The following letter was published in The Guardian last night under the heading:
If ‘balance' means giving voice to those who deny the reality of human-triggered climate change, we will not take part in the debate, say Jonathan Porritt, Caroline Lucas, Clive Lewisand 57 other writers, politicians and academics
We are no longer willing to lend our credibility to debates over whether or not climate change is real. It is real. We need to act now or the consequences will be catastrophic. In the interests of “balance”, the media often feels the need to include those who outright deny the reality of human-triggered climate change.
Balance implies equal weight. But this then creates a false equivalence between an overwhelming scientific consensus and a lobby, heavily funded by vested interests, that exists simply to sow doubt to serve those interests. Yes, of course scientific consensus should be open to challenge — but with better science, not with spin and nonsense. We urgently need to move the debate on to how we address the causes and effects of dangerous climate change — because that's where common sense demands our attention and efforts should be.
Fringe voices will protest about “free speech”. No one should prevent them from expressing their views, whether held cynically or misguidedly. However, no one is obliged to provide them with a platform, much less to appear alongside them to give the misleading impression that there is something substantive to debate. When there is an article on smoking, newspapers and broadcasters no longer include lobbyists claiming there are no links to cancer. When there's a round-the-world yacht race we don't hear flat-earthers given airtime: “This is madness; they'll sail off the edge!”
There's a workable model for covering fringe views — which is to treat them as such. They don't need to be ridiculed, just expected to challenge the evidence with better evidence, and otherwise ignored. As campaigners and thinkers who are led by science and the precautionary principle, and who wish to debate the real and vital issues arising from human-triggered climate change, we will not assist in creating the impression that climate denial should be taken seriously by lending credence to its proponents, by entertaining ideas that lack any basis in fact. Therefore we will no longer debate those who deny that human-caused climate change is real. There are plenty of vital debates to be had around climate chaos and what to do about it; this is simply no longer one of them. We urge broadcasters to move on, as we are doing.
Jonathon Porritt Chair, Sustainable Development Commission 2000-11
John Sauven Executive director, Greenpeace
Prof Richard Murphy Director, Tax Research UK
Peter Tatchell
Prof Andrea Sella, Michael Faraday prize winner
Prof Robert Ayres Author
Caroline Lucas MP
Clive Lewis MP
Prof Molly Scott Cato MEP
Dr Rupert Read Chair, Green House thinktank
George Monbiot Author
Dr Doug Parr Chief scientist, Greenpeace
Chris Rose Former programme director, Greenpeace
Jeremy Leggett Founder, Solar Century
Mayer Hillman Senior fellow, Policy Studies Institute
Bea Campbell
Ed Gillespie Co-founder, Futerra
Mark Lynas Author
Dr James Garvey Author
Oliver Tickell Author
Chris Goodall Author
Prof Clive Spash Author
Prof Hugh Montgomery Co-founder, UK Climate and Health Council
Prof Mark Maslin Author
Prof Anthony Ryan Director, Grantham Centre for Sustainable Futures
Dr Sian Foch-Gatrell Green Ocean Project
Dr Erik Buitenhuis Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
David Wasdell Director, Apollo-Gaia Project
Prof Paul Ekins UCL Institute for Sustainable Resources
Dr Teresa Belton Author
Dr Nick Brooks Climatic Research Unit, UEA
Dr Simon Boxley Centre for Climate Change Education, University of Winchester)
Prof Jem Bendell Sustainability Leadership Institute, University of Cumbria
Dr David Drew MP
Dr Ian Gibson Former chair of the House of Commons science and technology select committee)
Keith Taylor MEP
Clare Moody MEP
Catherine Bearder MEP
Cllr Jonathan Bartley Co-leader, Green party
Carne Ross Former UK and UN diplomat
Neal Lawson Director, Compass
Ben Chacko Editor, Morning Star
Deepak Rughani Co-director, Biofuelwatch
Patrick Barkham Author
Prof Gary Francione
Prof Sarah Churchwell
Dr Christine Cornea
Dr Richard House
Dr Abby Innes
Dr Pierre Bocquillon
Prof Del Loewenthal
Prof Andrew Samuels
Dr Jo Veltman
Prof Peter Belton
Dr Andrew Boswell
Dr Katherine Kite
Mark Crutchley
Karen Whiterod
Anne Dismorr
Jonathan Kent
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
“We urge broadcasters to move on” – one of the chief culprits is Radio 4’s Toady programme – in which never were’s such as Lawson are given a platform to jabber. It is no accident that the editor of the Toady prog’ comes from the Torygraph. It is no accident that the Toady prog is losing listeners (ditto the Torygraph losing readers – mostly due to die off) – I hope it loses more – may be “that’ll learn ’em” as Badger said.
