&&&&
As regular readers might remember, I wrote a post a while back explaining just what "being on a war footing" meant during WWII. The idea is that we could speed up our efforts aimed at avoiding catastrophic climate change if the governments of the world got off their collective butts and started acting like they really thought that we are in a climate emergency. As a result, I've become something of a Diogenes wandering through Guelph trying to find a politician or bureaucrat who wants to put some effort into mobilizing the public to deal with the climate emergency.
 |
| Vainly looking for an official in support of public mobilization? Diogenes Looking for a Man by Johann Heinrich Wilhelm Tischbein. Public Domain image c/o the Wiki Commons. |
I made this question a couple weeks ago at a private meeting between Lloyd Longfield and a delegation from the Green New Deal and also a couple nights ago to the past Environmental Commissioner, Diane Saxe, during a city event. In both cases the result was the startled look of a deer in the headlights of an oncoming car plus a question to the effect of "what do you mean?". I don't think I was totally out to lunch, however, because in both cases at least one other person referred to my question in their's---which suggests to me that I'm not the only one wondering why people of good will in positions of authority simply won't try to engage the public to help with the climate emergency.
 |
| Diane Saxe: "Public Mobilization? What the heck does that mean?" Photo by Ontario government, c/o Wiki Commons. |
Don't get me wrong. My read of both Lloyd Longfield and Diane Saxe is that they are both really good people who care about the climate emergency. But as I see it, they are both people who come from a background that specifically selects against people who think about how to mobilize the public to deal with a specific issue.
From what I've heard Mr. Longfield say, it seems that he comes from a background in engineering and business. Those are both fields where communicating with the public is not nearly as important as dealing with a specific problem that you solve either through mathematics and research, or, one-on-one deal making.
Similarly, my understanding is that Ms. Saxe comes from a legal background where she worked as a mediator. And the absolute last thing that mediators ever want to do is draw the public into the conversation. And, as I've pointed out with an earlier post titled What is an Environmental Group?, most environmental organizations consist of a small number of professionals who fundraise for their campaigns either through a professional fundraising company, solicit donations from a small number of hyper-rich donors, or, sub-contract for the government. So her experience with environmental organizations would similarly ill-prepare her for understanding how to mobilize the public in favour of a specific issue.
Another aspect of this comes from a future story that I'm preparing about parliamentary reform. In
conversation with Michael Chong he pointed out that the independence of local Electoral District Associations in Canada has withered away to the point where the party leader holds all the real power when it comes to nominating candidates. This means that no one who amasses a profile and following in a riding on the basis of engaging the public would ever get a nomination---simply because that would almost by definition mean that she is not a "team player" who would willingly submit to party discipline.
 |
| Michael Chong: "Don't expect modern parties to nominate rabble rousers!" Photo c/o his office. |
And if almost no one in Parliament is going to understand and support the idea that the average Canadian needs to "get riled up" to avoid catastrophic climate change, then there certainly aren't going to be any bureaucrats who will either. I worked for decades at the University of Guelph---which I nicknamed "the last outpost of the Soviet Union"---so I understand the bureaucratic mindset very well. The absolute primary responsibility of anyone in any sort of institution is "cover your butt". Generally the first response of an appointed official is to limit public engagement through things like controlling their access to information---not encourage them to actually do something!
&&&&
What's especially frustrating about this refusal to use one of the biggest weapons in the government arsenal is the fact that the people who want to make the world into a fiery inferno have no such qualms. Doug Ford is putting those Dao-cursed stickers on gasoline pumps.
 |
| Doug Ford has no problem at all with public engagement aimed at helping the human race commit suicide! Image from a government website. |
And, of course, Jason Kenney---the Fuhrer of Alberta---announced yesterday that $30 million is going to be spent creating a propaganda machine touting the "true story" of how the tar sands are nothing but butterflies and rainbows. This is their first creation:
The problem with progressive political parties refusing to do any public mobilization is that the forces of evil have no similar qualms. And if you leave the field open, a lot of people will simply accept Ford and Kenney's nonsense if they don't see any push back. This creates a natural "base constituency" that will vote against any political party that does try to do something to stop total catastrophe. By not pushing the case for rapid mobilization to end fossil fuel use, progressives simply don't build their own core constituencies.
