Original analysis - Climate change: Barack Obama less interested than Bush, analysis reveals

Here is my original analysis which appeared in a piece by Suzanne Goldenberg in the Guardian on 26/01/2011...

President Obama is continuing to abandon the environment as an issue for his administration, according to this analysis. Like the Queens speech in the UK, the State of the Union Address is an opportunity for the President to outline the ambitions of his administration for the following year. It would seem that for President Obama, the environment is not one. On the same day that Carol Browner left the EPA, President Obama’s latest State of the Union address did not mention “climate change”, “global warming” or the “environment” a single time. While he did make some reference to moving towards a clean energy economy, this is a long way away from asserting the strong environmental agenda that he promised in his election campaign. 

A content analysis of the previous three Presidents’ State of the Union Addresses shows that President Obama has the lowest average score of mentioning the environment as an issue on the most public of Presidential platforms. The results reaffirm President Clinton’s status as the greenest President of the contemporary era, but surprisingly put Obama below even George W. Bush. President Obama has an average score of only 1 mention per State of the Union (p/SoU), while President G.W. Bush scores closer to 2 p/SoU, and President Clinton a massive 6 p/SoU (see fig. 1).

Figure 1: average scores, by President

Perhaps more worryingly for environmentalists, President Obama is now showing a downwards trajectory, suggesting that the environment is becoming a less salient issue for his administration as he comes towards the end of his first term, rather than becoming more important towards the end of the previous two President's two terms (see fig. 2).

Figure 2: aggregate mentions of 'climate change', 'global warming' and the 'environment' in the State of the Union address over time*

The next few months will be significant, as President Obama seeks to replace Carol Browner, and continues to negotiate with an unfriendly and partisan Congress. This evidence suggests that, for now at least, President Obama is giving up on the environment as an issue for his administration.

* The best fit lines have been removed from figure 2 after a number of comments suggesting (rightly, in hindsight) that the correlation is not strong enough to justify them.

Congressional climate change bullies: The new Republican majority are picking on an easy target

Barely had the derrieres of the members of the 112^th Congress touched down on its prestigious benches before climate change felt the force of the latest brute in town. It was as if a prize fighter was warming up for a title shot by picking on Girl Scouts. The Tea Party juggernaut took little time to begin punching its way into the littler issues on the Congressional agenda, and climate change looks set to be one of the very first casualties.

The Republicans are putting forward three proposals that would seriously dent the significant if little-praised progress that President Obama and his once-friendly Congress had made beginning to address climate change. 

The first proposal would declare greenhouse gas regulation outside the remit of the Clean Air Act; America’s principal bastion against air pollution. This would prevent the executive agency responsible for America’s environmental wellbeing, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), from doing anything about the ever-increasing national greenhouse gas emissions rate. The proposal was put forward by a Republican representative from Tennessee, Marsha Blackburn, in spite of a Supreme Court ruling in 2007 which decreed that in fact, constitutionally, the EPA can have such power. 

The second proposal uses an economic stick to beat environmentalists. Proposed by Republican Ted Poe of Texas, it would block funding to any government agency associated with cap-and-trade. Given the relative ineffectiveness of cap-and-trade mechanisms for mitigating emissions thus far in the US, this would not necessarily be such a disaster. However, given cap-and-trade’s relatively popular status among politicians in comparison with other mechanisms, it would chronically blunt the policy-tool that was most likely to bring consensus. 

Finally, the third proposal would see a two-year delay in EPA regulation of carbon dioxide and methane emissions. Introduced by Republican Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, it would seem extreme in isolation but in this context appears as the proverbial towel to throw into the ring before climate change is completely done-for.