I’d have signed that aswell if anybody had asked me.
So would I have – my husband Michael and daughter Julia for two more…
Richard – re an earlier blog-post, may I suggest that you tell your son’s friends to join their local Green Party and really work for them. Their ideals shouldn’t be wasted – perhaps they could help develop local initiatives as well.
The future belongs to them – they need to help to shape it in the pattern they desire.
Despite being a LP member, I think that is an excellent recommendation. Better big fish in small pond…
Well said. It wasn’t long ago that the Guardian reported “The fifth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report states with 95 percent confidence that humans are the main cause of the current global warming”.
It’s good to see the non-scientific consensus of civic society deciding in the same paper that this number needs moving to 100%.
Suppressing debate about the % doubts that remains from the international science community should be terminated now and we can move on and debate what should be done about it. I hope you won’t appear on any panels with members of such organisational groupings.
I agree we should not be wasting time debating, it is time for action.
If forced to debate, I would suggest following the example of Brian Cox and come armed with data.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sG8gLt4GChg
Yesterday’s Larry Elliott post includes: “Economists assume that the rational person manages their expectation of the future by applying risk factor appraisal as appropriate and an interest discount to allow for the passage of time before the event might happen.”
This logic could be applied to climate change and facts such as “Britain’s insects, it seems, are disappearing” https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/17/where-have-insects-gone-climate-change-population-decline.
Are economists, politicians and the general population “RATIONAL”? Too many bang on about growth.
“THE EVENT MIGHT HAPPEN?” Events are happening now. Increasingly severe events will happen for decades and centuries.
“RISK?” We are not talking about “quite strong evidence” – 97% of published scientific climate papers indicate that emissions of GREENHOUSE GASES NEED TO BE REDUCED MASSIVELY AND URGENTLY (the papers of the other 3% contain errors!)
Rational people should demand — should insist – on this and rational governments should enact legislation to do so. The British government could:
1) Tell everyone — and require the media to tell everyone — that to arrest the rate of melting of the Arctic, HUGE changes are needed and are needed NOW! Britain can lead in a way far more serious than their previous claims. Others will follow; for instance, because large parts of Holland are below sea level – which is rising, the Dutch government will take action.
2) Announce a programme to reduce UK burning fuels of all types — gas, oil, petrol, diesel, electricity generated using those, shipping and aviation fuels — as well as wood.
3) End subsidies and tax-breaks and all other sweet deals for fossil fuel companies and cancel all fracking because a) it produces a high-carbon fossil fuel that should be left in the ground, b) Finished wells need to remain sealed for millennia — an impossible burden on coming generations, c) US fracking companies are going bust — it makes no economic sense. (read Jeremy Leggett), d) the process uses scarce water and creates polluted water which sometimes contaminates aquifers.
4) Stop all new nuclear a) Wind and solar are cheaper which with battery back-up and demand management are removing the intermittency problem (read Jeremy Leggett), b) Radioactive waste management will put an impossible burden on future generations.
5) Limit emissions of carbon dioxide by many means including energy rationing (Green Party policy) (https://www.flemingpolicycentre.org.uk/teqs/ or http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.462.915&rep=rep1&type=pdf ). Such a policy would contribute something to a reduction of wealth and income inequality. Professor Kevin Anderson of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research says that saving one kilowatt-hour of electricity generated by burning fossil fuels saves 13 units of energy. USE LESS is much to be preferred to simply GENERATE MORE.
6) Ensure that existing housing is shared more equally by introducing housing rationing (so many square meters of floor space per person). As well as dealing with the housing crisis on a timescale reasonable for the inadequately housed young, this would prepare the way for loss of housing due to inundation of properties because of rising sea-levels and more severe storms. Housing construction is energy intensive.
7) Create masses of employment by a programme of insulation and draught-proofing of every property in the country. All new housing to be constructed to passive house standard.
8) Flying must be discouraged. Kevin Anderson suggests a substantial tax on a first flight which is doubled, and doubled again repeatedly for subsequent flights.
9) Discourage private transport; promote frequent, reliable moderate-speed public transport, cycling and walking.
10) Implement most of the 80 measures proposed in Drawdown (www.drawdown.org). The second most effective measure on the list is on-shore wind which would have benefits valued at six times the cost. Some say wind generators are ugly. Droughts, floods and landslides etc. do not bring joy!
11) Devise economic theory which supports the above.
