitely to successfully undermine any political action which might hit the interests of their backers in the fossil fuel industries. The arguments change all the time: this year it is “global warming has stopped”, while last year it was “hurricanes aren’t linked with warming”, and the year before “satellites don’t show any warming of the atmosphere”. As each argument is laboriously refuted by scientists, the deniers simply drop it and skip onto the next one.
global warming denialists don’t have to win the debate – they simply have to confuse the public indefinitely
The second headline finding from the Observer poll further underlines this confusion. An equal number of people (about 40% in each case) think that “climate change might not be as bad as some people say”. Again, the frequent cries from the anti-environment right about global warming “alarmism” have clearly hit home.
There is further bad news on the environment versus economy debate. While concern about the economy is seeing its highest score since 1993, concern about the environment is flatlining in the June 23 Mori poll, and is well down from the higher levels seen during the launch of the Stern and IPCC reports in early 2007.
But with polls, detail is everything. Today’s new poll result shows that a clear majority favours government action on the environment v the economy, while an even larger majority supports the introduction of green taxes. So why the contradiction? The discrepancy may lie with different techniques used by different pollsters – the Observer poll was carried out by Ipsos Mori, while the latest Guardian survey was conducted by ICM. It may also lie with the exact wording of the question, which in the latter case probably leaves more room for individual interpretation. Also, people know that they are “supposed” to be concerned about the environment, so may prioritise it when questioned by a pollster, but fail to volunteer it in their own list of suggested priorities.
The ICM poll does throw up some other interesting results. When asked whether they thought their friends would now by cheaper groceries – rather than more expensive environmentally friendly alternatives – given the recent rises in the cost of living, a majority of nearly 60% went for the cheaper option. This suggests that in buying patterns at least, the economic downturn is indeed having a clear impact on ethical choices.
But perhaps the most fascinating result of all emerges from the small print of the different social classes of the ICM survey respondents. Environmentalists are constantly accused of being middle-class lifestyle faddists, who don’t understand the day-to-day financial pressures faced by “ordinary” working people. But the number of people who thought that environment should be the government’s priority rather than the economy was substantially higher (56%) among the lower income, less well-educated DE demographic than among the better-off ABs (47%). Lower-income social groups also have a much lighter environmental footprint overall: only 42% of DEs took a foreign holiday over the last three years, whilst 77% of ABs did. Better-off people also own more cars, as you might expect – only 5% of DEs have three or more cars, whilst 15% of ABs do.
So perhaps anti-environmental class warriors like the editors of Spiked need to find a new cause to champion. The working-class people who they claim “can’t afford to be concerned about climate change” actually care more about the future of the planet than the rich – and are doing a lot less damage to boot. So next time you hear someone defending motorway expansion or cheap flights on behalf of the British poor, ask yourself the question: whose side are they really on?
First published in the Guardian on 2 July 2008.
Comments
Tony
July 2nd, 2008 at 09:47 PM
Oh behave my friend. This manufactured hysteria has been and always will be a middle class issue. Environmentalism is essentially a middle class neurosis similar to other fashionable neurosis which have plagued the Hampstead liberals for decades. I heard your piece on radio four this evening and you sounded like a Hampstead pseud straight from central casting. Yes bring on a global depression that’ll sort out the problem and Save the world. Only when you find that your muesli and tofu is in short supply on the shelves at Waitrose or the very bohemian ethnic grocers in Hampstead high street will you have to reconsider your bonkers brained scheme. Sensible people generally feel a certain amount of pity for those like you who expound such views. They no longer view you with contempt but see you in the same way that they see the dwindling ranks of unreconstructed Communist types trying to sell the Socialist worker. My friend you are indeed in the minority in your views and though you bemoan the consensus view that AGW is a crock you like the Church of England in this country can only look on helplessly as millions turn their back on your ridiculous ideas. In an act of desperation you even try to disect the recent polls pointing to the fact that most people don’t give a fig for your views, to the point of pointing out the social status of those polled. Ugly very ugly but not unexpected really. There is not one shred of proof that our impact has any effect on the climate. The glorious Messiah has tried but failed miserably. Mount Kilamanjaro? Nothing to do with global warming. Polar bears? Their numbers are steadily increasing. Glacier retreat? A natural variation in local conditions- they will return. I could go on but I’ve got to put a single sock in the tumble drier just to spite you lot.
Douglas Coker
July 3rd, 2008 at 07:04 PM
Tony – hmmmm! “Amusing” polemic from a ranty, denialist toff. ” ... not one shred of proof … ” – what planet are you on?
Douglas Coker Enfield Green Party
Tony
July 3rd, 2008 at 09:51 PM
Hey Douglas, I promise you I am not a toff. I am not a “denialist” either. In fact I’m as far from a toff as it’s possible to get. I draw carers allowance to look after my son (I don’t say that for sympathy just to set the record straight.) I must admit my previous post was rather ranty but compared to the polemic from those who claim that Man is changing the climate it’s rather more of a passing comment in my mind. I challenge you to give me proof that proves you claim in terms of AGW. Not the high faluting numbers bandied about by those trying to blind the masses with science but real practical proof. For example, His royal Highness Al Gore gave examples in his film of the consequences of carbon dioxide and its effect on our weather. Every, and I repeat, every single example he spoke of has been not only disproved but totally discredited. He and those he has trained to fly, yes fly around the world spreading the holy gospel, continue to pontificate and poison the minds of those who listen to the “consensual” line. So all I ask is that you come up with a list of, say, five real examples proving your beliefs and I can tell you that I can disprove each and every one of them. Come on rise to the challenge. I await with anticipation. Many thanks.
