Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Environment

Why the U.S. Is So Far Behind the Brits on Climate Change

By Sarah Stillman, Truthdig. Posted March 14, 2007.


While America is still begrudgingly coming to terms with the climate crisis, British politicians, scientists and newspapers have been shouting from the rooftops for years. So why is the U.S. so far behind its closest ally?
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Nothing screams "I (heart) global warming" quite like a romp around Capitol Hill in your bikini top at Christmastime. I speak from experience; this past holiday season, high on Coppertone and early-blooming cherry trees, I found myself all too eager to tryst with the infamous 21st-century menace--never mind that he'd recently melted the heart of the Ayles Ice Shelf, screwed 2,000 polar bears in the Beaufort Sea and sweet-talked the pasty male congressional interns into prematurely bearing their chests on the National Mall in January. Do I regret my indulgence? No. Have I repented? Yes. My cure? A blustery island called Great Britain.

When I returned to my new flat in the UK after the holidays to discover freakish winds that chapped my lips and trapped my neighbor under a pile of scaffolding until the local authorities could dig him out several hours later, the symbolism wasn't lost on me.

If America lubed up my climate change romanticism, the motherland was having nothing of it. In their mass media, the British have long favored unambiguous front-page headlines like "Global Warming May Kill Millions" over manufactured debates about whether climate scientists are the millennial Chicken Littles.

In their elected government, they share a cross-party consensus on the need for urgent action, as evinced by Prime Minister Tony Blair's ambitious pledge to cut UK carbon emissions at least 60 percent by 2050. And in their national temple to intellectual argumentation -- the pub -- the Brits' carbon-conscious banter flows as freely as Old Hooky.

In fact, it was around the stained oak tables of Oxford's Eagle and Child that I first noticed my British peers' dexterity in the lingo of "eco-footprints" and "carbon sequestration," meanwhile discovering my great American knack for mixing ale with scientific illiteracy with less-than-stellar results.

Whereas my job as a freelance journalist is typically to write my way around my ineptitude, on this particular occasion I would like to write about it. The question was simple when I pitched it to my editor several months ago: Why are the Brits kicking our arse on climate change awareness? That was back when news of a 14 percent reduction in perennial Arctic sea ice cover was relegated to the footnotes of The New York Times, and when the Republican-ruled Congress still boasted a prime soapbox for Sen. James Inhofe's (R-Okla.) diatribes against the liberal "hoax" of greenhouse gases. But times they are a-changing.

Now that the crisis has exploded into the mainstream U.S. press upon the release of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report in February -- and with Al Gore suddenly hedging his bets for a Nobel Peace Prize, Snoop Dogg rapping for the cause, and even our recalcitrant commander in chief promising a spankin' new climate agenda -- America appears to be reaching its tipping point.

My original question about the U.S.-UK climate divide hasn't disappeared in this new landscape; it's simply proved more complicated and urgent than I'd first imagined: Why did the Brits catch the climate change bug several years before the America public, and has this pop trend really translated into meaningful policy? What makes a troubling environmental truth take hold of a nation's psyche -- earning that coveted "stickiness factor" to which Malcolm Gladwell traces all revolutions of consciousness? And how can we ensure that America's recent attempts to close the climate change gap translate into immediate action -- individually, culturally and politically -- on both sides of the Atlantic this year?

I decided to consult more than 20 climate change scientists, politicians, journalists and environmentalists for answers. And the insights they shared form a surprisingly coherent picture, even if it looks less like one of Gore's tidy Power Point slides and more like an epidemiologist's tangled causality web: Scientific research breaks through to the mass media (or doesn't); the media transform pop culture; public opinion tilts political leadership; political leadership stocks the coffers of new scientific research; and the circle goes 'round again, ricochets, darts sideways and globalizes.

What follows is a tour of three major strands from this web that seem worth splicing, since they allow us to look beyond the symptoms of climate apathy in order to address its underlying practical and philosophical structures.

A Nation of "Once-lers": the Strand of Addiction

Let's begin with the most simple of explanations for the cross-Atlantic climate divide, one shared with me by global warming guru Bill McKibben: "Americans are deeper in denial because they're deeper in addiction." Best-selling author of The End of Nature and Deep Economy, McKibben has an arsenal of cheerless facts to back him up.

