Do you remember campaigns about using seat belts, not drinking and driving, sticking to speed limits and how to cross the road safely? I do. Do you remember a media campaign telling us that new coins were arriving and that there would soon be 100 pennies to the pound rather than 240 of them (yes in 20 shillings of 12 pence each)? I do. And do you remember adverts about AIDS, various forms of cancer and smoking? Yes, me too.
So why aren’t we seeing public information campaigns about what the ordinary, everyday, citizen can do to limit climate change?
I can think of several excuses why we don’t see them, but I can’t think of many good reasons. Indeed, I’m not sure I can think of a single good reason.
The main excuse might be ‘It’s complicated’ and can’t be summed up as snappily as ‘Clunk! Click! Every trip’. But that’s a poor excuse, isn’t it? Let the digestive juices flow by dangling millions of government pounds in front of some advertising types and I bet we could get some great messages across.
Those seat belt adverts from the early 1970s (starring, I’m afraid, Jimmy Saville) were hard-hitting and uncompromising – have a look here, here and here). They seem very dated now but they were regarded as being very effective.
I’m not sure how much media coverage you’d get with £1bn spent each year for a decade, but quite a bit. How much do you think we are aiming to spend on renewing our nuclear deterrent in that period by the way (click here for some information)?
How much would one meat-free day a week save in CO2 emissions for the UK? I have no idea but I could probably work it out. What if a string of personalities said they were doing this (and some of them were having 7 meat-free days a week already)?
What impact would turning down the thermostat in your house by 1C have? Getting a more energy efficient car or using public transport more?
If there is a climate emergency then why aren’t we being told the facts and given helpful hints on what we could do to reduce the emergency?
As an old-fashioned socialist, of sorts, I’m almost completely sceptical that markets can deliver public goods, and I’d be quite happy with a bit more taxation and regulation. But I do believe that we could make progress through more enlightened self-interest or even altruism. Let the public know how their money can be spent better to reduce climate change. There are plenty of people doing good things already but they are still a small proportion. But from where will the general public get their enlightenment? Public information broadcasting please!
[registration_form]
You are so, so right Mark. I too would be prepared to pay a bit more tax if it would mean better public services including proper funding of Natural England.
As for lack of any Government campaign to highlight how the public and each individual could do their bit alleviate the climate crisis, it is simply shameful to the greatest degree.
I am afraid to say this Government and the Tory Party are leading this country to disaster in so many ways and have been doing so for many years with their general approach of “ I’m alright Jack”.
We need a change of attitudes based on John F. Kennedy’s famous words “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country”
Fat chance of that under this lot.
(Hope your cold is better Mark)
I would suggest any such campaign would be summed up as the ‘Nanny State’. However a good PR company could make a play on such grumblings and in turn increase the campaigns traction.
As an annoying person who turns off lights in other peoples houses I agree with you as the most important thing seems to be reducing demand. But any government that tells people they can’t have everything they want probably wouldn’t get voted in twice.
It’s well worth a try though.
Hope you’re feeling better .
There is plenty of information from NGO’s etc for those who are interested. Many people are seemingly not interested or can’t afford to be. Everyone reducing the thermostat one degree may help a bit but more than that is no fun at all. Don’t we really need national policies delivering retro fitting of houses, electric car charging infrastructure and innovative/ cheaper public transport. Two of us recently chose to make a round rail trip, visiting family and friends, from southern England to the Welsh Borders and Yorkshire. It worked ok, but with senior rail cards and cheapest (weeks in advance) fares it cost over £300. Our diesel car fuel would have been maybe £100. Yes one can alter discretionary elements of life, such as concentrating birding on local patches or those accessible by bike or public transport, though that is a challenge for most BBS etc surveys!
Richard – yes we do need government action – I think I wrote that. But saying there is ‘plenty of information out there’ is not the same as there is plenty of information reaching lots of people in ways they will notice. There is plenty of information about steam trains out there – doesn’t affect my life much.
We need at least a dual track – government action and personal action. Public information campaigns link the two together rather pleasingly.
I’m fed up with CC being viewed as a matter for individuals to buy one less plastic bag and not for macro policy. I started out thinking that yet another call for people to switch off the lights while the Govt gets on with building the third runway and HS2 and more new roads etc would be yet another way of Govt avoiding actually doing anything that might make a difference.
But then I remembered a conversation with a friend yesterday for the whom the “one thing” (I’m sure there are more…) she’s not willing to give up is flying off on holiday a lot. And another perhaps now former friend who took umbridge because I wouldn’t sign a petition about rescuing migrants from the Med. She also flies a lot but won’t join the dots about why they are leaving their village in a drought zone and risking their lives to get to Europe in the first place.
