Heat on in eco wars

9:30am Tuesday 17th June 2008

Comments (0)   Have your say »

IT MUST be tough trying to save the planet when some people just don't appreciate what you're trying to do.

I occasionally get the feeling some of those telling us about the environmental catastrophe threatening us all have absolutely no idea how to react to someone who doesn't take all their warnings seriously.

Their responses seem to verge between righteous fury and bewilderment, with reasoned argument taking a back seat.

This is a shame, and potentially damaging to the environmental cause, because in this world how you get your message across is all too often just as important as how worthy your message is. It's really not going to change things if, when faced by opposition or scepticism, you get upset and keep repeating: "Why don't you understand? Can't you see how important this is?"

The trouble is, an awful lot of people feel quite sceptical when they're told they've been living their lives all wrong, and they need to change their ways double quick or face the consequences.

This is not necessarily because people are completely oblivious to the environment or climate change. It is, I think, partly because some of them feel they've heard warnings like this before.

Back in the 1970s, people started getting very worried about the future of humanity - something which seems to occur periodically throughout history.

I seem to recall two of the biggest worries, apart from nuclear annihilation if the Cold War turned hot, were that oil would soon run out, and population growth would outstrip food supplies.

Concerns about man's impact on the environment came increasingly to the fore.

It's not an exact replica of today's environmental debate by any means, but plenty of people can remember those times - and that we were able to find fresh oil reserves, and increase food production. So Doomsday was kept at bay - at least for the time being.

I'm not suggesting that will happen again, but it perhaps helps to explain why some people are less receptive than others to all the arguments about carbon footprints and the like.

That's not the only snag with getting the green message across. I suspect many people reacted to the protesters stopping the train en route to Drax Power Station, and shovelling coal off the wagons on to the trackside, by saying: "I hope they didn't waste any of that coal," rather than: "Thank goodness that coal isn't adding to global warming."

Somehow, I don't think that's what the protesters intended, but it's understandable in the present climate (if you'll pardon the pun).

Because, in a slightly strange sort of way, people are starting to do some of the things green campaigners want them to do, but for the "wrong" reasons. A national newspaper recently claimed petrol consumption had fallen by up to 20 per cent in the UK in the past 12 months, with a particularly sharp drop as prices shot up. This was on the eve of the strike by Shell tanker drivers, bringing fresh fears of fuel shortages and panic buying.

At the weekend, some friends of mine stopped off at a café in a popular Dales tourist hotspot. They had the place almost to themselves, something they had never known on a summer Saturday in decades of visiting the area.

Could it be people were staying home and leaving the car in the garage? Good news for the environment, perhaps, though not so good for rural businesses.

So could the slightly sad moral of all this be that people will do the right thing by the planet, not because of the fine example of green campaigners, but because they're being hit in the pocket?

That may be a bit cynical, but it does provoke the mildly ironic thought - that the really effective eco-warriors aren't the folks who held up the Drax train, but the striking tanker drivers.