VIEWPOINT
Ann Pettifor
Organisations campaigning on climate change need to learn the lessons of the anti-slavery and anti-apartheid movements, says Ann Pettifor.
By focusing on individuals rather than governments, initiatives such as the recent Energy Saving Day are bound to fail in their bid to reduce emissions, she argues.
" Climate change is the issue of the day.
Scientists finally agree on the threat to the planet posed by rising temperatures. Books on the subject proliferate.
Campaigners, like those at Plane Stupid, do amazing things to bring it to public attention.
Big business frets too. The world's giant investment funds join green groups in demanding drastic action.
Paul Hawken, author of Blessed Unrest - How the Largest Movement in the World Came into Being, writes that "there are over one - maybe even two - million organisations (worldwide) working toward ecological sustainability and social justice".
And yet... and yet... there is no real climate change movement. There is no organised effort leading society towards a legislative framework that would urgently drive down greenhouse gas emissions across the board, and begin to sequester carbon dioxide.
Not in the UK, or in the US, or internationally. The "movement" that Hawken refers to is, he notes, "atomised" and "largely ignored".
Yet in September 2007, a public opinion survey from Yale University (in conjunction with Gallup) found that "nearly half of Americans now believe that global warming is either already having dangerous impacts on people around the world or will in the next 10 years".
The authors noted that this was "a 20-percentage-point increase since 2004", representing "a sea change in public opinion... and a growing sense of urgency".
If there is a "growing sense of urgency", why isn't there a climate change movement in the US?
Low level lighting
The reason is that green organisations focus on individual ("change your lightbulbs") or community ("recycle, reuse, reduce, localise") action.
They fail to highlight the need for the kind of structural change that can only be brought about by governmental action.
Governments helpfully collude in this atomisation and fragmentation of action and reaction.
Throughout history, social movements have focused on the need for government action.
The anti-slavery movement sought to change laws that permitted slavery.
The suffragette movement only ensured votes for women once discriminatory laws had been displaced; the anti-apartheid movement was only successful once apartheid laws had been removed.
In the US, the black civil rights movement campaigned from 1947 until the introduction of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act to end discrimination in certain spheres.
Today, as the UK government's hesitancy in dealing with Northern Rock reveals, governmental action is unpopular and out of fashion.
Not just with big business and neo-liberal economists, but also with anarchists and many green campaigners. Minimal government is now ideologically dominant.
The failure of anti-war demonstrations to halt the Iraq war is often cited as evidence of the failure of governments to respond to such popular pressure.
However, as the civil rights movement demonstrated, a successful campaign does not stop at one defeat. It moves forward inexorably over time, in pursuit of its legislative goal.
Fair shares
The population at large instinctively understands that they alone, or even in community, cannot deal with the threat of climate change.
They are acutely aware that while individuals may take action, others may become "freeriders".
They know a fair legislative framework is required to share the burden of adjusting to climate change equitably between rich and poor.
Burden-sharing has several dimensions; between those who live in Bangladesh and those who live in Zurich, those who drive 4x4s and those who cycle, those who take foreign holidays and those who do not.
In the UK, Ipsos Mori polled public attitudes to climate change in July 2007.
Seventy percent "strongly agreed" or "tended to agree" that "the government should take the lead in combating climate change, even if it means using the law to change people's behaviour".
Green organisations in the UK support the government's very cautious climate change bill by lobbying for a stronger legal framework - but not much stronger.
The call by UK NGOs for 80% cuts in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 - now accepted by government - lacks ambition, and underestimates the urgency.
Furthermore, the call for action by 2050 is so distant that the government feels under no pressure.
Switching off
Growing scientific evidence of accelerating greenhouse gas emissions, melting icecaps and the shrinking capacity of "sinks" to absorb emissions means we need bold, urgent action by government to drive down emissions to zero.
Britain's only Christian campaign dedicated exclusively to climate change, Operation Noah, pressures government to take much more radical action - to cut emissions by 90% by 2030, not 2050.
We may not have got it right, but we are trying to pressure government to act urgently, and to mobilise society in the way that Jubilee 2000 mobilised millions of people to cancel third world debt.
In other words, we are pressing for governmental action by a deadline.