The U.S., with only 4.6 percent of the world's population, is now responsible for 23.5 percent of global emissions of carbon dioxide, the dominant greenhouse gas. "Per capita, we use twice the energy of Europeans," McKibben noted, conjuring an image of Joe Average driving home from Wal-Mart in his SUV, stocked with carbon-coughing gadgets and grocery bags full of perpetual summer (mangos from China, anyone?).

The Brits, meanwhile, ranked 38th in world carbon emissions per capita in 2003 -- a less-than-saintly stat, to be sure, but also one that reflects the UK's unique history of incentives to reduce coal dependency. David Demeritt, a climate change expert at King's College, London, pointed me to Britain's "dash for gas" in the 1990s as the origin of the country's kinder carbon status--a period after the privatization of the electricity sector when coal-fired power stations were replaced by more efficient gas-fired plants.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: global warming, climate change, unites states, britain

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Umm... maybe they know more about the science behind global warming?
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Mar 14, 2007 1:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here we have a very long article that entirely neglects to mention ANYTHING about the scientific issues regarding global warming. Christ. Take a look at the British press - they actually discuss the science and the economic pressures that lead to denial of global warming, instead of going off on lame socio-political rants:

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/ 0,,1875762,00.html

ExxonMobil is the world's most profitable corporation. Its sales now amount to more than $1bn a day. It makes most of this money from oil, and has more to lose than any other company from efforts to tackle climate change. To safeguard its profits, ExxonMobil needs to sow doubt about whether serious action needs to be taken on climate change. But there are difficulties: it must confront a scientific consensus as strong as that which maintains that smoking causes lung cancer or that HIV causes Aids. So what's its strategy?

Meanwhile Us environmentalists cheer over TXU deciding to only build five coal-fired plants instead of 12 - "We're going green!!" - how ridiculous can you get? Welcome to the propaganda nation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Big and Small
Posted by: edith on Mar 14, 2007 1:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Look at a map. Britain consists of three, four if you count N. Ireland, distinct historic entities, yet the distance between N. Scotland and Lands End is less than the drive from Portland Me to Miami. Britain is small, has had the tradition reliable train service, and has no "frontier" tradition to spur long, really long drives across the nation to find one's self. (E.g., the Easy Rider syndrome).

Thank Ike for the Interstate Highway System instead of a modernized Interstate Rail System. But all parties signed on to the Scratch-like bargain with the highway builders and the Oil companies and we are now stuck in Highway Heaven/Hell.

I have, like many Alternet readers I'm sure, enjoyed driving around England's winding country roads, but when the ddriving day is done, one hasn't actually gone all that far unlike commuters in California and Texas who drive hundreds of miles per week and don't even leave the metro area! In the small cars most tourists to a Britain like me rent, one doesn't burn that much gas(I mean at $6+ per how much gas do you want to burn in pursuit of freedom? Driving from Loch Ness to Dover sounds like an epic journey but it doesn't compare with the thousands of miles an intepid S.California commuter racks up each month.

Lady Market however will tame our American urge to wander the canyons and plains or just to glide down the freeway at 15 mpg in rush hr traffic. Gas will slowly rise in price, up and up as refinery capacity is exhausted, Chinese demand of petroleum increases, and Iraq continues to rattle the markets. And yet, for some bizarre reason Americans in the Northeast continue to burn "heating oil" to stay warm, driving futures prices even higher, even though petroleum is one of the least efficient means of heating possible. (And no, the reptilian charmer Chavez will not bail out Massachusetts indefinitely, no matter how low the groveling, burnt out "Joe" Kennedy bows.)

I suppose the best way to price Americans out of the auto addicition fix is to attack Iran and really kick the butt of the futures markets. But hopefully saner real world pricing policies (if not wiser politicians than the neocon, prozion Dim Duke of Crawford) will squeeze us into conservation and energy efficiency yet. Conservation is conservatism at its best.

Stretch limos are so, well, FLASHY. (Note to Final Four fans, attendees to proIsrael dinners, hip hop and Hollywood-you are SO yesterday!).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

capitalisme:socialisme
Posted by: richholland on Mar 14, 2007 3:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
England has a conservatif party(USA:Republicans) and a Labour Party= socialistic party.
In the USA you ONLY have Capitalisme.

