The Independent gave a glancing mention of my performance of Fuck You Liberal Democrats at Glastonbury. They got it wrong, I didn't call the LibDems 'fucking shit', nor even as they actually spelled it '****ing s***'. (Can we really not say the words in full? Even though Google says there are 3,110 instances of 'fucking' and 6,580 instances of 'shit' on the Independent's website?). Don't believe what you read in the press, then.
I did call them 'freemarket whores' and direct two fuck yous at them, mind.
But anyway, the other mainstream lefty press thing. I got a whole post on the Guardian's environment blog.
They've just had a weekend of 'hearings' from 20 people with ideas for climate solutions. A panel then chose their ten favourites, and there's a big chunk on the Guardian's site, including a little article and short video presentation on each idea.
Some of them are technological and plausible, such as concentrated solar power (this week saw a big jump forward for that).
There is also Professor Stephen Salter's outrageously dangerous and wacky idea of squirting seawater into the air to create clouds and thereby reflect more sunlight. I've written about that before. Even the Guardian gets defensive mentioning it.
anyone tempted to dismiss his plan as the product of a crank who has spent too much time in the shed would do well to note that Salter was the man behind the Edinburgh Duck, a pioneering 1970s design for harnessing wave energy.
Which is akin to saying that because Isaac Newton's work on physics still towers over the field today, we should also give credence to his extensive writings on demonology. Or that, given the revolutionary impact of the Sinclair ZX81, the C5 is a riproarer. You can't make chicken soup out of chicken shit.
One of the other ideas on the Guardian site is 'carbon conversations', essentially just talking to people one on one and getting round the psychological barriers that prevent people from changing their lifestyles. The pilot schemes have been very effective, making people halve their emissions.
When we talk of jobs in the New Green Deal we tend to think of strapping folks erecting offshore wind turbines, but it could be something as simple and cheap as an army of carbon conversation counsellors, halving personal emissions in a very short space of time for minimal outlay.
Anyway, I wrote a follow-on piece. I'd love to have ripped into Salter's ideas, but there was a butcherly word limit. It's about how technofixation cannot solve the crisis and the underlying cause of climate change, economic growth, is the real issue.
It's on the Guardian's environment blog under the snappy title Swapping Technologies Fails to Address the Root Causes of Climate Change
3 comments:
I saw the performance you did before Nick Clegg came on and thought I should ask a few questions.
Firstly, you listed a number of environmentally unfriendly things that local Liberal Democrat councils and councillors have done. The one I remember the most is the example of trees being chopped down.
I wanted to ask you whether you believed the Liberal Democrats should have a centralised approach to these kind of issues or whether the power should be devolved to the elected local representatives?
The second question (and this is an extrapolation of the first) comes from something Justin Rowlett said in discussion with Leo Murray. They discussed the merits of a command economy in dealing with climate change. I was wondering whether you think that this centralised approach should be adopted in Britain?
The third question regards the (to me) overly aggressive attitude you took whilst you were talking about the Liberal Democrats. I was wondering how you thought it would come across to the general population of the UK? I compare this to the amiable way that Nick Clegg spoke after you.
The third question is to ask whether you really believe skin cancer is better than the chemicals in sun tan lotion? This is in reference to a poem you read out before Nick Clegg was hovering in the background.
Hi Tektlab,
The one I remember the most is the example of trees being chopped down.
There are many others, such as support for the Newbury Bypass and support for GM crops. I'll post the poem here as soon as I've got the video to go up with it. I'm expecting that to be somewhere late next week.
whether you believed the Liberal Democrats should have a centralised approach to these kind of issues or whether the power should be devolved to the elected local representatives?
For GM I think they should have a unified policy, for things like the Kingston poplars trees or the Leeds tarmacing of parks it should be local, but that's not really the point. The reason those things were raised was to illustrate the contrast between what the LibDems say about the environment in opposition and what they do when in power.
They discussed the merits of a command economy in dealing with climate change. I was wondering whether you think that this centralised approach should be adopted in Britain?
The question is too broad to be answered simply. But yes, climate change cannot be tackled without a lot of severe regulation.
It goes against my anarchistic instinct to have such a top-down approach in the same way that it conflicts with my 'small is beautiful' environmental feelings to admit that large-scale offshore wind farms are far better than rooftop turbines.
I think carbon rationing is so important as to be borderline essential. The government's planned carbon cuts - even if they're adopted and implemented globally - give us a 50/50 chance of staying under the 2-degree threshold. We need something stronger, and it needs to be swift and definite.
I cannot see how that's done by appeals to people's better nature. Imagine how WW2 rationing would've worked if it were voluntary.
the (to me) overly aggressive attitude you took whilst you were talking about the Liberal Democrats.
I knew Clegg would be touting his green credentials. Having seen LibDems be anti-environmental over and over again when in power, having seen their revisionist approach to their stance on the Iraq war, and regarding their freemarket pro-growth stance as at best neo-colonialist at worst one step shy of genocidal, I thought it would be good to undermine his greenwash bullshit as bluntly as possible.
I was wondering how you thought it would come across to the general population of the UK?
I have no idea, and neither have you.
But I do know that, irrespective of someone's political perspective, they respect an honest approach. My tory brother really likes George Galloway not for his politics but for the refreshing way he speaks his mind.
I compare this to the amiable way that Nick Clegg spoke after you.
Professional platitudinous politician promising everything to everyone. Reminded me of Blair in 96.
The third question is to ask whether you really believe skin cancer is better than the chemicals in sun tan lotion?
No, I don't think that. Which is why I didn't say it.
I do, having consulted medical professionals, think the best prevention of skin cancer is a healthy tan. Not landing pasty in Benidorm and lobstering on the beach, but the gentle accruing of exposure.
Cheers Merrick,
A few more questions though:
Nick Clegg discussed some of the greener credentials he gathered throughout his academic career. Do you think he can steer the lib dems away from future Newbury Bypass style scenarios?
Did the Leeds councillors say that they were against the tarmacing of the park before being elected?
What do you think of Oliver Tickell's version of carbon rationing using upstream economics?
I agree with you about having to do something quickly to stay within the 2 degree tipping point. With WW2, people were able to perceive the risk of invasion by the Nazis. With Climate Change there are still a lot of people that just don't get it, my older brother included.
Interesting point about Galloway, but would your brother vote for him?
I can't say what the general public would say about your poem, but I know that even with a Glastonbury audience (which I am assuming is left leaning) you got a large amount of boos.
Professional and platitudinous maybe, but he got a very, very warm reaction at the end.
Are we going to be able to convince everybody of the risks of climate change and the need to urgently tackle such a large issue if we piss people off?
Post a Comment