- Pickled Politics - http://www.pickledpolitics.com -

When media organisations wake up

Posted By Sunny On 6th April, 2006 @ 4:42 am In Media, Environmentalism | Comments Disabled

[1] [2]

A recent statistic I found, but now cannot place, said the increased number of people dying from environmental disasters in recent years vastly outstripped deaths from terrorism.

Not that we should stop tackling the latter, but it gives a sense of skewed priorities. Until recently, unless you counted the Independent and some editorials in the Guardian, not many media organisations really covered environmental degradation with the seriousness it deserved.

In the news magazines above the only contrast is that one is left of centre, the other right of centre. It is atleast heartening to see that media on both sides of the political spectrum agree on one thing.

The New Statesmen [3] says this week:

Global environmental change overrides all else, making the integrated response essential. It requires not just joined-up thinking by government departments, but joined-up action. This is an enormous management challenge, and one approach might be for apolitical, independent agencies (perhaps modelled on the Bank of England’s monetary policy committee) to advise governments and international bodies about the best ways to proceed.

The tide is now thankfully turning, with even the Conservative Party singing the right tune (although doing is another matter). The scandal is that while Labour has consistently talked about the environment, its record is a sham. It keeps building roads, it invests very little in renewable energy and it keeps failing its own carbon-emission targets.

That leaves the fate of the planet in your hands. In other words…. we’re screwed. Don’t say I didn’t warn you!
Both above are current issues.


Comments Disabled To "When media organisations wake up"

#1 Comment By Fe’reeha Idrees On 6th April, 2006 @ 9:55 am

Interesting to link this with terrorism.
Atleast terrorists and environmentalists have one thing in common. They both clamour against the US.
While the former is upset with their foreign policy the later is appalled by the US’s stubborn attitude over the environmental issues.
For years, the Kyoto summit has been facing veto over waste emission issues courtesy the US.

#2 Comment By Fe’reeha Idrees On 6th April, 2006 @ 9:59 am

Also there was a feature which I read somewhere recently which showed how the people in the UK are opting for bicycles to shun tube journey out of fear of a terrorist attack.
It’s all getting a bit bizarre really.

#3 Comment By Jay Singh On 6th April, 2006 @ 10:40 am

I’m actually looking forward to a future of global warming and enviromental catastrophe - it will mean I can act out my Mad Max fantasies/

#4 Comment By Vikrant On 6th April, 2006 @ 11:06 am

Who cares… either way humanity is nearing a crash within 150 years.

#5 Comment By squared On 6th April, 2006 @ 7:53 pm

Until recently, unless you counted the Independent and some editorials in the Guardian, not many media organisations really covered environmental degradation with the seriousness it deserved.

Oh please. The Independent ALWAYS overdoes it. You can’t take them seriously at all… Every other week it’s some stupid inflated headline of impending environmental doom. They need to do more research and less scaremongering.

Global warming is not what worries me. What worries me is the rate of consumption of natural resources. I’m more interested in fusion than cars. So I agree with you that renewable energy needs more investment.

What the media needs to do is to STOP scaring the fuck out of people for no reason. Rather, it should highlight issues in a balanced way (preferably with the help of an actual scientist).

#6 Comment By Brooke On 6th April, 2006 @ 10:56 pm

Ok don’t tell any one but GLOBAL WARMING IS A MYTH. I don’t mean that the earth is not change by any means, no, the earth is changing a great deal. But one its not “warming” and 2 its not caused by our carbon or fuel emission. The reason why most of these “natural disasters” are occuring is we are ruining our natural protection from such events. By filling in wetlands, cutting down huge forest and even cutting down beach grass we are removing our natural protection. There are also more ppl on earth and therefore more ppl living in places they shouldn’t. No one should live below see level, on major faultlines or in the ring of fire. Ironically, the safest places for ppl to live are the least populated. Skin cancer and frog eggs eroding before our eyes are not the product of a deminishing ozone (which is O3 and created by volcanic eruptions) but the magnetic field and poles changing, which is a natural event. As the poles change the magnetic field which protects us from interstellar radiation (which is thought not only to cause cancer but cause lightning and genetic mutations) diminishes. This is what is causing the ice caps to melt, el nino and la nina. This is a natural process that we are much overdue for and may in fact encourage genetic mutations which help in evolution. What we will see in the future is not a “global warming” but a “global cooling” in the form of an ice age or even unpredictable whether as it will take thousands of years for earth to figure out where it wants the poles to be. We can’t stop this process. What we must do is evole to the change and the start of that process is to move away from the shore and fault lines.

#7 Comment By squared On 8th April, 2006 @ 11:24 am

^ Awesome post.

#8 Comment By Sunny On 8th April, 2006 @ 1:53 pm

Oh please. I knew we were gonna get climate change deniers sooner or later.

