Monbiot on Marshall on Climate Change

In his fascinating book Carbon Detox, George Marshall argues that people are not persuaded by information(15). Our views are formed by the views of the people with whom we mix. Of the narratives that might penetrate these circles, we are more likely to listen to those which offer us some reward. A story which tells us that the world is cooking and that we’ll have to make sacrifices for the sake of future generations is less likely to be accepted than the more rewarding idea that climate change is a conspiracy hatched by scheming governments and venal scientists, and that strong, independent-minded people should unite to defend their freedoms.
He proposes that instead of arguing for sacrifice, environmentalists should show where the rewards might lie: that understanding what the science is saying and planning accordingly is the smart thing to do, which will protect your interests more effectively than flinging abuse at scientists. We should emphasise the old-fashioned virtues of uniting in the face of a crisis, of resourcefulness and community action. Projects like the transition towns network and proposals for a green new deal tell a story which people are more willing to hear.

George Monbiot column: “A beardful of bunkum”
Meanwhile, the Don’t Be A Rodney campaign has ended. A bunch of letters got sent. My feeling is they did have an effect, in that John key has clearly given a quiet steer to committee chair Peter Dunne to slap down Rodney’s nonsense. Ultimately, though, we have to wait and see how it goes down.

2 thoughts on “Monbiot on Marshall on Climate Change”

  1. Ended you say?
    Stage 1, perhaps. There’s no reason why we can’t hit the MPs on the Committee as well, starting with Peter “I’m Not” Dunne and Nick “Dr Evil” Smith, and others as we learn how will be on it.
    But there would need to be a discussion with experts (Idiot?) about how best to now phrase a letter to the committee.
    It’s a good start. Let’s not let it end there. Maybe after Christmas we can wade back in.
    Thoughts?

  2. Yes, that’s an excellent idea. I did mean that the thing it was set up for – to influence the setup of the select committee – has now been resolved. But there’s definitely more that can be done.
    But first there shall be THESIS!

Comments are closed.