Douglas Coker
July 4th, 2008 at 10:12 AM
On no Tony I’m not playing that game! A few years ago maybe, but things have moved on and the evidence abounds and is readily available to anyone wishing to access it – which I think excludes you.
In case I’m wrong start with High Tide and Six Degrees and then explore the Real Climate site and you’ll realise there is cornucopia of evidence for you to appraise.
Happy reading!!
Douglas Coker Enfield Green Party
Mark Drasdo
July 4th, 2008 at 07:47 PM
You could always try reading Mark’s books, radical suggestion as that might be!
Tony
July 4th, 2008 at 10:50 PM
........And it’s all gone quiet over there.
Tony
July 5th, 2008 at 12:04 AM
See I was right. You are unable to produce even one real instance of proof of man-made global warming. I rest my case. You, like all the religious clerics who control the mindset of many millions of people, are unable to produce any proof whatsoever. I do pity you all.
Jeremy Doyle
July 5th, 2008 at 12:22 PM
Tony,
A quick response to your comment of 3 July.
“am not a ‘denialist.’ “
This rather goes against the remainer of your post, which seems to claim that increasing atmospheric temperatures is not casued by human activities.
“I must admit my previous post was rather ranty”
Yes, I noticed – you make yourself look a bit silly. Your opinion cannot count for much if it is so consistently emotional.
“I challenge you to give me proof “
I defer to the expert work of the world scientific community. Short version here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf
Quote: “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level”
“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.”
Best of luck,
Jeremy
Jim Roland
July 5th, 2008 at 01:54 PM
The level of ‘cognitive dissonance’ against humanly-caused climate change is likely to be highest among the most affluent, who have the largest number of lifestyle changes to make.
Sadly, most people do not come to this issue from familiarity with historical physics and the other sciences involved, and adopt a hunch based on weather they observe, their peer group, and their suspicions variously of politicians, corporations and scientists.
Carl Johnson
July 7th, 2008 at 04:36 PM
Is Tony blind? Pity him, he knows not what he does..
Tony
July 7th, 2008 at 09:12 PM
Come on Carl that’s a little unfair. Wasn’t it Jesus Christ who spoke those words whilst nailed up to the cross just before he told Peter that he could see his house in the distance. I asked for a little proof of AGW but so far all I got was a silly weblink pointing me to a propagandist rant by self-interested boffins who merely spout the same old claptrap they’ve been churning out f or years. No talk to me straight. Write down just one or maybe even two real instances of proof of Man made climate change. If it’s weblinks you want then I’ve got hundreds but I choose to not go down the lazy mans route. I mean if I asked you where Oxford Street was you wouldn’t give me the weblink to googlemaps. You would say “left, right one hundred yards and then left again.” The ball is in your court boys come on show this inteloper what clever chaps you are and give him what he asks.
Carl Johnson
July 8th, 2008 at 09:04 AM
I have neither the time nor the inclination to play these games. If you genuinely dont believe the climate around you is changing for the worse then fine. It’s your opinion and you are entitled to it. I believe that actually there is little hope we can stop what in my opinion is already happening to our planet. I really hope for all our sakes I and Mark Lynas are wrong and that YOU are right. For now think about this. The world is struggling to feed itself, there are riots almost daily around the planet over the rising cost of food, never mind fuel. WHY?
Tony
July 9th, 2008 at 12:53 PM
......zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz See I was right you really can’t come up with anything to prove your hideous beliefs.
Tony
July 9th, 2008 at 11:08 PM
This made me laugh….....alot. http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/07/09/shasta-glaciers.html
cataphract
July 14th, 2008 at 08:33 AM
The nature of the web, my poor deluded friend Tony, is that anyone can find just what he wants to confirm his reflex instincts on an issue. And flat ignore the opposite view, however abundantly documented. And even think himself fit to judge the evidence from deeply specialized experts en masse! Astounding really. The web’s kinda like democracy in this – a good idea, very noble, until the popular will turns contra reason itself. This has just happened, over the first truly global-scale emergency, and testy little minds like yours are abundant proof of it. There are tens of millions like you in western states, and the trouble is, ‘you count’. This will soon change, inevitably.
No doubt on reading this you’ll protest your love of democracy, and bleat something about eco-fascism. (That’s right, my friend: We’re coming for you. Wait for the knock on the door at midnight). Unfortunately it is exactly people like you, who may be a majority, who will have brought on the need to radically curtail our cherished and hard-won rights, once the crunches start coming thick & fast. Fortunately the mega-states to the east have plenty of experience in controlling the headstrong who present a danger to the collective. (Note that China is already way ahead of the US on most environmental remediation counts). We will simply fall into line with their presently undiscerned wisdom.
After all, we’re not about to let the grotesque self-interest of unreconstructed modern ‘boomtime man’ result in the derailment of the human ascent.
(Phew… O God, why bother with them?)
Tony
August 1st, 2008 at 11:00 PM
“cataphract” What a strange name.