To succeed, climate change campaigns first need first to unite - at both national and international levels.
Secondly, they must unite behind a radical goal that requires structural change, regulation and enforcement that will urgently drive down emissions and sequester carbon dioxide.
Thirdly, they need to exercise leadership by mobilising society in a concerted way behind this goal. This will intensify pressure on politicians and governments.
It ain't easy, but it has been done before; witness the Jubilee 2000 global campaign.
As things stand, the movement remains disparate, atomised and marginalised.
This frees politicians to expand airports and increase road capacity.
Parliaments fiddle while the planet burns, and individuals are pressured to take responsibility for global climate change by "switching off at the wall".
And so, inevitably, the Titanic's deck chairs are rearranged - and energy use goes up, rather than down, on Energy Saving Day. "
Ann Pettifor is executive director of Advocacy International and campaigns adviser to Operation Noah
The Green Room is a series of opinion articles on environmental topics running weekly on the BBC News website
Do you agree with Ann Pettifor? Do environmental groups focus too much on individual actions, forgetting the political picture? Do governments encourage this as a way of deflecting attention? Can individual or community actions achieve the kind of society-wide emissions cuts that scientists believe are necessary?
when it started the green agenda made a lot of sense. Unfortunatly its now been turned into a bandwagon to increase taxation with little of no return
ray, Southampton
I agree that more of the burden for action should go to local and federal governments. Mainly, this is because of the 'freeriders' or those that just don't care about environmental concerns hindering efforts by those individuals or communities that want to make a difference. Major change such as effectively combating accelerated global warming will definitely require stricter government regulations. I am happy to see this article published and I hope this can help further shape the tireless efforts of all the greens.
Sarah Haas, Washington DC
Ann Pettifor is right. But there already IS a global citizens campaign of exactly the kind she is calling for. It's called the Simultaneous Policy (Simpol for short) http://www.simpol.org. By adopting the Simpol, citizens around the world give strong voting preference to politicians that have pledged to implement Simpol alongside other governments. In that way, candidates and MPs who fail to sign the pledge risk losing to those who do. So far, 27 UK MPs from all the main parties have signed the Simpol Pledge as have some others in other parliaments around the world. A small start, perhaps, but it was achieved from a standing start. Noam Chomsky said of SP, "It's ambitious and provocative. Can it work? Certainly worth a serious try." So if we want to solve climate change, there IS an answer. But it'll only happen if citizens get with the Simpol plan. Check it out. kind regards John Bunzl
John Bunzl, London UK
Wind farms rock!. Bryan Norris, Rainworth Except when the wind is'nt blowing..... Only solution worth applying is to move our power generartion system over to 80% nuclear 20% wind powered pumped storage hydro schemes. That would reduce our CO2 output by 30% without any loss in lifestyle for the population. But then the greens would protest again the nuclear, some greens would protest at the dams, and some greens would protest at the wind generators. Remember the question "Whats worse: 25 000 dead from 1 nuclear accident every 50 yrs or 500 million dead from global warming?"
Boris, Portsmouth
Improving public transport would go a long way to reducing car usage. Unfortunately as those of us who live outside London know, long convoluted journeys which don't start or end where you need to travel are the norm. I live just a 10 minute drive away from my work, yet taking the bus increases my journey time to an hour outside of rush hour (and forget working late - the buses stop early evening), and there are no safe routes to cycle.
Louise Nicholas, Loughborough, UK
maybe if those movements or association started top act like they are holier-than-thou or like bio terrorist, people will take them seriously. i still personaly side with the scientist who are not believing that the planet is doomed. all this politics of fear must end. a planet goes through lots of change in temperature etc etc, only 50000 years ago we were in a ice age and it warmed up, im guessing the homosapien must have been asking themselves if their polluting. if these cause is to be respected, the movement must learn how to present it, not force it on people and be diplomatic about it and explain themselves clearly. as long as all scientist agree, i dont see why i should believe this doom and gloom vision of the futur from a group of people, in which most dont even comprehend what or why they are there but doign just because it is cool!
thierry, winnipeg, canada
Big business will only let the government introduce "green" policies if they don't affect profits. That means we get left with things like increasing fuel duty to reduce emissions. I've yet to see how the level of fuel duty affects the distance between my home and job. Governments and business are more than happy to charge/tax you until you stop doing something, but they are never willing to shell out the money to pay for an alternative. This leads to resentment from the poor (who are already using the least resouces) while the rich can afford to carry on as usual.