The project of dismantling climate change regulation piece by piece sits particularly well with the new Tea Party incumbents since it fits with both their populist views on small government and deregulation, and more broadly with their committed suspicion of what they see as ‘liberal’ science flying in the face of their ‘traditional’ moral principles. It looks like the Southern slugger is set to give the lean strategist with nimble feat from the North-East a right old bruising. In particular, there are four reasons why - one way or another - the Republicans should win this particular fight:

Firstly, the effects of climate change are long-term, which to a short-termist movement like the Tea Party is a dream come true. It essentially means that whatever they do now won’t be properly felt by the current crop of voters. Or the next.  Or the next. Or even the next. By which time they’ll either have taken America into the Promised Land of small government and traditional values with them, or collapsed in upon themselves with nothing remaining other than the sound of their empty rhetoric floating gently in the wind. The temptation of such an immediate political victory is no doubt too strong to resist for a movement that the world didn’t realise was a proper movement until November and now has its own Congressional caucus with an astonishing 52 members. 

Add to this the fact that Republicans are generally ambivalent towards climate change as an issue (at best), and that plenty of Democrats are openly anti-climate change and there emerges a second reason that this fight won’t be strenuous for those 52; they have a pre-made bi-partisan smokescreen already in place. At a time where the Democrats are talking up bi-partisanship like it was a constitutional requirement, the Republicans can throw them a hollow bone by pointing to those names with a ‘D’ suffix in the ‘nay’ column of the most recent climate change failures in Congress. Unless those Blue Dog democrats speak out, the Tea Party will have their bi-partisan agreement. They won’t, of course. Not when it means surrendering the economic well being of their constituencies premised principally on mining coal.

The Republicans are safe from another political pitfall too; the allegation of being the ‘party of no’. This is simply because the proposals are well enough constructed that they don’t explicitly rule out the existence of climate change or deny Congress’ responsibility to deal with it. They simply say that now is not the right time to for government to be intervening on this issue. It’s not a case of ‘no, never’; more a case of ‘maybe later’. This is what is explicitly stated, anyhow, even if the implications of this position are considerably more intractable. 

Given these three defences, the fight in the House should be all but won. However, in the event of the Democrats showing the grit and determination that Senator Barbara Boxer insists her colleagues in that particular Democrat-controlled chamber will, it is at best uncertain as to how many of them will actually show for battle. Ultimately, climate change is an issue which is easily judged not to be salient enough to risk getting one’s political lights knocked out over. If such calculations are made, it will leave Babs against the Caucus. And 52 on 1 seems likely to be fight that even this great Boxer can’t win.

For Obama, the midterms were a shellacking, but not a bloodbath...

Originally published on The Collective Review on 04/11/2010:

As the dust settles on the US Congressional mid-term elections, President Obama appears through the haze. He’s bruised, but still standing. The Republicans did most of what they promised to do; they wrestled control of the House from a Democratic party they saw as profligate and misguided, and damaged the reputation of a President that they have long since accused of being all style with little substance, but in the Senate they fell just short. Come November 15th, the man sitting at the helm of that chamber remains a Democrat, and he will cast he eye across the floor and see marginally more blue ties than he will red.

In the end, the House race wasn’t even close. If this was baseball, they would have enacted the mercy-rule. As many as 70 Democratic politicos have now been released back into the wilderness, many having been mauled by their hungry Republican counterparts. The new Speaker of the House, John Boehner, called this a victory for America and is promising to “restore trust” in Washington. It remains to be seen if either of these sentiments will hold true.

The Senate race, by contrast, brings the only positive headlines for a Democratic party that must now at least show itself to be humbled. They lost 7 seats, retaining a slim majority of 6. With 2 seats still undecided, this margin could become even slighter. Nonetheless, key party figures were returned such as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who managed to win a contest that he described as ‘not close’ – though many others would disagree – and Senator Barbara Boxer of California, winning her eleventh straight election victory. This will provide some stability to a party that is currently rocking without the help of any Presidential ballast.

