From an old friend…
“Hi Richard
Just wondering if you’ve had a chance to read the comment I left on your blog the other day regarding the YouCan2 advertising campaign?
If you have, I’d just like you to know that it wasn’t meant as a personal attack. It was more a criticism of whoever was responsible for nominating the prizes for the campaign’s competition. As far as I’m concerned (as I pointed out in the blog comment), it’s just blatant hypocrisy to have a car as one of the prizes. I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts on this matter.
By the way, you’ve probably guessed that I’m an out and out climate change/global warming sceptic. I must admit that I found your blog post ‘Greenland is Melting’ quite funny. Haven’t you ever wondered why Greenland is actually called Greenland? To be honest, I disagree with pretty much everything you wrote in that particular post, but I’m all in favour of free speech and you’re entitled to your opinion. Wouldn’t the world be a boring place if we all thought the same way? :)
Believe it or not, I think it’s very important to be environmentally friendly/aware on a personal level (e.g recycling, turning lights off, not wasting water, minimising car travel, using solar power etc, etc). But on a national level, there are plenty of eminent scientists saying that major cuts in carbon emissions (as proposed by Rudd) would provide little or not environmental benefit. The damage to the national economy, on the other hand, would be disastrous.
The ABC will be screening a documentary in July called ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’. It might be worth checking out. I’ll definitely be watching it.”
And my response…
The car, if we gave one away, would be a hybrid – most likely a Toyota Prius. We wouldn’t give away a petrol car!
As for the other prizes, I disagree. However, this disagreement is not based on my personal views, but on the demographic we are trying to attract. Frankly, you’re not someone we want to appeal to. Neither am I, come to think of it. We’re already conscious individuals, doing what we can.
We need to appeal to people who couldn’t give a shit, or who have a bunch of excuses as to why they can’t get the bus to work, or change a light bulb.
And those are the people that want iPods and televisions.
So, whilst I understand and agree with your comments about waste and pollution, I also know that the only way to motivate many people is to offer them free stuff they perceive to be valuable. I doubt someone who drives a SUV wants free public transport. Can our little campaign change that? I hope so.
Small change can make a big difference. And at the end of the campaign we’ll be able to track exactly how much ‘good’ has been done.
I know your Al Gore comment wasn’t a personal attack. But I must disagree with you there too. Whether Al Gore is in it for the money or not, he has created a massive groundswell of change, and is almost singlehandedly responsible for many people’s attitude shifting from “couldn’t care less†to “this is a problemâ€.
Like Michael Moore (Bowling for Columbine), he is an easy target because he potentially benefits from his books and films. But to criticise him, or perhaps Bob Geldolf of Bono, is to miss the point. We need the rich and famous to speak out, because they have a voice that is heard. I don’t. If they make some more money and get a little bit more famous then that is a side product they can choose to accept. Another great example of this is the plethora of English celebrities who have lent their name and profile to help find Madeleine McCann.
That’s not to say all celebrities should be given a voice (or have anything interesting to say). But I will measure their integrity on their results, and Al Gore has achieved results in spades. If I had not seen An Inconvenient Truth there is no way I would have changed to 100% green energy at home. Nor would I have made the youCan2 ads and then the competition. A competition that is not about winning prizes, but about creating positive and very real change. And if we happen to change the attitudes of a few people out there, then I’ll consider that a job well done.
Finally, I welcome your comments, I really do. As I mentioned recently, there is too much taboo associated with disagreeing. Just because people disagree on a subject, does not make either of them a bad person. I would rather meet and talk to someone who strongly disagrees with me, than someone who has no opinion at all. It is through this kind of debate that we get results. Climate Change, I would argue, is way beyond doubt. But I am not here to try and convince you otherwise. You are clearly a very conscious person who makes great effort at home to recycle and conserve, and we need more people like you!
So thank you for you comments. I welcome more from you and anyone else who wants to chime in on this debate. Because our national broadcasters are running scared from it, and shovelling The Biggest Loser and Big Brother down our throats instead.
That, of course, is another debate entirely…!
Yes disagreement is a good thing. It leads to healthy debate and potential enlightenment.
Personally, I agree with Rich that the very people that need to be “awakened” to the very real threat of global warming are the people that would be enticed by cars, i-Pods, etc.
The fact is that no one knows exactly what is going to happen because there is no recorded precedent for this (unless of course the dinosaurs were pumping out a shed-load of carbon emissions). The sad fact is that it does come down to money. The biggest sources of harmful gases are the big industry players. Unless they choose (or are forced) to reduce their emissions then the benefit of people “going green” is limited. That’s not to say people shouldn’t do it. Global warming is not the only reason to recycle. If we keep piling our rubbish into landfill sites then we are going to run out of land. Then what?
My conclusion is this: a lot of damage has already been done to the environment, possibly so much so that nothing we do will stop the impending disaster. Mother Nature is not a force you mess with (just look at all the disasters around the world: hurricanes, tidal waves, earthquakes, etc.) If she wants to get rid of us because we are destroying the planet then she has every right to do so. So what should we do? Well, if we all try a little harder, maybe, just maybe, she will show us some mercy and not wipe out the entire human race.
Hi again Richard
I want to address some of the points you’ve made here, but I don’t have enough time at the moment. For now, I’d just like to concentrate on your last paragraph.
To claim that our national broadcasters are ignoring the issue of climate change/global warming is just ludicrous.
If you’ve ever watched channel seven’s ‘Sunrise’ programme with Kochie and Mel, you’ll know exactly what I mean. They’ve even gone carbon neutral to demonstrate their unswerving devotion to the global warming faith. Personally, I’d sooner stick pins in my eyes than suffer a minute of their inane banter and fawning over self-appointed spiritual leader, Al Gore.
I note that SBS will be screening a series of climate change programmes tomorrow evening. Hey, and their funding your advertising campaign, aren’t they!? :)
Channel nine’s ‘Sixty Minutes’ has a climate change/end-of-the-world-is-nigh story every other week, or so it seems. I remember a recent story in which Tara Brown had a run in with a polar bear. The finger of blame was pointed squarely at global warming. But of course!
Then there was Channel 10′s ‘Cool Aid: The National Carbon Test’.
But of all the national broadcasters, ‘our’ ABC gives more air time to promoting global warming hysteria than all the others combined.
Oh, and I’m sure the Live Earth concerts in July will be televised by one of the above T.V networks.
So, I think that’s got the all of our broadcasters covered.
Now can you see why I’m looking forward to ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’? There’s already a glut of information, misinformation, half truths, lies and progaganda on television in relation to climate change. I’d, for once, like to here from the global warming sceptics and open up a debate on this issue rather than having it forced upon us.
I note that there has been a great deal of controvery around ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’.
One contributor to the film, Professor Carl Winch, has since called it the worst propaganda he had seen since the Second World War (and he was one of the people whom they cited in support of their argument!)
Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen, who is also quoted in the program, has said he was misrepresented by it.
See http://folk.uio.no/nathan/web/statement.html for more details.