So as a critical mass, consciousness raising effort, I think I agree, Mark. It’s past time for a real information campaign. Compare the impact of switching off a light, turning down the thermostat a degree, going veggie a day a week, or not flying to Barcelona for the weekend. Some changes have a bigger impact than others. Its also how Govt would “ask our permission” to make real changes if that was something they wanted to do. It’s telling that they don’t.
What exactly was the petition asking for? It seems to be basic humanity to rescue drowning refugees from the sea. Whether or not we do so will have no impact on climate change though I agree that if we are concerned out the problem of migration out of Africa we need to look at the causes and seek to eliminate them. Climate change is likely to be a major factor though any action we take on that is going to take a long time to be reflected in a beneficial change on the ground in the Sahel so even if we really start getting serious about cutting emissions the migrants are likely to continue to come for a long while yet.
Jonathon, well off topic here but she was of the view that we should do more to actively provide a rescue service, I am of the view that that is in effect collaboration with people traffickers and just encourages more people to put their lives in danger (= more deaths in the end). I also think that if we want to accept more refugees (unlike her I have taken the trouble to write to my MP twice to say that we should do just that) then we should select them on the basis of need near the place of origin and bring them here safely rather than use the ability to pay traffickers and survive a crossing as some kind of grim natural selection as to who gets in. And since most Med migrants are economic migrants not refugees anyway, if you want open borders to the world (I don’t but that’s whole other conversation) then let them buy a ticket to Heathrow, but I suggest that in any case using the criteria of who can bribe and survive is a terrible way to select who gets in.
It’s about do we do just what makes us feel good or actually try to make a complex bad situation better, and whether we value the easy feelgood of clicking on a petition over accepting that there are some difficult choices to be made, and taking at least a teeny bit of responsibility for the consequences. And no, I didn’t use quite these words to her, I was much more diplomatic I promise!
Hi JBC. Thank you for a very clear response to my comment! I agree with much of what you say but feel that rescuing people from the sea cannot really be described as collaboration with the traffickers. They are ruthless people who will send people out to sea in un-seaworthy vessels whether or not there is a chance they will be rescued. Having said that, you are of course right that dealing with the migrants as they wash up on our shores can never be more than a sticking plaster reaction to the problem and to genuinely solve it we have to find ways to stop the migrants wanting to come here in the first place.
Given that many of them end up living in abject conditions once they do get into Europe (did you see Simon Reeves tv series about the Mediterranean a while ago and the segment on fruit and vegetable growers in southern Spain?) it would be good if we could somehow dispel the illusion that if they can only get into Europe and the UK they will find streets paved with gold… Ultimately though we have to find ways of ensuring that conditions in the countries they start out from are such that the wish to leave dissipates. That means grappling with the environmental problems that make life untenable (the problems we contribute to and those of more local origin), improving governance, resolving military conflicts, making world trade fairer to people in poor countries amongst other things. None of it is easy unfortunately and in the meantime if people keep setting off across the Sahara we have to find humane and effective ways of dealing with them.
As to who is best at bribing and surviving it may well be that those who can afford a plane ticket to Heathrow fit squarely into that category rather than those who have cast their luck on leaking inflatables.
The trafficking route is much more expensive (~several 000 euros) for the traveller than a plane ticket (a few 00 euros), and the huge profit goes to organised crime rather than than a legitimate airline business.
I am of the view that the “promise” of being picked up once you’re 10 miles off the Libyan shore is part of the trafficker’s sales pitch that makes people borrow money and leave their homes in the first place, along with the “streets paved with gold” promises of reward once the migrant arrives. The pitch happens long before they get into the dingy, but will be repeated at that time I’m sure. Other views are available.
I suppose my point is simply that rescuing people from the sea is not a policy to select who can come into Europe but rather is dealing with an unpleasant fact of life. The people are in the water and what do we choose to do about it? I take your point that by rescuing them we remove (some of) the risk and that this could encourage further migrants to set sail but I am sceptical of this. I am pretty sure that the ruthless and unscrupulous people who run the trafficking operations give all sorts of assurances to their clients at every step of the way, however flimsily based on fact these assurances are. If there is no prospect of being rescued from a sinking rust-bucket I doubt that the traffickers would tell their customers this or that it would stop them sending more on their way with assurances that they are safe and will soon be in the promised land.