First and foremost, this election was a vote against President Obama. His voter-approval ratings have plummeted since he rocketed into office in 2008 fuelled with hope and promise, and this result was simply a confirmation of that feeling. It would be easy to put all the blame on Obama’s election strategy of high rhetoric and vague promises, but this would be to ignore recent history. It has become something of a tradition to give presidents a bit of a kicking come mid-terms. Not so much out of malice, or even genuine disdain, but as a means to keep them on their toes, batting for the team rather than their party.
For sure, there is disagreement with some of his policies. The health care bill – smartly dubbed ‘Obamacare’ by his opposition – was mis-pitched. Had the President and his Democratic Congressional counterparts chosen to stress the economic necessity of stealing back health care from the profit-driven insurance industries in order to return it to the increasingly desperate Americans who need to keep cash in their pockets now more than ever, then it may have found more success. But this is just one of many examples where Obama’s gift as a communicator deserted him.

Instead of framing the health issue as one of economic need, he and his party tried to use it to keep the momentum of 2008 going – painting Obama as the harbinger of real change – in spite of the fact that by the time it was bungled through the Senate it was already too late. He would have done well to listen to the campaign-mantra of the last Democratic President to get a mauling in the mid-terms, President Clinton: ‘it’s the economy, stupid’. Especially during a recession, stupid.

Perhaps more worrying for Obama, though, is that this was not just a vote against him by conservatives scared of what they see as the imminent nationalisation of America’s public services, but by a number of those constituents who voted him into office in 2008. One of his great advantages was that the young and vibrant loved him back then, and this in turn made Obama look young, vibrant and full of promise. But as enthusiastic as the young and vibrant are, they are also impatient. Perhaps it was unrealistic to expect major change within two years, perhaps candidate Obama really did mean “change you can believe in… but not overnight” (as he tried and failed to point out on The Daily Show last week), but it is pure folly to promise the young something great and not deliver on time. They will move on, and are doing so. Obama, though, must work hard to ensure that this is but a phase of adolescent pique, rather than a permanent phase-shift away from himself and his party.

Most of all, this election highlights the difference between campaigning and governing. Obama is a maestro at the former, but is currently floundering with the latter. This same problem will challenge none more than the newly empowered Republican establishment. They have, in their midst, a grassroots movement to make Obama’s look like it’s been sprayed with weed-killer. The Tea Party train rolls on, all the way into Union Station, with figureheads such as Rand Paul riding out front to ‘take the government’ back for the disaffected. What they may find when they arrive, though, is an institution so stuck in its ways that it would take the entire AmTrak fleet to make it budge. Congress is the home of deliberation and compromise, and promising to change it radically with tactics that are anything but compromising is a non-starter. Many and better have tried previously and fared poorly.

That will suit the Democrats and President Obama just fine. If the Republicans try to force change by blocking every initiative the President puts forward, they will quickly be branded the party of ‘no’. If they sit down and compromise, the divisions within their own party will make the disagreements across the parties seem trivial. Furthermore, they will struggle to find a Presidential candidate who can capture both the centrist swing-voters and hang-on to the Tea Party activists. They will need to select well, which automatically rules out Sarah Palin, because if there’s one thing we know Obama is very good at, it’s Presidential campaigns.
This election was, as President Obama rightly points out, a right “shellacking” for him and his party. But it wasn’t the bloodbath it could have been. He must and will do better. The first and possibly only item on his agenda from now until 2012 has to be the economy. He has started well by offering an olive branch to the newly victorious Republicans. This has put the ball in their court. Either they start to play and the economy grows to everyones benefit, or they bicker and stall allowing Obama to prey on them in 2012 just as they gorged on his Democratic colleagues yesterday.

Either will do for a President who is down, but whom it would be foolish to count out.

The plug is not the end, it's just the beginning...

Originally published on The Collective Review on 17/09/2010:

On the 20th April, the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico killing 11 people. Early estimates of the extent of the spill were appealingly optimistic; starting at ‘no oil leak at all’ before sharply increasing to a manageable 1000 barrels a day. Before long, though, the real extent of the disaster became apparent. No longer was it 1000 barrels of oil but anything in the region of 35,000 to 60,000 barrels seeping its way into the fragile ecosystem every 24 hours. Numbers such as this barely do justice to an event that President Obama himself described as ‘the greatest environmental disaster of its kind’ in American history. Now, almost six months on from the explosion, the leak is reportedly hours from being plugged. It seems that even with BPs greatest minds working around the clock on all manner of imaginative solutions and a full-time governmental Nanny, General Thad Allen, leading from the front, little could be done to stop an estimated 5m barrels of crude oil funnelling forth into the vulnerable Gulf. Despite appearances, the plug is not the end, though; it is merely a punctuation mark in a continuing story of struggle between Americans and the environment they inhabit.