Steve, Peterborough, UK
This article starts by claiming that scientists agree that climate change is a fact and that the human race is largely responsible.....this of course is not true and is a million miles from the truth. It does perhaps prove one thing....if you say something often and loudly, coupled with the capacity to tax and control your people, they will start to beleive you....poor misguided souls....
john westwood, godalming england
I'm fed up with the "lets blame government mentality, or we need government to do everything". It's not government policy to buy TV's, ipods and drive a car, or take out loans we can't pay back. We decide to do that. We buy our chicken skinned and cubed, utilise top medical practises, go abroad on holiday, and eat soy produced from fields that used to be rain forest. AND THAT ACTUALLY TAKES ENERGY & RAW MATERIALS!!! The largest companies are that because we all give them our money, and its human nature to want what the other chap has. Simple as that. India, China, & South America watched (Europe & N. America)as we deforested our lands to fuel our industry, and now we tell them they can't? We forget our want of cheap goods, and "higher standards of living". That all required companies to go to developing countries using coal and cheap labour. We did that in the shop, not "faceless government" in parliament! We are the ones responsible and if government policy is what it takes, it should be we who dictate that. Otherwise nothing will change. Thank you.
Rob, Somewhere / A land not so far Away
Sometimes people resent hearing bad news. But don't shoot the messenger.
Mark Downing, Cornwall
Only last week prominent climate change scientists admitted they had 'got it wrong', and that although their computer models had predicted rising temperatures for the next ten years, they admitted that we will not see rising temperatures for at least the next ten years. Therefore it is a fallacy to claim that scientists "finally agree". The BBC has a publicly stated agenda on climate change and as a public service broadcaster I believe it is your duty to show both sides of the argument, which you are not doing presently. There is a huge body of research and scientific opinion that does not believe in climate change, but you would never believe that by only being exposed to BBC output.
Chris Bowie, Glasgow
This is only one side of the argument. There is plenty of evidence contary to the man made climate change one. Does this not get a look in. Man made climate change has become a cult as much as anything else. In actual fact temperatures have't risen in the past ten years, and anyway, would you trust a thermometer made 100 years ago, therefore a lot of the data we base the climate change model is out by a significant quantity. The article refered to 4x4s, I see it did not refer to the fact that human beings contribute only 3% to worldwide CO2 production, volcanoes produce 10 times this. Wake up and smell the coffee people, there is no such thing as man made climate change. Its sensationalist nonsense at best.
Stephen Taylor, Glasgow
People are basically selfish and would love it if something was done but not if it affects their tax bill or right to drive a gas guzzling car or to take a cheap foreign holiday. While the opposition calls for action but then seeks to get a cheap political advantage when any action is taken we will never get anywhere.
bill edmunds, basingstoke UK
Whatever you do, some campaigner will pop up and tell you that "it's not enough". Use energy saving light bulbs: "it's not enough". Change your driving habits to reduce CO2 emissions: "it's not enough". And so on. Governments pass laws, start initiatives: "it's not enough". I think you get the picture I start to wonder if it's really worth the effort. Maybe if we got rid of the campaigners, we'll get more done as all they seem to be doing is creating resentment and apathy.
paul Dunning, Chelmsford, UK
Governments need to grab one or two political hot potatos such as human population and the power of corporations before real change can take place
steve johnson., whitwick leics. England
I must have admit I have come to resent the Greens constant exhortations for me to mind my lifestyle over the years. I used to be a supporter. They seem to have replaced the religious groups in our society with their constant interfering in people's lives and their cries "repent repent or we are all doomed". There seems to be a psychological type previously drawn to religion who are now green activists.
Margaret Lyons, Edinburgh
until District local government(responsible for vast majority of planning applications especially the key to renewable energy here in uk realises the mess we heading into,Wind farms will not be approved in time,with an average 'wait' in planning of over 4 years compared to other applications 4 months average. Wind farms rock!.
Bryan Norris, Rainworth
Send us your comments using the form below:
(BBC)
<< Back