&&&&
So what would it look like if the government actually tried to mobilize the public to fight climate change? There is the example from WWII---.
For example, the government could try to cut fossil fuel use by encouraging car pooling or using public transit.
 |
| How about "When you ride alone you help destroy your children's future"? |
 |
| Children in a blighted, over-heated landscape? Don't let your children fry, buy transit bonds! |
How about a campaign aimed at encouraging people to invest in a greater efficiency life-style in order to create a fossil-fuel free future?
People might object that I'm just rehashing stuff that's already been done. We have had energy-star appliances, financial incentives to put up solar panels, etc. But none of these have been sold emotionally. Instead, they've all been marketed through financial inducements. Indeed, the Liberals have made no attempt whatsoever to say that dealing with climate change is the right thing to do, or, that we have a moral imperative to do it---instead, ordinary folks could be excused if they thought that the entire thing just comes down to the carbon tax.&&&&
I'll admit that I'm a little angry in this post. I've been getting increasingly steamed over the last few weeks as I see person after person refuse to admit the gravity of the situation that the human race is facing. People should throw their "objectivity" and "manners" out the window and tell the flat-out truth that fatuous dorks like Jason Kenney and Doug Ford are "fiddling while Rome burns".
An additional minor truth that I am angry about is that people should be willing to pay for their news if they don't want to live on a diet of pablum and spin. If everyone who reads local news were to contribute a dollar a month to the news sources they like, Guelph could have a rich and lively independent news scene. Instead, most folks are content to just get the free stuff and let the advertisers tell you what they want you to hear.
The difference is that if you pay for the news, you are the customer. If you get it for free, you are the product that the publisher sells to the advertiser.
What would you rather be? Patreon and Paypal make supporting indie media very easy.
The added benefit from this business model is that your news doesn't hide behind a paywall, which means that people who genuinely can't afford to support it still get it for free.
&&&&
I get it. If you've spent your entire life looking at numbers, mediating disputes, negotiating contracts, implementing government policies, etc, emotions are scary, scary, scary. Emotional people yell at you. They don't make sense. They just make everything difficult.
But emotions are what get people to actually change their behaviour. And we can't solve the climate crisis simply through technology. People are going to have to change the way they live their lives. We can't just switch out internal combustion engines and replace them with electric ones and continue the "happy motoring" lifestyle. Increasing numbers of people will have to accept that they are going to have to live in higher density housing serviced through public transit. (Yeah---no backyard for the kids to play or drives in the country. Get used to it!) We won't be able to fly overseas every year or even every other year anymore. Things will have to change, and while a carbon free life doesn't have to be any less convenient or pleasant, a lot of people are very afraid of any significant change in their lives. If we don't work at emotionally engaging with people, we are not going to get them to commit to the program.
Instead, what I've heard over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, again for about 30 years is that "we have to make baby steps" and that "people can't handle the truth". Well, we are getting very close to "taking baby steps" over a damn cliff! It's time to be honest and emotional with the public. And the government needs to be part of that effort.
When other people pushed Diane Saxe on the need to engage the public, she did suggest that there are "groups" out there that can do that. She lauded "Fridays for the Future". But that's a bloody cop-out. In WWII no one in the government suggested that if we really wanted to stop Hitler we needed to get the school children out making a fuss. Instead, the government made the decision that they needed to get people cranked-up so they'd buy victory bonds, recycle scrap metal, grow their own veggies, accept rationing, etc. And they hired the very best people from the artistic community to fashion the images and ideas necessary to get everyone "with the program". (For crying out loud, the BBC even hired George Orwell to write propaganda for their Eastern service.)
We live in a sea of advertising. Every advertisement that people watch is implicitly telling folks that "everything" is OK. That there's no need to worry. Well, that's a damn lie. And we need some force in society to push back against this mountain of misinformation. And the only public force large enough to do this is the government. So if you have a chance to "bend the ear" of a politician, I'd suggest you bend it in the direction of trying to actually using public campaigns to get people emotionally engaged with the climate crisis. Because I simply do not think that we will be able to actually get the job done unless we do.
&&&&
Furthermore I say onto you, we need to deal with the climate crisis!
No comments:
Post a Comment