In the short-term, there are the local communities that depend on their livelihoods to consider. Residents of this part of the world are now battle-hardened, having had to endure it all after Hurricane Katrina tore through the region in 2005. That, though, was a faceless natural phenomenon, as much unfortunate as it was unexpected. This time, it’s different. The former-CEO of BP was a Brit who paid for his company’s carelessness, as well as his own astounding lack of tact, with his job. The new American incumbent, Bob Dudley, would do well to learn from his predecessors mistakes and treat the residents of this most unfortunate piece of America with the same amount of care and respect that Tony Hayward markedly did not. Needless to mention that BP should, and surely must, bear the brunt of the considerable investment needed to get the local economy running again.

No less urgent but considerably farther reaching than the economic redevelopment of Louisiana is the far greater issue of America’s national energy policy. In the medium term, the spill represents a genuine opportunity for political change. President Obama used every opportunity he could to voice his continued desire to cure America of its oil-addiction while being careful not to further upset the BP employees who rely on that very same resource for their income and, as Bob Dudley rightly pointed out, are woven into the fabric of the Gulf community. Before President Obama can address that particular elephant in the room though, he must deal with another great political elephant; the Congressional Republicans. With Tea Party climate sceptics fighting themselves into winning positions in the Republican Congressional primaries, and the Democrats bracing themselves for an unfavourable mid-term appraisal at the hands of the electorate, the President must try to use the memory of this catastrophe for good and persuade his Congressional party that clean energy is not only the right strategy, but a winning one.

Regardless of the outcome of that particular conflict, though, the way in which this disaster must live in the memory in the long-term is as a story of nature biting back. Environmentalists have a unique opportunity, served up by the fantastic unpredictability of nature, to drill home a much deeper message; we are residents of this planet, not its proprietors. We hold this planet on a lease, and nature has the right and ability to revoke that at its will – just as it did on that tragic April day. As businesses are rebuilt, and energy policies are debated, what must remain in the mind at all times is that for all the products we mine from the earth, we ourselves remain a product of it. Ultimately, that should be the legacy of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill; albeit plugged.

The Ash Cloud: A Victory for Computer Modelling - Now why can't we apply the same logic to climate change?

The ash cloud from the Eyjafjallajokull volcano has caused havoc, millions of dollars in corporate losses, and untold hilarity at its mispronunciation (it's pronounced AY-yah-fyah-lah-YOH-kuul according to the Icelandic embassy in Washington, apparently - http://phreakaholic.com/news/iceland-volcanos-name-eyjafjallajokull-pronunciation/). All this, based on a computer model that has an informed but nonetheless imperfect idea of its whereabouts and density, combined with widely varying estimates as to the damage it will do to the aircraft that would probably/possibly/almost certainly encounter it. Fortunately I wasn't planning on flying anywhere, which means I am something of a bemused spectator to the media ruckus that occurs every time the cloud 'moves' (I don't like 'move' as an adjective for clouds, it makes them sound too athletic; clouds 'drift' or 'saunter' or 'meander' in a manner that is vaguely whimsical and for the pleasure of those with time to cast an eye to the sky on a warm summer evening with a glass of cider in one hand and rapidly melting strawberry-split in the other, surely). What does interest me though, is that the authorities have taken what appears to be relatively immediate and drastic action on the basis of modeling estimates that tell them they probably should - estimates that are precisely the same in nature as our best sophisticated forecasts on climate change. Yet on the latter issue, they continue to do nothing.

