Creating a credible alternative: communicating climate change on the Right
- 02 May 2012, 15:00
- Ros Donald
The majority of people who express climate skepticism in the UK
hold
conservative political views. Is this based on their assessment
of the science, or do Conservatives feel pushed into skepticism
because they aren't offered a credible alternative to the a climate
narrative that is largely left wing?
This was the issue exercising a panel at free market thinktank
Policy Exchange last night, which discussed how Conservatives could
create their own climate change stories, bringing constituencies
that feel disenfranchised by particular green policies into the
heart of the debate about the UK's low carbon future. Well, three
quarters of the panel did anyway. The panel's fourth speaker,
MP Peter Lilley, highlighted the difficulties of engaging with
climate skeptics on policy questions that rely on the acceptance of
mainstream climate science. While he raised some interesting policy
points, it became clear that he wasn't willing to move his focus
away from objecting to mainstream climate science. He's entitled -
but it meant the debate got a bit bogged down in places.
Adam Corner, a researcher who specialises in the psychology of
the climate debate, said there has been a failure to communicate
the scientific facts on climate change in a way that chimes with
the right. Conservative opposition to mainstream climate science
represents a "practical challenge" - those who want to bring
Conservatives into a constructive climate policy debate msut plug
into existing networks on the right, he argued. One example he
highlighted was the way Conservative philosopher Roger Scruton is
starting to consider action on climate change in terms of local
aesthetics, traditionalism and bottom-up mobilisation. Just because
people oppose wind farms, Corner said, it doesn't mean they're
climate skeptics.
Are there ways to make climate chime with Conservatives? Could,
for example, the promise of a competitive advantage, less wasted
energy and an independent fuel supply bring the right on side?
Conservative MP Tim Yeo thinks so: "People on the right are
rational" he told the audience, so they understand it makes sense
to hedge against the threat of climate change. He pointed out that
the majority of businesses are planning ahead for the effects of
climate change because they understand the economic imperative to
do so.
Yeo also noted that it isn't necessary for people to accept
mainstream climate science to get behind "no regrets" policies like
making housing stock more energy efficient or reducing the UK's
dependence on oil and gas imports. Yeo is a big supporter of the
Green Deal - the government's loan scheme designed to cut the
upfront domestic cost of efficiency measures - although he said he
doesn't support the prospect of making such measures compulsory
when people have other work done on the house. Fair enough, but
audience members pointed out - as we did at the time - the idea
that, as he put it, homeowners would be forced to spend thousands
bears more relation to the
Daily Mail's characterisation of the so-called 'conservatory
tax' than any ideas dreamed up in Whitehall.
The Guardian's head of environment, Damian Carrington, picked up
on the 'conservatory tax' as an emblem of the way Conservative
doubts about climate policy are portrayed. He pointed out that in
practice, rebellion by the right against state imposition of green
measures doesn't always reflect reality on the ground. He used the
example of the
Conservative council that has been "imposing" energy efficiency
measures on householders when they have work done on the house
for five years without any complaints. Carrington was less
convinced people can get on board with green policies even if they
don't accept the premise of climate change, asking how the
economics of decarbonisation can work if people don't see
greenhouse gas emissions as a negative externality.
Climate skeptic Conservative MP Peter Lilley, who was among five
dissenters when the
UK Climate Change Act was passed in 2008, made an interesting
addition to the panel. Lilley is a climate skeptic, and either took
the debate off course by offering up skeptic arguments about the
science of climate change, or demonstrated that objections to
climate policy aren't just about climate policy, depending on your
point of view.
Lilley said he opposed the climate change act on the grounds
that the government's cost-benefit analysis did not persuade him
the "most expensive legislation since the welfare state" was
justified. Then there were the schemes to encourage take-up of
renewables: Lilley argued solar subsidies, for example, take "money
out of peoples' pockets" and put it into those of people who are
already wealthy, because they're the ones with the right properties
for the technology. In service to his cost-benefit argument he
suggested that
green measures had put up household bills by 11 per cent -
although we haven't seen this figure before, so it would be
interesting to know where it came from.
Cost is an important factor in assessing the case for climate
policies, indeed much of the political and media debate revolves
around discussing costs. Lilley didn't stop there, though - he
chose to add popular skeptic arguments such as the assertion that
global warming has
stopped to his case, ultimately arguing that the climate case
isn't suffering from a "lack of conviction", but from a "lack of
evidence".
Corner told us after the session, "It's a shame that so many on
the right move so seamlessly from a critique of climate policies
(which is fair enough) to a dismissal of the problem. Instead, they
should be coming up with different policies." Reflecting on the
debate, he said it lends credence to the oft-repeated view that the
UK's energy supply is a good starting point for getting the
conversation moving.
We also asked Guy Newey who chaired the event what he thought.
He said the debate highlighted the fact that disputes about
emissions policy can get dragged into arguments about the science -
which poses a challenge for all communicators, adding "I hope the
event demonstrated how important policy choices are in gaining
acceptance of climate action."
Hopefully it's not the end of the discussion. As one attendee
remarked, a single seminar can't begin to cover this
conversation.