| | By Mick James
I'm not entirely sure
about the methodological
soundness of using
Google as a survey toll,
but here's an
interesting
pseudo-statistic: the
phrase "climate change"
returns 95.5m hits. The
word "change" on its own
gets 812m hits.
So, on my slightly
tendentious
interpretation, 12% of
all the change being
discussed in the world
today is climate change.
It's already consumed
all the fledglings in
its own nest – anyone
had a discussion about
acid rain recently? One
can debate whether
climate change will in
fact destroy the Earth,
but if its effects on
the planet are as
far-reaching as its
effects on our daily
discourse, we're in for
a very rough ride
indeed.
I reached a personal
crisis on the topic
while blearily trying to
decipher an advert for
soap powder featuring
polar bears hopping
around on icebergs with
temperature dials, after
which supermodel Claudia
Schiffer popped up to
explain how she was
going to save the planet
by washing her smalls at | |
|
| | 30 degrees Centigrade.
This took me back to
my teenage years to what
I can grandly term my
first foray into process
analysis. A row with my
mother had left me doing
my own laundry, but I
quickly realised that
the real hassle was not
the washing itself, but
sorting the clothes into
delicates, whites and so
forth. I immediately
vowed that never again
would I buy an item of
clothing that couldn't
be washed at 40 degrees,
and by and large I've
kept to it.
Now Claudia Schiffer
pops up to tell me that
for over 30 years I've
not only been wasting my
money but endangering
polar bears by heating
thousands of gallons of
water an unnecessary 10
degrees. I feel like
suing someone.
I'm also appalled by
the fact that someone
out there thinks the
only way I can be
persuaded to change my
behaviour is by having
my attention drawn to
the plight of cuddly
animals and Claudia
Schiffer's knickers
(people who've just
arrived at this site by
searching on that last
phrase should move on
quickly. Nothing to see
here).
| |
|
| |
If "tackling climate
change" were an internal
change programme, I
couldn't see it winning
any awards.
Communication veers
between daft charm
offensives like the soap
ad, to the hectoring and
outright panic-mongering
(I've recently been
informed by national
newspapers that my daily
bath makes me an
"eco-criminal" and that
using imported Indian
sandstone – which comes
in as ships' ballast –
is "non-ethical"). The
powers that be rain down
sticks and carrots
indiscriminately. Is it
better to bribe or to
browbeat?
As a ‘stakeholder’
I'm going through a
familiar and depressing
pattern: initial
enthusiasm and curiosity
is giving way to
annoyance and suspicion
which eventually tips
over into cynicism and
revolt. I'm beginning to
question everyone's
agenda: if I wash at a
lower temperature, for
example, won't I end up
using more soap powder
to get the same results?
Why do so many green
initiatives proposed by
major corporations seem
to save them money by
inconveniencing me?
The techniques of | |
|
| | achieving sustainable
change, as perfected by
the consultancy
industry, seem to me to
be notably absent from
the current initiatives
on climate change. Which
is a shame because –
given the current vying
to be greener-than-thou
among our political
leaders – Britain may
well end up taking some
sort of a lead on
climate change.
"Tackling climate
change" – to use the
phrase du jour – could
become an object lesson
for us all in the
complex ambiguities of
change: the unequal
distribution of winners
and losers, the
unforeseen consequences,
the elusiveness of
consensus, the necessity
for compromise and
trade-offs. Above all,
it could get us used to
the idea of change as a
journey, in which how
you travel can be as
important as when you
arrive.
Unfortunately, at the
moment it seems to be
going the other way: the
British public may have
reached a peak of
enthusiasm for green
issues, but that
commitment looks like
being as recklessly
squandered as any other
natural resource. | |
|
| | Already the "tackling
climate change" phrase
is being used as a sort
of unplayable trump card
to close down all sorts
of debates, from the
siting of windfarms to
fortnightly bin
collections and even the
botched Housing
Information Packs.
There's a real danger
that this lumpen
approach will turn the
notoriously faddy
British public against
environmental issues as
viciously as they did
against the ra-ra skirt.
The impersonal "they"
who control our lives
will be seen to have
once again deluded and
misled us, and "they"
will find it even harder
to get a hearing next
time.
Ultimately, climate
change is not the
biggest threat we face:
it’s only one of
innumerable challenges
that will come up in the
future. The real threat
we face is not from any
individual change, but
from our inability to
understand or manage
change itself.
| |
|
Previous Page 