Monday, January 25, 2010
Are environmentalists bad for the planet?
Just caught the end of quite an interesting Analysis on Radio 4, in which Newsnight's 'Ethical Man' asked whether environmentalists were bad for the planet ? His point being that the green movement's hard line approach makes other people hostile and resistant to environmental issues. It's a debate worth having, I think. Personally, I like the sound of most of what they have to say, but agree that most of the population are so offended by the implications of a lot of it that it makes them resent and reject the whole issue, often angrily. Think I'll Listen Again and get the beginning.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I can see that certain very hard line eco-warrior types can alienate people, and I've also read that being pious and accusatory doesn't tend to change people's behaviours. However, to claim that the environmental movement as a whole is holding back progress on the issue is I think grossly untrue and only serves the interests of those resisting change. Of course, it would be nice to think that without environmentalists that governments, businesses and consumers would deal with climate change themselves, but I don't think it's remotely credible. The truth is that every civil right, social justice or environmental protection that we do enjoy today wasn't given to the people, but was fought for and (often grudgingly) conceded as a result of campaigning, activism, civil disobedience, economic boycotting and (more often than is generally admitted) violence.
I guess that's largely true, but I still think there's an issue about how best to win people round, particularly in these marketing-led, consumer-lifestyle-dictated times. Plus, as someone considering trying to get into this area to work, I don't really want to spend my life as some kind of shrill nag that makes people defensive and hostile. You've got to start from a position of absolute conviction and certainty to do that.
Still, at least, er, Osama Bin Laden believes in it. Or does that lend credence to the conspiracy theory arguments...?
Melanie Phillips has cited this programme in the Spectator in support of her own barmy views, so I am now rabidly against it and anything it suggested!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/03/bbc-climate-change-denier
I really agree with this article - BBC's coverage of climate change has been awful. It's as if they're so sensitive to being accused of liberal that they've gone out of their way to provide a platform for sceptics' views. But as lots of people have pointed out, climate change is a scientific matter and the scientfic coverage (as opposed to the political, which I admit is different) should therefore reflect the views of scientists rather than politicians, commentators and various nutters and vested interests. There are plenty of people who don't believe in evolution, but they aren't given any science coverage, because none of them are scientists. I just can't understand why climate change is treated so differently.
Post a Comment