G8 climate victory... for Bush 11 July 05

Yes, the final G8 communiquén GW/CC was very disappointing. It really showed all the signs of being cobbled together and is contradictory and muddled.

Can we salvage something? I know I’m a media junkie and am alert to any news on the issue but I think I’m correct in saying there has been unprecedented coverage of GW/CC here in Britain over the last few weeks. Radio 4’s Today programme has paid a lot of attention and the Independent, Guardian and Observer have published special supplements and some strong front pages.

I think we need to exploit any media contacts we have to encourage more and more pieces and programmes. Your Today piece, Mark, on that Thursday morning of those awful bombs could be developed into a TV programme. And at the risk of sounding inappropriately irreverent I couldn’t help noticing Tony Robinson and Mick Aston of the “Time Team” show were proudly displaying “Make Poverty History” t-shirts last week.

Where are the GW/CC t-shirts? I think “The whole world’s warming” [square brackets optional] might appeal to the over 50’s. (Think about it). And come to think of it where is the TV “Time Team” series which looks forward. We know an awful lot about the Romans and archaeology now. Can we have some stuff with lots of informative computer simulations about our warming future?

We need to go mainstream and aiming for big demos and the like is a good idea. But we need some input from those skilled at putting campaigns together. How do we build momentum that results in real progress?

Douglas Coker

As regards energy, I think we live in extraordinary times, and we need to empower those visionaries who can lead us to a safer future for the planet.

We should not look to “the great and the good” to reach a consensus themselves. Does anyone else think it is incredible that we have the head of ExxonMobil, Lee Raymond, saying that renewables are inconsequential:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,,1522768,00.html

and yet (a) head of Shell, Lord Ron Oxburgh, saying we need to shift from fossil fuels as quickly as possible:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0,11319,1506670,00.html

So, these 2 people (representing, to a certain extent, these 2 companies) are representing very different images of the future. I would like to see these visions reflected in brand choices that people make – much as people may choose Cafe Direct over another type of coffee.

The area that I work is in “branding”, and below is part of a larger article I am currently working on …. I would like to see the development of organisation(s) that could authenticate the “climate-friendly” nature of products (much like the Soil Association, WWF etc.)

From the article:

“This ability to communicate value has led to one of the most innovative and exciting developments with brands in recent years – the creation of “internal” brands. These are brands which are not sold by themselves, but are used to support the value of other products by guaranteeing some component of their quality. Intel created the “Intel Inside” campaign in 1991, and by 2005 had become the fifth most valuable brand in the world . Caférect, created in 1991, is a brand about fair trade and is now the UK’s largest Fairtrade hot drinks company in the UK guaranteeing a decent income to 250,000 coffee growers . Such an application of branding is likely to be of increasing value as consumers want to know the provenance of goods and services that they buy. Indeed, such branding can help establish a market category. For example, before the “Intel Inside” campaign consumers did not generally think to assess personal computers on the type of computer chips that were being used. In effect, such “internal” brands out-source the brand vision and quality processes required to support it, to third parties.

.....

This clarity of communication provided by branding can be a crucial step towards action. It is sometimes said that consumers “are a fairly passive bunch” . Yet, the brand can give the focus required for action – transforming the “we need to do something about the plight of third world coffee farmers” to “Make mine a Caférect coffee”.

Peter

PS. BTW, I’d like to predict that Lee Raymond will be dead wrong, and will put his quote alongside these others:

“.. [Solar and Energy] are not consequential on the scale that will be needed and they may never have a significant impact on the energy balance.” Lee Raymond, CEO of ExxonMobil, 2005.

“Radio has no future. Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. X-rays will prove to be a hoax.” William Thomson, Lord Kelvin English scientist, 1899.

“There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.” Ken Olson, chairman\founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977

“This ‘telephone’ has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us.” Western Union internal memo, 1876.

I’m not saying there’s any real connection, but the night “Hot Enough for You?” was to air in 1991 (& I had written to all my gov. reps to watch it), was the night we started Desert Storm – so, of course, the film was bumped off the air forever. That film, which first aired in 1990 or 1989, was the one that got me reducing my GHGs.

It has also occurred to me that the war in Iraq has many secondary positives for Bush & his ilk (aside from the supposed primary objectives of disarming WMDs & establishing democracy): nothing like a war to shoe in a 2nd term for a sitting president, and then the oil & military purchases for the war is sure helping him & his buddies in the biz, AND last but not least, the war is taking everyone’s mind off of GW, & even contributing to GW (good for his fringe Christian right friends who want to see the world destroyed). And if there really is a connection between Bush & the bin Laden family, & they both want to take the heat off of Osama, then what better way than to redirect focus to Saddam Hussain, although some think Hussain was an easier target & would more assuredly rack up brownie points for Bush.

And now this timing coincidence betw the London terrorist attack & the G8 (which was to discuss GW at that time). Even the 9/11 attack-which sure took peoples’ minds off GW & other pressing social/environmental issues-benefitted Bush (as it would any president in office at the time). And some have wondered why he happened to be out of the White House(the possible target of that last plane) at the time. Again, I’m sure these ate mere coincidences.

There probably is no connection whatsoever between Bush/GW contrarians & terrorists, except that the terrorists either don’t care about GW one way or the other, or have some parallel interests in common with the GW contrarians, like oil or something. And both seem to promote or not care about destruction and the death of innocents, which they consider collateral damage, or simply deny, in their race to achieve their diverse objectives.