When England was the Empire many british were poor.
Now America is the Empire so many americans are poor.
But if you wait till Al Gore and the big coorporation save the world you are to late.
So a mix between Socialisme and Capitalisme works.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: capitalisme:socialisme Posted by: Zazzer
Britain is a 'children of men' environmental dystopia
Posted by: Bobsays on Mar 14, 2007 3:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wouldn't choose Britain as a role model. Its public transport systems are filthy, badly managed and very violent. Its communities are over-crowded, rubbish-strewn, haunted by violent youth gangs. People have reduced consumption of resources because they are poor and resources are very expensive. They shower under trickles, they freeze in cold and damp houses, they are far more unhealthy than Americans because of all the alcohol they drink and junk food they eat to cope with all the stress from over-crowded communities and mind-numbing commutes on crappy public transport. Not the model to follow.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Long-winded and self-indulgent. 2.5
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Mar 14, 2007 6:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you remove all the attempts to be wordy and witty, this article could have been reduced by almost half.

As long as you have empires, you will have environmental destruction.

US attitudes toward the environment reflect our Imperial attitude in general: We want to tell everyone else what to do, but don't want anybody else telling us what to do, such as where to throw our bottles and cans. Spewing pollution into the atmosphere is our way of marking our territory.

We may have pockets of enlightenment here and there, but only the crumbling of our empire will force us to make any substantial changes. The trouble with that is that new empires will rise to replace us, such as China or India. Do we really think these countries will be less excessive once they take over?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Brits are gullible.....
Posted by: dikaiosyne on Mar 14, 2007 7:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Brits are gullible.....Americans a little less so. The whole canard on global warming is nothing than hype w/o any real basis that man has much to do (if anything) with climate change. As I have stated previously there is a natural cycle associated with climate warming and cooling having more to do with solar cycles than with anything occuring here on planet earth. It's a preposterous canard being promoted by folks with a political agenda mostly involved in the One World-er, the Gaia movement and the enviro-whacko crowd. I remember the hype in the 70's promoting the next ice age.....didn't happen. I'm going out on a limb here. I'm betting that global warming catastrophe's won't happen either. It's a rather devious plot to gain a greater measure of control over sovereign nations by essentially taxing these same nations for a "problem" over which humankind has no control. Sounds to me like something that the U.N. would come with as a money making scheme to increase it's power and influence...... especially over the U.S.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Brits are gullible..... Posted by: Cruella
» RE: Brits are gullible..... Posted by: ng1944
» RE: Brits are gullible..... Posted by: duck-lady
» RE: Brits are gullible..... Posted by: xconservative
The U.S. prefers liars as our leaders
Posted by: Leadbyexample on Mar 14, 2007 8:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We are a denial obsessed nation, putting off tomorrow what we should be facing today. I'll start my diet next week, why should I worry about climate change when China and India are oblivious, I will start recycling soon, and on it goes. The author was correct in dwelling on the political differences between the U.S. and Britian, it is all about politics when it comes to U.S. foot dragging on global warming. Politicians who do not subscribe to the mantra of paid lobbies get run over or do not get elected in the first place. Energy conservation is not glamorous and will never generate the huge corporate profits as does the fossil fuel industry, the full page, feel good ads by big oil shows there is money to burn.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Football
Posted by: DaBear on Mar 14, 2007 9:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It has to be the football. In 'Merkuh we have this national stoopid called pointy-ball which the über-malted folk mistakenly call "football"—even though it has way more to do with standing around and having time-outs than actually playing any sort of sport, and absolutely nothing to do with a ball on the feet but for a pointless kick now and again. But in the UK, they have football, the real thing. That has to be the answer. Footer makes you see and think and imagine in 3D, on the fly, constantly evolving, constantly changing, requiring stamina and actual skill, kinda like the real world, so the Brits "get it" on things like climate change. Meanwhile, in the hyper soldier-kult-formerly-known-as-'Merkuh, the land dulled by really poorly made mass produced malts and obsessed with boobs (as long as they belong to white bikini clad chicks and not a non-white artist), we have a national obsession with stoopid... standing around, constantly demanding time-outs while we "debate" waht to do, not doing much really, but once in a while, kicking at a pointy ball, all in pre-packaged 2D (cuz the owner needs to make more millions), while we very lethargically.... overweight and armed to the gills, lurching at each other with very little skill, until we all... fall... down... kinda like the U.S. on climate change. See? It's all about football.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Football Posted by: moflard
White House Seeks to Cut Geothermal Research Funds
Posted by: maxpayne on Mar 14, 2007 1:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
White House Seeks to Cut Geothermal Research Funds
by Bernie Woodall

