In 2008 keurde het Britse Parlement de 'Climate Change Act' goed. Daarmee onderschreef het Lagerhuis de doelstelling van een reductie van 80% van de menselijke uitstoot van broeikasgassen in 2050 ten opzichte van het niveau in 1990. Hiermee legde het Verenigd Koninkrijk zich vrijwillig en unilateraal strengere verplichtingen op dan enig ander land in de wereld. Slechts 5 parlementsleden stemden tegen.
Als men erin zou slagen om deze doelstelling te halen dan zou het VK waarschijnlijk worden teruggeworpen tot het welvaartsniveau van de Middeleeuwen. Het was een ernstig geval van collectieve verstandsverbijstering.
Maar vele Britse MP's komen nu weer bij zinnen en blijken zich te hebben ontworsteld aan de ban van de klimaathysterie.
Onder de titel, 'Overwhelming majority of Tory MPs do not accept climate change is man made', rapporteerden Alex Benady en John Owens in 'PR Week':
Nearly three-quarters of Conservative MPs do not accept that climate change has been proven to be caused by human activity, according to a new poll.
The survey of 119 MPs from all parties was commissioned by PRWeek from Populus to establish the attitudes of parliamentarians to climate change and environmental issues as part of a special report on the subject.
Only 51 per cent of MPs agree that it is an established fact that global warming is largely man made, though there are substantial differences between parties.
Nearly three-quarters (73 per cent) of Labour MPs agree that man-made global warming is now an established scientific fact compared with 30 per cent of Tory MPs.
Over half (53 per cent) of Conservative MPs agree with the statement that "it has not yet been conclusively proved that climate change is man made".
A further 18 per cent agree that "man-made climate change is environmentalist propaganda".
Climate change has fallen down the political agenda in the past five years, said half of all MPs, compared with 23 per cent who believe the opposite.
However, 68 per cent of all MPs believe more should be done to raise aware of environmental issues. ...
Lees verder hier.
Wat is de oorzaak van deze aardverschuiving van de opvattingen van Britse parlementariërs inzake klimaat?
Onder de titel, 'The Reasons For Britain’s Climate Fatigue', schreef Benny Peiser van de 'Global Warming Policy Foundation' (GWPF):
The public’s obsession with climate change, a common feature during much of the 1980s and 1990s, has been waning rapidly. The reason for growing climate fatigue is not so much a PR failure. After all, hundreds of millions are being spent each year around the world by thousands of NGOs, green energy lobbies and green government ministers. It is rather that reality no longer corresponds with alarmist predictions that were issued just a few years ago.
The novelty of global warming and the habitual alarm have lost their original shock value. Most people have begun to take climate scares with a sizeable pinch of salt.
The climate campaign was founded on two fears: that global warming was an urgent threat that needed to be prevented imminently and at all costs; and second, that the world was running out of fossil fuels. Both assumptions turned out to be wrong.
The shale revolution means the world is swimming in abundant gas and oil. But by far the biggest problem facing the climate agenda is the global warming ‘pause’.
The average global surface temperature has not risen for 17 years, an inconvenient fact that no scientist had predicted. ...
No communication skills can revive the success of bygone scaremongering as long as the actual climate does not conform to apocalyptic predictions made just a few years ago.
Aldus Benny Peiser.
Lees verder hier.
Als we de recente uitspraak van de President van de Britse 'Royal Society' ('Climate sceptics should be crushed and buried') serieus zouden moeten nemen, dan zou dat een slachting onder de Britse parlementariërs impliceren. Maar ik neem aan dat hij het metaforisch heeft bedoeld.
Wat zal er nu met de 'Climate Change Act' gebeuren?
Het zou interessant zijn om te weten of een peiling onder de Nederlandse parlementariërs een overeenkomstig resultaat zou opleveren. En zo ja, waarom? En zo nee, waarom niet?
0 reacties :
Een reactie posten