So far, however, terrorists get more attention & strike more terror for their killing, than we who contribute to anthropogenic-GW create for our much greater killing. But that’s just the nature of terrorism v. environmental problems (which just aren’t dramatic & scary enough for most people to take much notice).

By the way, I want to offer my deepest condolences to those who were harmed or lost loved ones in the recent terrorist attack in London. I hope none of our blog buddies on this site or their loved ones were harmed. And I pray the British people do not react with hatred and prejudice against Arab-looking people in England, as happened here in the U.S. after 9/11, when some Americans killed especially Sikh Americans & destroyed their property. The only real solution to terrorism, strife, GW & all other problems is a softened, humbled heart, and a mind opened to TRUTH (including the scientific facts of GW). All other solutions throughout history have failed.

I felt sadness seeing what happened to Londoners and memories of 9-11 came flooding back in my mind. I really hope they can catch these people who did this. (Hopefully the cameras will help)

Unfortunately, terrorism is real and is a huge financial drain. Countermeasures are draining money away from other things which could vastly improve standard of living for citizens and improving energy efficiency (lowering GHGs)!

The world is the loser in this story line. There are no winners here…

Thoughts and prayers to the families impacted in England.

I’ve often felt bad about how much money we’re spending due to 9/11, which could have gone for some many good purposes, including energy efficiency, which would have helped Americans save even more money, plus save the environment & costs due to environmental degradation.

I just hope that financial drains due to terrorism & GW (for instance increased hurricanes) don’t drain us so much (& raise our taxes & insurance premiums) that we won’t have the upfront money to buy efficiency products that save us money in the long run (like SunFrost refrigerators, etc.).

On another note, it was good to see that ABC News last Friday had a segment on how studies prove that GW is increasing the intensity of hurricanes, and that scientists are now studying whether GW increases the number of hurricanes, and should be able to tell us definitively in the near future. Even my friends who pooh-poohed GW, are now commenting that TV has started talking about GW, and they are more convinced now. NEWSWEEK had an article about GW last week, and I wrote them a thank you note, asking for them to please start a column giving us tips about how to reduce GHGs.

Exxposeexxon.com has started a boycott of Exxon for its abyssmal environmental record, such as funding organizations that hide the facts about GW & produce junk science. Maybe Exxon or one of its funded orgs/persons is also behind the attack on Dr. Mann—I understand the Wall St Journal article on which Rep. Barton relied for his attack was anonymous. I really smell Exxon oil in this.

Anyway I downloaded the exxposeexxon flyer and stopped by a local Exxon service station & handed it to them, saying I’m joining the national boycott against Exxon, so I suppose you could include McAllen & Edinburg, Texas on that list of cities starting the boycott today.

Douglas,

I was one of the 3,500 protesters who marched at Gleneagles. I will be posting my blog in the next day or two on my site.

I was really gutted by the way the press covered the story. I normally read the Independent and belive they have been really vocal on the subject.

But on Thursday morning they published 24 pages on winning the olympics. We were on page 25.

The Scotsman and the Herald even the daily hate put us on the front page.

I would also like to question the accuracy of there reporting, Ironicaly of all the papers I think the FT got the spirit right.

Cheers Ian.

One of the outcomes of the G8 talks was to hold further talks in London in November, with key developing countries like China and India. I would have thought this should be a key mobilising time for UK climate campaigners.

Hi Ian

Here are the links to the supplements in the Observer and Guardian. The Observer supplement of 26th June 2005 is at http://observer.guardian.co.uk/carbontrust/ . The Guardian supplement of 30th June 2005 is at http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/heat . They really are good. The Indy stuff is behind a sub barrier. Infuriating, as the front page “The Heat is On” on the 5th of July was cracking and there was a double page spread on pages 6 & 7 by a certain Mark Lynas.

The media can both impress and infuriate. I think we need to encourage them in the right direction and pull them up when they drop a clanger. I was involved in a spat with the BBC’s Today programme a few weeks ago because they saw fit to have Fred Singer on air spouting his malign nonsense. On the other hand I sent them a well done message after listening to their Thursday the 7th July programme which gave lots of very good coverage to GW/CC.

Regarding the Scottish demos they suddenly seemed small beer when other big stories broke. I am interested in the story as I saw TV footage which, on the one hand, seemed to show police being heavy handed and on the other, showed demonstrators goading and baiting the police.

The police fulfil a number of roles. It was clearly illustrated a number of decades ago that if demonstrators go past a certain point they will provoke the police into certain very bad types of behaviour. They can then easily be portrayed as “agents of a repressive state apparatus”.

I may sound like “a grumpy old leftie” but do we really need to prove the same point that was established years ago? Maybe we can continue this debate on your site. URL?

Douglas Coker

Hi Rebecca,

I think you will find that the climate talks are to be held in Canada. I think Mark posted a link on the G8 bit of his site to the protest co-ordinators. There will be marches pland for November the 3rd. They are trying to get a march in the capital of every G8 nation.

Should be fun.

Cheers Ian.

Hi Rebecca,

I wonder if we are talking about the same thing. Check out this link.

http://www.globefox.com/cacc/globalclimatecampaign.html

If it is no problem, if its something new let me know.

Cheers Ian.

There is to be an international demonstration on climate change on December 3rd to coincide with the climate talks in Montreal.

Details are on http://www.globefox.com/cacc/globalclimatecampaign.html

The Campaign against Climate Change is co-ordinating this. Their website is http://www.globefox.com/cacc