Why, in actuality, are governments and associated federations willing to penalise and annoy British Airways and Ryanair but not BP and ExxonMobil (ignoring the fact Ryanair is run by a obnoxious self-publicising man from the British Isles who has a penchant for unsubtle and ill-advised comments in the face of major crises, oh wait...)? BAA claims that the restrictions on flights cost it £28bn, the city of London supposedly saw £100m lost from reduced tourism, and even little East Midlands Airport claims the cloud cost it £1m in revenue (BBC News). These are not insignificant amounts, and represent a good hack off the profit margins of those who rely on flights and tourism for their businesses. Yet, while making decisions on climate change - a problem that will cost considerably more to confront than the ash cloud and increases significantly the longer we wait - those with the power insist on delay in the face of corporate opposition. Loathe am I to describe the until-recently-unheard-of Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) as 'brave'; but it seems that this is precisely what they were. In the face of a natural challenge with immediate consequences and very apparent costs, they chose action in the name of safety rather than inaction in the face of market opposition. Yes, Mr Bureaucrat in your grey suit and unnatural interest in air pressure, yes you; take a bow.

The ash cloud example shows us something more, though, than just how officials can act on the best information available to them if they so choose. It shows us how the public will respond when - grounded, stranded, and grumpy - they are presented with no other option. Yes, they will whinge, moan, question the decision and blame everyone 'foreign' (to the point where poor old Iceland were forced to put what can only be described as a year-7 papier-mache art project model of a volcano filled to the brim with baking powder in front of them while performing on Eurovision in the hope of garnering some empathy/sanity when the votes came in). But, ultimately, they will relent; they will understand and intelligently question, rather than belligerently disobey. After all, when there is no other option, what can Little Sammy stuck abroad really do other than accept that his fate is in the hands of nature, and that by being born on this planet he implicitly agreed to abide by Mother Nature's occasional whimsy.

The worst is over; the decision was made, the immediate effects were felt, and the fallout has all but passed. People have now accepted that if they want to fly abroad then they have to account for the small risk of an angry Scandinavian mount spewing its guts. Corporations have started to go quiet realising that no-one unnecessarily dieing is probably more valuable to their long-term financial security than their immediate quarterly losses. And the CAA - bless them - have dismounted thier shiny white horses, taken off the chainmail, and returned to grey-suited drudgery; happy that tomorrow will involve spreadsheets rather than press releases. I can't help but feel that if the equivalent officials showed the same faith in the science of climate change as the CAA did in the met-office - and, frankly, had some kahunas - then we would be much closer to radical and effective action on the greatest problem of a generation, any generation, than we currently are.

Copenhagen Contradictions

For those who take any interest in green politics, politics of the environment, climate change, or international relations at all can't have missed the palava that was the UNFCCC's COP15 in Copenhagen in December. It was two weeks of unbridled politicking, bitching, policy-making, policy-wrecking, and all round political giggles that as far as most can see had rather little to do with mitigating disastrous climate change and quite a lot to do with (poorly played) power games. What emerged at the end was the 'meaningful' (not 'historic', nor 'effective', not even 'quite good') Copenhagen Accord. While this has been received as it should have been (that is, laughably) in most quarters, the Accord is not really what is interesting about the event.

What I find most interesting is the plethora of reaction, response, recommendation, reflection, and soothsaying that occurred post-fiasco. The number of quoted 'successes' and 'failures' of the Conference is truly astounding. And, what's more, often the 'successes' are recorded as 'failures' (and vice-versa) simply depending on which publication you happen to read. I have had the privilege (no, Mat, it really is a privilege, come on now, don't be defeatist, you have a lot to be thankful for, such as the ability to type, even if you're hands are freezing because they won't fix the heating in your tiny, neglected, empty, grey, lonesome office)... sorry... I have had the privilege of looking through about 180 mainstream broadsheet news articles published since the end of the Conference and it is amazing at the sheer lack of agreement on such a large number of issues post-event. Ignoring the major question of whether the Conference as a whole was a 'success' or 'failure' (it's probably becoming increasingly obvious which side of that I fall on), there is extremely little agreement on even whether the smaller happenings in the Conference represent a good or bad thing. So, to that end, below is a list of my favourite post-Copenhagen media contradictions:

1. Getting States talking about Climate Change

Success: The UNFCCC got 193 States in all one place talking about Climate Change, yes!
Now, this is in fact an impressive feat. To get the representatives of all the 193 UN accredited nations into the Conference centre in Copenhagen, largely at the same time, largely together, talking about Climate Change represents a massive increase in the official interest in the issue since the Kyoto talks of 1997 where there were more like 90 delegations.

