Climate change bill passed (in the night)
Well I think I spoke too soon. There was very little coverage of the Climate Change Bill passing its commons stages. Perhaps this was due to the Brand-effect, or that most journalists are still deployed onto credit crunching topics. Prince Charles did make it into the papers yesterday talking about the ‘climate crunch’.
But so far I’ve found only two MSM reports on the passing of the climate change bill; a bill which is a world-first in setting legal targets for nation-state government:
The same angle on companies reporting their CO2 emissions was reported in The Telegraph prior to the vote on the bill.
What’s the reason for such a low level of coverage?
There are probably a few.
1. The real ’story’ came a few days before, with the news that Ed Miliband would accept Elliot Morley’s amendment to include aviation and shipping, in some form, in the bill.
2. The Guardian hinted at the lack of drama, which doesn’t make for good reporting: “Yesterday evening the bill finished its Commons stages. It was a radical moment, unmatched anywhere else in the world, the drama only slightly diminished by the threadbare debate that preceeded it.”
3. Actually the bill hasn’t made anything happen yet, and there’s an air of despair at it being too little, too late. This is what the Guardian had to so about that:
Yesterday’s Living Planet report from WWF International warned that human demands on the planet’s resources have doubled in 45 years, and that 75% of people live in countries that demand more resources than they can provide. The new Garnaut report from Australia warns that emissions are running away, increasing by 3% a year to 2030, making a mockery of British targets. Some scientists are close to panic: a recent collection of essays from the Royal Society suggested targets will never be met, and that the world should attempt “geoscale” interventions instead, such as dimming the sun. That sounds like fantasy. The better alternative is to make the climate change law work.
4. It’s not enough. As Caroline Lucas, Green MEP, says:
“The news that the Government is approving the inclusion of aviation and shipping emissions in its Climate Bill targets marks a real achievement for green campaigners – and a promising sign that, at long last, ministers might be starting to take their environmental responsibilities seriously.”
“[Yet] sadly, the Government’s carbon addiction looks set to result in more UK airport capacity and a fleet of new coal-fired power stations. But of course, that doesn’t matter to the Government because carbon trading will effectively allow it to outsource its ecological debt to other countries – ‘buying in’ emissions reductions from abroad and thus allowing for a business as usual approach at home.”
There is still a period of ‘Ping Pong’ (that’s the offical term for it, apparently) where the amendments go back and forth between the two Houses, and then on to Royal Assent, where it becomes law.
In many ways I’m glad there wasn’t too much coverage. When there has been, the papers have tied it up with party-political ideoligical positions, e.g. it’s a Labour bill, so the Telegraph and Daily Mail rejected it (which, luckily, many people were able to see through).
It has taken two and a half years at least to get this far, and perhaps another six months to get to law. And so far, not much has been done to move towards the 80% target. But it is a start.
(x-posted from The Current Climate)
Related posts:
- Climate of coverage: Lord Turner’s report The beginning of this week saw the press respond...
- Climate Change UK: vote today in parliament, 4pm Elliot Morley was on Radio 4 this morning discussing his...
- Newcastle’s Chronicle, Daily Mail are green winners The Press Gazette have announced the winners of their...
- Guardian launches Fred Pearce greenwash column Back in June I interviewed Fred Pearce for a book...
- Forum: climate change and violence Last Friday I attended the first of seven ‘climate...
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
October 29th, 2008 at 10:27 am
[...] (x-posted from Alex Lockwood) [...]
October 30th, 2008 at 4:56 am
I have no idea whether climate change is due to human production of CO2, you can find whatever scientific evidence you like to support either case. One thing I do notice though is the actions of those who tell us it is a danger. People like Tony Blair, Al Gore, Prince Charles, Gordon Brown, Millibands, Benn et al. After telling us what we must do and the imminet danger of catastrophe they invariably get into limousines or 4×4’s and head for the airport to jump on their private jets. I read a report recently that the BBC (arch climate change indoctrinators) spent £10million on flights last year. If it was really dangerous to our future would they be doing this? I doubt it. If you suggested to all those people that they should do something really dangerous with real potentially harmful consequences to themselves (say, take a stroll down Baghdad High St or a walk in the Afghan Mountains) they wouldn’t do it because they know what would happen. Simple logic is often a good guide when you’re trying to get at the truth and actions speak louder than words.
Based upon those simple observations I reckon we don’t need to worry too much about climate change. By all means do a bit of recycling if it’s not too inconvenient and insulate your house if it’s cost effective but there’s no need to abandon the Range Rover (Police and Highways Agency are another case in point, they could easily use a Prius but it’s not macho enough). No need to cancel your foreign holidays or use those ghastly low energy lightbulbs, just behave in the same way as the politicians and we’ll all be OK.
[Reply]
Alex Lockwood Reply:
October 31st, 2008 at 12:08 pm
You’re putting a lot of faith in politicians, there, Simon. I’d totally agree with you in that politicians are, perhaps a good phrase would be, institutionally hypocritical. But then everyone leadning a Western lifestyle and who works for environmental sustainability is in some way hypocritical. The thing to aim for is to give back more than you take. Some politicians certainly do this. Others don’t. Perhaps those who spend a bit too much time on yachts?
[Reply]