Global warming: Are Britain’s TV ads too scary for children?
Subtitled: I hold little hope for Copenhagen
Britain’s ‘Bedtime Stories’ TV ads aim to make parents feel guilty about the impact of global warming on their children. But critics say that fear tactics don’t work.
[ link ]
And they appear to have a point in at least some countries…….
Widespread scepticism on climate change undermines Copenhagen summit
Only a quarter of people believe that climate change is the most serious problem that the world faces, according to a poll for The Times.
The finding suggests that the public is unconvinced by the Government’s message that climate change is “the moral issue of our times” and that we must embrace urgently a low-carbon lifestyle.
The poll, undertaken last weekend, found that only two in five people in Britain accept as an established scientific fact that global warming is largely man-made.
Global warming is not our fault, say most voters in Times poll
Less than half the population believes that human activity is to blame for global warming, according to an exclusive poll for The Times.
The revelation that ministers have failed in their campaign to persuade the public that the greenhouse effect is a serious threat requiring urgent action will make uncomfortable reading for the Government as it prepares for next month’s climate change summit in Copenhagen.
Only 41 per cent accept as an established scientific fact that global warming is taking place and is largely man-made. Almost a third (32 per cent) believe that the link is not yet proved; 8 per cent say that it is environmentalist propaganda to blame man and 15 per cent say that the world is not warming.
Declining majority in US believe climate change is real
The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found 57 percent of Americans see “solid evidence of warming,” compared to 71 percent in April 2008, and 77 percent in August 2007.
The poll, which surveyed 1,500 people between September 30 and October 4, also found a decline in the number of Americans who think global warming is a very serious problem.
Just 35 percent describe the issue that way today, compared to 44 percent in April 2008 and 45 percent in 2007.
Here in Canada people are ahead of the current government with almost 80% being believers, but it is the current government that is going to Copenhagen isn’t it?
Hope is vanishing that a historic deal to address climate change can be concluded in Copenhagen, and Environment Minister Jim Prentice says the best chance is for a political agreement that would pave the way for a treaty to be signed later.
But Canada will continue to insist that it should have a less aggressive target for emission reductions than Europe or Japan because of its faster-growing population and energy-intensive industrial structure, Mr. Prentice said in an interview Thursday.
I am not going to be the least bit surprised when, unfortunately for all of us, COP15 yields pretty well nothing but yet another set of political commitments to hold yet another round of political talks — as I once read, political promises are worth their physical weight in gold.
I don’t think scary ads in Britain are the problem, or even relevant. We need to figure out how to take the politics out of climate change so that every government wants to take action now to mitigate its effects. That’s the challenge. Currently, officially recognizing climate change is viewed as a threat to capitalism. The original Kyoto promoters want to exempt India and China from the sorts of regulations they want everyone else to adopt to protect their emerging economies. Why? That sort of thing is ultimately counterproductive. Boycotts of Chinese and Indian products by North Americans would make a helluva a lot more sense – but maybe we should check to see who’s doing business in China and India while promoting carbon credit trading schemes, etc.
And rich people spokespersons should just bow right out of this discussion, I think. If you’re rich in this society you’ve undoubtedly done more to contribute to climate change as one individual than have entire third world countries or poor North American communities. How did you get rich? How are you living now? Because what we don’t need is more hypocrisy.
I think the ads in Britain are relevant, in most of the western world that tactic has not enjoyed a great deal of success has it?
You can’t take the politics out of climate change – the people who are making the major decisions are politicians, ours and theirs. They will do what they think will either
(a) get them the most votes, or, failing that
(b) cause them the least pain at the polls
An organized grassroots boycott of Indian or Chinese goods? Do you really think that western society will willingly and voluntarily cut themselves off from cheap imported goods and pay the extra for what’s left on the shelves – not gonna happen.
—- and what do you think would happen to the politicians who put climate change sanctions in place that would force them to?
I think people would be as likely to react favourably as not, actually. The fact is, only government regulation will be enough to to mitigate the effects of climate change.
Some people in some places and situations will react favourably sooey, whether those people are the majority who vote in any particular jurisdiction is something only a national referendum on the matter, or a general election after mitigation decisions were made by a government, would tell.
Neither of those options are the sort of dice rolls that any of our national party leaders with a chance at the big chair is likely to make is it?
I have zero faith in any national leader, of any country on the planet, that has a chance of mitigation to do anything significant in that direction, at least not until such time as the first climate disaster that cannot be attributed to anything but climate change gets splashed across the worlds TV screens 24/7 – it will, of course, be too late by that time, but that’s when they’ll start actually doing more than paying the issue anything more than just enough token lip service to get re-elected.
I also have zero faith in any significant majority of any general population of any nation on the planet that can make a mitigation difference to actually demand that their government do so, at least not until such time as the first climate disaster that cannot be attributed to anything but climate change gets splashed across the worlds TV screens 24/7 – it will, of course, be too late by that time, but that’s when the majority may start actually doing more than paying the issue anything more than just enough token lip service to be seen as “concerned“.
You should pack up your tent and move it from the “mitigation is the primary objective” camp to the “we need to make adaptation the primary focus” camp like I did – if the failure of COP15 teaches us any lesson at all it should be that there is no real global will (political or otherwise) at this to tackle climate change mitigation.
Oh, I don’t know. It seems to me some European countries, with less to lose than us or the United States are voting for measures to deal with climate change. And in spite of our current government, we have a significant percentage of the population that wants it to take action on climate change, as well. In fact, even this government has changed its tune significantly since it was first elected.
The adaptation approach is probably a very sound way to go at this point, though, because it will mute the denialist argument somewhat and move us forward.
@sooey –
I’m impressed Sooey, you’re pretty smart for a woman.