Failure: The UNFCCC got 193 States all one place only talking about Climate Change, bummer.
Of course, given the impressive nature of getting all the delegations to the Conference to discuss the issue (and putting aside the fact that most of the less important little delegations got left outside, in the snow, in Denmark) what would have been great if there was actually some action following all the talk. Unfortunately, what occurred was much like a Monty Python sketch except that instead of trying to one-up each other on how little they had, the smaller countries competed on how badly hit they would be by climate change and how they couldn't possibly do anything about it themselves while the developing countries stood around arguing the finer philosophical points of regulation. By this I mean America asks China to let people check they were actually doing what they said they might say they might do in terms of emissions reductions, to which a junior Chinese aide replied 'if a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?', to which America went 'huh? Yes. No. Maybe. Look, are you gonna let us police it or not?!' The end result being that all parties came away declaring boldly that climate change was a 'bad thing' for much the same reasons they (and everyone else) thought it was before.

2. The Accord

Success: They did actually agree, an Accord was written, and something 'meaningful' happened
They all sat down, made signs at each other that suggested they each thought that climate change was 'bad', Ed Miliband made the V-sign in response to the whole process and someone took this as a signal that there was unified agreement to try to reach a 2 degree cut in emissions to avoid the worst effects of climate change while still slowly killing the planet ('two, Ed, is that two degrees you're trying to suggest, Sir?'). A 'meaningful' moment it was.

Failure: They all sat down, and agreed... to do nothing, really
It is well publicised, well known, and well repeated that the UNFCCC's science bods themselves admit the Accord goes nowhere near the reductions needed - in word, spirit, or policy. It's not even a proper UN declaration; for that you need unanimity. As such what we're left with is the UN 'noting' something that they had already 'noted' before (in the form of an actual treaty at Kyoto, shoddy as it may have been) thanks to a few small, holdout states.

3. Having the US on board, discussing climate change properly

Success: The US were there, with a delegation, seeking to actually do something about climate change
It is hard to refute that seeing the massive, over-the-top, heavily 'secured' delegation that the US took with them to Copenhagen is an improvement. The big man himself showed up and everything. They are willing to talk, and isn't that the start of any rehabilitation process; admitting you've got a problem (even if it's bleeding obvious to eeeeeeeeeeeeeeveryone else) is the first step, right?

Failure: The US were there, with a delegation, seeking to do something, but going about it in an oh-so-American way
Sure they were there, but did that actually help? Obama insulted China, so China insulted Obama, so Obama insulted China some more then smiled and moved on, so the Chinese frowned and sulked and will hold a grudge (God only knows how long for). Likewise, Todd Stern (Obama's Climate Change Special Envoy) said climate change wasn't a social problem at all but all Math(s) - something the drowning masses will no doubt ponder as another unexpected Tsunami hits their homes built on nothing but numbers and engineering. Oh wait, that's not right is it - homes are built by people, who then live in them as people, and die in them when an unexpected weather event hits like people do. Ah well, at least the US were there to show themselves up, unlike last time.

4. Developed countries showing leadership

Success: The developed countries finally agreeing to lead the way
The EU, UK, and US all turned up prepared. They had knowledge, expertise, delegations, and nicely prepackaged policy. I have absolutely no doubt that much of this policy would be great and would make a massive difference (in real terms) but to try and get it rubber stamped without having the courtesy to at least pretend some of it came from elsewhere is just not how the UN works, ya know.

Failure: The developed countries finally agreeing to lead the way, so long as the developing nations do as they say
Seriously guys, a leaked policy document from the (ever agreeable) hosts proposing to take power away from all other countries who aren't HD-ready on day two?! Even by our colonial standards that's a bit quick.

