Huhne’s Scare Tactic Flops As His Green Energy Bill Is Shelved

No lesson seems to be so deeply inculcated by the experience of life as that you should never trust experts. If you believe doctors, nothing is wholesome: if you believe the theologians, nothing is innocent: if you believe the soldiers, nothing is safe. They all require their strong wine diluted by a very large admixture of insipid common sense. --Lord Salisbury (1830 – 1903)

---

Mainstream media coverage of climate change dropped off steeply. Matthew C. Nisbet, a professor of communication at American University, argues that climate change is unlikely to regain prominence in the media unless a new “frame” is established for the issue that can define it in terms of immediate, locally relevant impacts, such as human health risks. One approach for increasing relevance, especially in making the case for climate and energy legislation, has been the strategic use of a national security frame. --Alexa Jay, Climate Science Watch, 19 January 2011 Global warming will threaten Britain's security by triggering wars, food shortages and mass migration, Energy Minister Chris Huhne warned today. Although the UK may escape the worst physical impacts of rising temperatures and sea levels, the UK will still be exposed to 'alarming and shocking' consequences of climate change elsewhere, he said. --David Derbyshire, Daily Mail, 8 July 2011 The UK's government's energy bill, which was expected to be debated before parliament's summer break, has been shelved. Ministers at the Department for Energy and Climate Change (Decc) have lost their argument with the government's business managers, and the centrepiece of climate change policy has been sidelined. The fact that the green deal is not going to make it to the statute books marks a personal failure for Chris Huhne. --Meg Hillier, The Guardian, 7 July 2011 This is an attempt by Chris Huhne to re-frame the climate scare by linking it to national security. In recent months, green campaigners have focused attention on security issues in the hope of reviving their flagging campaign. Public concern and media coverage of climate change has dropped significantly in the last 12-18 months. In response, green groups have concluded that accentuating national security may give the issue greater immediacy, not least among conservative voters who are more sceptical about environmental scares but more open to security concerns. –Benny Peiser, Daily Mail, 8 July 2011 When talking about climate change, communicators should frame their messages to match what they think the audience may already relate to and worry about in terms of national security. For instance, when speaking to people in the military, communicators could highlight the connections between climate change and potential conflicts over natural resources. When speaking with a group of parents, communicators might want to describe what the world could be like when their children are adults—when issues like water wars, food shortages, and sheltering environmental refugees may become realities for people in the US. --The Psychology of Climate Change Communication, 2009 The stakes of climate change are important[1]and that is why this area should not be the object of intellectual fantasies or fashions. It is appropriate for defense and security planners to monitor the evolution of the scientific and political debate on its possible consequences. But there is no objective reason today to list climate change as a key issue for defense and security planning. --Bruno Tertrais: The Washington Quarterly, Summer 2011

---