Only then look teenagers in the eye and tell them that you care. https://www.thelocal.se/20180824/meet-the-15-year-old-swedish-girl-on-strike-from-school-for-the-climate
I agree with Charles confront them with data in a discussion, if one accepts to debate; although the issues to acceptance of evidence run deeper. People seem overwhelmed with information and in this world consider themselves ‘too short of time’ to engage. Thus they accept their group consensus or their chosen ‘expert’ and process information partially, especially if in a social group (e.g. religious, political) where you want to gain acceptance and social status.
Anyway even informed people, especially politicians, tend to confuse or attribute ‘weather events’ to ‘climate change’, such as a recent storm somewhere and muddy the waters further.
‘Climate change’ is not the most important factor to control the maintenance of our planet Earth capable of supporting human societies. William Stefan et al. conclude that; 1) biochemical flows of nitrogen and phosphorus (fertiliser application), 2) genetic diversity, 3) land system change, 3) atmospheric aerosol loading (possibly) and 4) novel factors (possibly) represent increasing risk, more than climate change, on “the maintenance of the Earth system in a resilient and accommodating state”. [1]
[1] W. Steffen et al., Science 347, 1259855 (2015). DOI: 10.1126/science.1259855
I have no problem believing in climate change. I am just not sure that what man is doing is the primary agent of that change. I certainly believe in man-made pollution, and that vigorous action should be taken to address it, but that is a different discussion. Piers Corbyn an astrophysicist and climatologist believes that changes in the worlds climate are dictated primarily by cyclical activity on the surface of the sun and not, by the effects of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. If memory serves me, he measures man’s carbon activity as the equivalent of adding 4 millimeters on top of an already existing meter of carbon. How an increase from around 250 ppm to 400 ppm should cause alarm I am not sure. Perhaps I will be better assured when the scientists manage to balance the carbon cycle, but last time I looked this has yet to be done. Carbon is essential for all life forms. There is indeed a school of thought that says we have too little ppm of carbon in the atmosphere, and as a result our life forms are suffering. I am not qualified to offer an opinion. However, I understand during the Jurassic period we had levels of 9000 ppm. Climate change will certainly bring changes that we will need to adapt to. If global warming is taking place and water levels rise many cities will have to be relocated. However, a greater danger than the planet warming would be the planet cooling. A new ice age would present very serious problems.
I am not sure many people take him very seriously
And I think for good reason
There is an extremely strong correlation between CO_2 ppm and average surface temperature – the greenhouse effect, known for over 200 years. There are temperature fluctuations on top of this but on average if we continue to say 450 ppm we are looking at a +4 average temperature rise which is enough to melt most of the ice and raise sea-level to an extent that will submerge more than 50% of the currently populated areas. The melting will take a long time, perhaps 100 years, but low lying areas will feel the impact in the next decade.
The whole of human civilisation developed in an era of between 180 and 280 ppm so it not that hard to work out that raising CO2 to 400 ppm is a really bad idea. Or looked at another way, the trees spent a few billion years removing CO2 to create an environment suitable for humans, and then the humans put all the carbon back in a couple of hundred years. Now humans have to decide, do they want to be greedy or smart?
It’s easy enough to agree on climate and other pollution by humans, and on the facile notions of main media “balance”. About ten years before I finished university teaching by trying to keep the system off the kids’ backs and deep patronisation off any mature students, I would address climate change and media bias to look at organisation structures in an espoused theory v theories-in-action perspective. No students came down as climate change deniers or favoured the idea of the BBC and all as genuinely informative or remotely fair. The questioning was supposed to turn to ‘how are organisational structures constructed’ but rarely did directly. Students went off a produced reams on climate pollution and media bias issues. Most of them we quite disturbed. Little of what they found was in the media on either topic. They could list issues found in text books and papers on content and recommendations on good, investigative, fair reporting and then search main media for evidence of it, finding little content and no evidence of the espoused theories on fair reporting. Quite a few wondered what the point of education was if so little transfers to practice. Didn’t the university issue them satisfaction happy sheets on teaching performance? And didn’t I teach they were worthless rot? Didn’t I teach them Total Kwality Management and then give them loads of papers saying 60% of projects fail and you can’t link the TQM to any success? The point before I go off on one entirely is that education as we have it is the problem, or at least part of the fatal nexus preventing necessary change. Good mature students (most of them) would howl in laughter at “telling truth to power” as a likely career suicide note.
The glaring issue in main media is the groaf-oaf-jawbs assumption on economic expansion they somehow get over whilst pretending to be green recyclers and the rest. This is the equivalent of thinking you heat things up by putting them into the freezer whilst agreeing BBC Horizon has science content.
Historical temperature V CO2 levels do not correlate to High-CO2 = High Temperature.
It is worth pointing-out that we are in an Inter-Glacial period, and that in about 2000 years (+-) we will drop back into an ice age.
That will be an extinction-level event.