5. Brazil, China, and India talking to each other about doing something about climate change

Success: They were in a room, they were talking climate change
Like point (1), that's actually pretty impressive. The fact that they are prepared to talk about multilateral action on this issue is genuinely a massive step, and a darn significant one.

Failure: They were in a room, they were talking about climate change, when the Chinese Premier was meant to be in a room, talking about climate change, with Obama
In one of the most public and balls-out snubs of what promises to be a great decade of Chinese snubbery Obama was sent a junior aide instead. And when he tried to meet the Premier again 'just found all these other people' (the Heads of State of Brazil and India) in the room too. How dare they, this was meant to be Obama and China's alone-time, darn it.

All in all, a bit ridiculous. Not so much one-step forward, one step back as 20 horses trying to do the Samba, on ice, thin ice, because of the climate change and all that. Whether or not Copenhagen was a 'success' or 'failure' I really can't say. It just kinda 'was', like climate change will 'be', until we find a frankly less ludicrous way of going about trying to abate it than this.

Is climate change 'awareness' the answer, or the problem?

So, I was meant to write a blog last Thurs as part of the Blog Action
Day whose theme this year was climate change. I didn't. This was for two reasons. Firstly, I forgot, and when I remembered, I also remembered that I was too busy. Secondly (and you can take this as an excuse if you like) I'm not sure raising awareness of climate change is really worth the effort. My argument is that we have reached a point now where 'awareness' initiatives are actually having a negative effect on motivating public or personal action and, perhaps more damagingly, they act as an excuse for governments unwilling to take they bull by
the horns and make policy (evidently they'd rather stroke the bull and
ask it not to hurt anyone).

While I appreciate the aims of Blog Action Day (while vehemently
opposing its tactless acronym), and find a certain academic intrigue
in the idea of using 'new media' to pressure policy action, I
ultimately think it may do more harm then good. To start with it only
raises the awareness of those who read blogs, in particular those who
read political, environmental, or current affairs blogs. These people
are generally pretty 'aware' as it is (you clever informed lot
you).Further to this, it may only serve to antagonise those who differ
in their views. Now, I genuinely think there are very few who 'deny'
climate change, and on the whole people seem to know a broad range of vague and difficult to quantify activities they can undertake to
mitigate for climate change (or environmental degradation more
broadly). But, nonetheless, people don't appear to like being told
what to do. They dislike it from their parents, they downright hate it
from politicians, so I'm not sure they're going to like it much from
faceless quasi-intellectual cyber monkeys. Now I know the point of BAD (I said I disliked the acronym, not that it wasn't easier to type -
particularly on a Blackberry) was not to directly influence actions of
the individual, rather it was to impore policymakers to take a stand,
but an indirect consequence of this is that a bunch of people write a
pile of stuff that makes them look like prescriptive moralistic
knowitalls. No wonder comedians and clowns (Clarkson included) are
starting to have a field day digging into the Green Brigade.

Beyond this though, and I feel far more serious, is the potential for
such activity as this to act as a smokescreen for policymakers and
politicians who continue to fail to implement policy that will
genuinly affect change. It gives them the excuse to point to groups
such as the BAD bloggers and say 'hey, look, we're doing our best, but
have you seen how wonderfully informed and active our citizenry's
are?' They cab claim some victory when there is none, and can continue to utilise 'awareness' campaigns as an excuse for their own relative
inactivity. After all its much easier creating a TV ad telling us all
how to recycle, then it is coming to comprehensive agreement on
climate change within the international arena.

My solution is thus; assume everyone knows, and point ot the fact that this has changed more or less nothing. Make a stand and say, 'I'm
aware so I've done my bit, now do yours'. I know, you know, we know so surely now its time to stop being so 'aware' and actually see those in
a position to do some real good sit down and write some damn policy
instead of wasting time on trying to make windfarms look pretty on the telly. I don't really care if 'the people' know why there's a new
carbon tax so long as there is one; and I'm not sure the planet cares
all that much either.