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0314-04.htm

Perhaps if Alternet and the rest of the libs would quit worrying about other countries and help America's mind its own business and FIX our messed up leadership, this country wouldn't be a MISERABLE FAILURE !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Knowledge is not required
Posted by: roo on Mar 14, 2007 4:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the United States, people expect knowledge to be provided for them. If that knowledge proves flawed, it is not their fault because it was provided by someone else.

That will work until Manhattan resembles Venice.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thatcher was SMART. The goal of her aligning herself with
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Mar 14, 2007 6:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
pollyannish environmentalists and promote 'global warming' was that she wanted to rely on nuclear power for Britian's energy needs and wanted to build more reactors. Since many environmentalists and the general public then, and now, were against 'nukes' she helped promote the 'global warming' arguments and show how nuclear power could help alleviate this phenomena. This was due to several reasons.
1) UK, other than NorthSea, has limited access to petroleum and the North Sea fields are/will run out sooner than later (or, at least, it will be more and more expensive to extract.)
2) the major oil reserve owners are Middle Eastern and Soviet. Both of which were/are repressive regimes, opponents on the world stage, and can not be trusted.
3) the major energy companies are no longer based wholly in the UK and so there was less allegience to them. (And going nuclear in the UK would not damaged their petroleum business elsewhere in the world.)
4) becoming less reliant on outside power producers means, in theory, more energy security and, possibly, cheaper and more reliable energy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why Choose the UK?
Posted by: BobbyGreyFriar on Mar 16, 2007 10:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think the difference is mainly that elite interests aren’t as concerned about denying Global Climate Change in the UK as in the US (besides SUV’s won’t fit on most of their roads). And I’m not sure that everything is rosy in the UK, either. For example, there has been an explosion in cheap flights, and the Government continues to invest in motorways rather than using the money to improve public transportation infrastructure, which is quite poor in many places (though generally much more accessible than in the US).

Besides, we can look in our own backyard for comparisons. The US is the single worst polluter period. Every single other country is doing much better then we are. In contrast, I imagine Cuba is one of the most efficient countries in the world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Why Choose the UK? Posted by: richholland
» RE: Why Choose the UK? Posted by: Veronique
» RE: Why Choose the UK? Posted by: Zazzer
IT'S NOT SCIENCE
Posted by: gellero on Mar 19, 2007 7:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The DOGMA that humans cause global warming is on shakey scientific footing. Check this out...........
Brit Documentary on Global Warming

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

here is the link
Posted by: gellero on Mar 19, 2007 7:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
» RE: here is the link Posted by: Zazzer
Separated by a Common Ocean
Posted by: jct3 on Mar 19, 2007 11:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think another reason the UK is light years ahead of the US in its concern about global warming may be the fact that the British Isles would become almost uninhabitable if the Gulf Stream were to shut down. The UK is very far north and without the Gulf Stream would have a climate similar to today's Canadian Northwest Territories. Since many Americans already live in climates that are much colder (or used to be!) than the UK I think many of us are in denial. It's all too easy to think, "Hey, I live in Minneapolis (or Boston, or Albany, or Helena, or Cheyenne, or Fairbanks) and maybe a little global warming wouldn't be all bad." Of course, this is the simplistic view, but perhaps somewhat understandable. As for me, I cannot believe that we have come to a point where we are actually discussing an ice-free Arctic Ocean, higher sea levels, a frozen Western Europe, and a perpetual Great Plains dust bowl as REAL possiblities. This was all predictable . . . and predicted . . . and ignored by those whose moral compass always points toward short-term corporate profits.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

More information
Posted by: Jonnieprince on Mar 20, 2007 3:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you want more information on global warming evidence and the political not environmental motives behind the whole issue watch the BBC documentary 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' on youtube

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: More information Posted by: brianetg