But one its not “warming” and 2 its not caused by our carbon or fuel emission.

See, there are the lies at the start.

#9 Comment By Kulvinder On 8th April, 2006 @ 2:49 pm

We’re not climate change deniers you mongchop, it is changing, its just that change may well be part of a natural cycle

#10 Comment By Sunny On 8th April, 2006 @ 3:07 pm

Bollocks to that. What next? Intelligent Design?

#11 Comment By Kulvinder On 8th April, 2006 @ 6:47 pm

My eyes are rolling.

#12 Trackback By Tim Worstall On 9th April, 2006 @ 1:32 pm

Britblog Roundup # 60

Yes, here it is, the sesquidecadal (sexidecadal? sesquidecal? Never was much good at posh language) version of the Britblog Roundup. Your selection of the posts that caught your eye, the ones you think that we should all take note of.

#13 Comment By Robert On 9th April, 2006 @ 4:07 pm

I was at a [4] Mark Lynas lecture earlier in the week. The figures he presented, culled from hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific papers, suggest that the change in temperatures we are seeing is certainly not part of the natural cycle.

The ‘War on Terror’ versus the ‘War on Global Warming’ is an interesting point, one that was also brought up during the lecture, and post-lecture discussion. Lynas suggested that a war-time mentality, complete with carbon rationing and a ‘make-do’ attitude, was what is required to combat the change.

#14 Comment By Sunny On 9th April, 2006 @ 4:31 pm

That war mentality idea is an interesting one Robert….

or maybe it requires some hardcore pursuing like the animal rights activists.

#15 Comment By Sid D H Arthur On 9th April, 2006 @ 10:00 pm

I agree with Brooke. Requires massive education and information on a national level and changes are only perciptable over generations, but better to make these changes than deal with disasters as and when they happen. Prevention being better than cure and all that. But before that we have to accept that large swathes of coastline are going to be under water all over the world within the next decade.

#16 Comment By squared On 10th April, 2006 @ 3:28 am

Bollocks to that. What next? Intelligent Design?

Your argument that humans cause global warming is more like the intelligent design argument than our nature one.

I take issue with anyone saying fuel emissions are the cause of global warming when they haven’t a single journal paper to back that argument solidly. All they have are a few studies which haven’t even been accepted by the scientific population let alone anyone else. Global warming is a classic example of the layman using science to back arguments that don’t exist.

Do you ever wonder about the impact that all those animals and trees you love so dearly have on the levels of CO2 in the world?

#17 Comment By Sunny On 10th April, 2006 @ 4:36 am

From the blog of someone who thinks Bush is the best president ever (Brooke), I’m not surprised this rubbish being uttered.

To fisk lightly:

But one its not “warming” and 2 its not caused by our carbon or fuel emission.

So clearly all the research showing that global temperatures have rise on average and are melting polar icecaps is rubbish? Pray tell me what have we destroyed in the Antarctica that is making those big ice sheets melt?

And you think the FACT that carbon-di-oxide PPM in the atmosphere have risen makes no difference at all to the temperature, and has not even been vaguely influenced by all the smoke that eminates from airlines and vehicles.

How stupid are people getting these days? Maybe climate change deniers can start carrying around placards like those ‘9/11 was a govt conspiracy’ and ‘Jews control the world’ idiots.

The poles may be changing but the world should be cooling, not heating up.

What we will see in the future is not a “global warming” but a “global cooling” in the form of an ice age or even unpredictable whether as it will take thousands of years for earth to figure out where it wants the poles to be

when? after we’ve all died as a result of collective idiocy?

Mcsquared:
I take issue with anyone saying fuel emissions are the cause of global warming when they haven’t a single journal paper to back that argument solidly.

WTF?? On what basis do you exactly take issue? And what does ’solidly’ mean?

Do you ever wonder about the impact that all those animals and trees you love so dearly have on the levels of CO2 in the world?

Trees are carbon neutral. Go back the science class please. As for animals - try and compare how much animals use up in terms of carbon and how much each humans use, including all the products they buy and energy they consume.

Climate change deniers come up with the stupidest arguments ever.

#18 Comment By Sid D H Arthur On 10th April, 2006 @ 8:11 am

Are you against the thrust of the argument that people, large numbers of them, are going to have to moved away from the danger areas to mitigate social and humanitarian disasters? You gotta agree with that irrespective of unconditional support of Bush etc.


Article printed from Pickled Politics: http://www.pickledpolitics.com

URL to article: http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/414

URLs in this post:
[1] Image: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/0,9263,7601060403,00.html
[2] Image: http://www.newstatesman.com/200604030006
[3] says this week: http://www.newstatesman.com/200604030007
[4] Mark Lynas lecture: http://www.robertsharp.co.uk/2006/04/07/the-six-degrees/