Between Central Government and individuals are several tiers of Local Government and community groups. Sheffield has stated it wants to be carbon neutral by 2030 but has no plan in place to achieve this. I’ve joined a (political party) working group to put forward concrete proposals. This goes way beyond transport and energy. I expect Sheffield is unique in having 10,000 h of moorland within the city boundary but maybe agricultural practices are more damaging than poor moorland management – I’m trying to find out. So yes let’s have a public information campaign but how about getting your communities and local politicians involved? A coherent message from across the country will be very hard for Central Government to ignore.
Agree! We need a mass education campaign that enables everyone to be aware/understand what Climate Change means, to them, their families and everyone…. There are those who STILL choose not to believe it’s happening! They need to be shown how burying their heads in the sand not only avoids doing anything, but is worsening the situation, for everyone! With all the resources at hand, it surely shouldn’t be difficult for the Government to come up with a campaign to bring this point home, should it?! We SO need wise leadership with a finger on the pulse of the climate big picture… Isn’t this what a good Government should be working on NOW… Where are they, and why aren’t they! If they don’t know what to do, they should set up and empower a Commission with Scientists and environmentalists who do…. And quick!
Very much agree, Mark, Alan, Gary, jbc – lost the like function yet again.
Hope you’re feeling better today, Mark. Keep taking the remedy mentioned before – at least, as someone once said, you’re showing the germs a good time.
Our government just pays lip service to our concerns on climate change and the environment.
They are not really that interested because it doesn’t make money.
I would have thought it was glaringly obvious but their lack of action!
Over the weekend I saw an old programme about 1981 and it showed the pretty scary Public Information Films about preparing for a nuclear attack. I made the same comment you have Mark, that we should be seeing films like this about TheClimate Emergency. I think that despite the lip service paid by Polititions, they are all too wary of losing votes to really tell us how it is (and god forbid we should be frightened by it, like we were in the 80’s)
You would think this could be one tiny redeeming use for targetted advertising on social media. If the programs can work out the most gulible targets for the Brexit Leave campaign and then feed them false information to sway their votes then surely it can work out who isn’t recycling or who spends their time sat in a car with the engine idling while playing on their phone (seriously just turn the engine off).
Governments need to lead by example though. The plastic bag charge system is still woeful and isn’t achieving anything like the results it should be. People still think that ‘biodegradable’ means plastic is ok to use and throw away. Tree planting at a national level is still way under what it needs to be. The list is huge. We need some massive sweeping changes that make people realise that ‘climate emergency’ actually means something. I haven’t heard a peep out of my local authority since this was declared in April.
Maybe the plan needs to be more like the anti-smoking labels on cigarette packets. Make the companies who cause the problems advertise the solutions rather than add to our taxes. Buy a tank of fuel for the car and there could be a poster by the pump with tips to save fuel. Buy a plastic bottle of water and see an advert pointing out that perfectly drinkable water comes out of the tap. Etc.
The reason is very simple: too many threads to consider. All Mark’s examples relate to single issues with simple solutions. The causes of climate change are multifarious and no single element is to blame. As a marketing man, what is needed is to select one, run the campaign, measure the result and then move to the next. Up first, in my book, would be plastic. We don’t need a tenth of what is produced and first would be single use bottles, especially of water. What is the matter with taps?
You cannot preach change on several fronts to an already overloaded public; they cannot absorb it and act accordingly. Hence the failure. No matter how many well meaning school children skive off school nothing will happen until the issues are explained singly rather than severally.
Agree Mark. Here’s one of my recent favourites from Canada – actual analysis of a small institution and C footprint etc. (also what an individual can do) https://www.arts.ubc.ca/social-science-vs-climate-change-wynes/?login&fbclid=IwAR1glWzNtgo-s0zp5d8-b_QaAfo_mF6u9ODwpUASI2bSRZwnEUJljyRGmeM
I also really like ABC, Audubon et al on bird declines (not specifically CC) – but really clear messages on things an individual can do: https://www.3billionbirds.org/
Bring back ‘Tufty’ to head up the campaign(s) 🙂 (anyone else remember or still have any of those wonderful handkerchiefs given to us in junior school 😉
It’s not in ‘big business’ interest to reduce demand, so Govt. metaphorically in their pockets do not act, they merely mutter platitudes. Plans for politicians generally involve how to keep their job over the next five years (and if they don’t then they get a generous golden handshake by way of a kind of redundancy payment) and sadly not ones which involve actions to deliver public benefit or addressing the Climate Emergency.
NGOs do good work but are falling shy when it comes to advocacy in the corridors of power so it’s little use expecting challenges led by them. However, we have new champions in the form of Wild Justice doing a fantastic job 🙂
The push as admirably outlined by many above will have to come from grassroots rebelling again complacent politicians, they are paid handsomely as a result of people’s votes, not industry.