The former scientific advisor to Tony Blair – the man who urged our then prime minister to take global warming seriously, has come out and stated that he feels many green campaigners are actually a liability.
Sir David King has been quoted as saying: “There is a suspicion, and I have that suspicion myself, that a large number of people who label themselves ‘green’ are actually keen to take us back to the 18th or even the 17th century.
“[Their argument is] ‘Let’s get away from all the technological gizmos and developments of the 20th century’, and I think that is utter hopelessness.”
King also maintains that nuclear power must be seen as part of the solution as we seek to combat carbon emissions.
My initial reaction to these comments was one of frustration and disappointment.
Why is it that if I rely on public transport, I’m the Luddite, yet if a car owner scoffs at modern sustainable technology, they aren’t a Luddite.
What’s so advanced about a combustion engine?
And with reference to King’s comment, what’s so advanced about nuclear fission or nuclear fusion? As Greenpeace maintains, why renew our faith, dating back to the 1950s, in nuclear power? It didn’t work then. Why should it work now? His views on the green movement are extremely generalised and outdated.
It seems to me we’re dealing with double standards.
Just because nuclear energy avoids the burning of fossil fuels, this does not equate that it is forward thinking. In my opinion, nuclear power is far from safe and the waste created hardly means that it is a clean energy. Max Lindberg argues a very strong case against nuclear power here.
Yet a closer inspection of King’s opinions negated my initial dismay. The short Press Association piece went for an incendiary angle, clearly designed to rile.
An in-depth interview that ran in the UK’s Guardian newspaper reveals a different man. It describes a level-headed scientist who takes global warming very seriously indeed.
I certainly don’t concur with his views on nuclear power. I’m not even obliged to after all, yet some of his views are indeed extremely sound.
I ask that you read the interview here. You’ll smile, you’ll shout, you’ll nod your head, you’ll shake it in annoyance, yet at least the UK has a scientist who is stressing the importance of global warming and volunteering his solutions. He’s co-authored a book entitled The Hot Topic where he discusses the subject in depth.
I’ll leave you with one of King’s retorts to a young woman who asked what she could do to help combat global warming.
“Stop admiring young men in Ferraris,” he replied.
Source:
Image courtesy of Akuppa at Flickr
Pem, thanks for raising this issue, it’s a very important one. I think you are spot on with your analysis of the AP article, it did not catch the nuance of King’s position at all.
I completely agree with his argument that the doomsday-scenario environmentalist does not have much traction in terms of gathering political support for the green cause. Similarly, the strategy of moralizing (laying on a guilt-trip)does not work either – it can be both alienating and polarizing.
I can’t really comment on whether his claims about the British Green movement are true, but I would argue that the type of environmentalism he is critical of, is less prevalent than it once was.
Much like Shellenberger and Nordhaus’ recent indictment of ‘traditional’ moralist environmentalism, King’s book seems to be a day late and a dollar short.
In general, I agree with King that the image presented to (or at least widely held by) the British public of environmentalists has some luddite characteristics – anti-growth, and demanding some drop in living standards. This is clearly something the environmental movement needs to work on if it ever wants to be part of widespread social change rather than a niche interest.
However, I disagree with King’s position on techno-fixes, in which he is curiously out of step with public opinion and a significant chunk of scientfic thought.
We need an environmental movement which helps people to make positive change in their own life, encourages wider social change in our communities, *and* successfully brings about structural change at the national and international levels. This is no easy task, but I think King is right in suggesting that our current environmental movement is not succeeding. But does that mean we should disband and ignore the environmentalists. I hope not.
More on this <a href=”http://localfoods.wordpress.com/2008/01/12/sir-david-king-and-the-environmentalists-who-to-listen-to/”here.
What is essential is that green movements – whatever part of the globe – shed existent piety if it does exist.
Certainly within the UK, there *can* be a little bit of the holier-than-thou attitude amongst some.
A frightful attitude for anyone to adopt, whatever their lifestlye. An immediate turn off.
But as far as the Luddite claims … not sure I’ve ever met someone with these tendencies within the UK’s green arena.
But thank you both for taking the time to comment. Both comments interesting.
Simply “stop admiring men in ferraris” isnt that in odds with saying “[Their argument is] ‘Let’s get away from all the technological gizmos and developments of the 20th century’, and I think that is utter hopelessness.” Surely a ferrari is a 20th century gizmo. lol. Nice size 12 Dave.