Climate Change - Blowing Up the Enemy

Once again, I'm late to the party. But I'd now like to add my own little voice to all the other angry statements being thrown around about this video:

It is supposed to be a joke, apparently. But as DK points out, it isn't funny. Not even in a bad taste sort of a way. It is simple, stupid and offensive. It's crass. It is, at best, a massive misjudgment on the part of the 10:10 campaign. But I'd also agree with Mr Eugenides - I don't quite believe this is an incitement to murder, and anyone who genuinely takes it as such is getting a little hysterical.

However, for me this is very revealing of the mindset of many people involved in the environmental movement. They have become convinced that they have found a "truth" - that the survival of the human race is dependent on pursuing the policies they back. And this is not something that is open to debate anymore - what they believe in is the truth. Those who don't agree aren't equal parties in a debate. They are wrong. Worse, they are being obstructive in the creation of a better tomorrow. And, as this video shows, they are lacklustre, lazy people who just can't be bothered to help build a utopia and avoid future dystopia. Hell, you wouldn't miss them if someone in authority blew them up.

Of course, it isn't just the environmentalists who fall foul of this sort of thinking. Pretty much anyone who has discovered the truth starts to believe that those who oppose them are a little less than human. That's how Stalinism came into being. That's how the nightmare of the Khmer Rouge came about. And so on. And that's what environmentalists have to avoid. Those who oppose them aren't doing so because they are bad in some way - they do it because they are not convinced by the evidence and/or the suggested policies to change the world.

Which is the point of plurality, democracy and debate. If you want to silence people, then win them over through talking with them. Because whatever this video was trying to achieve (and I genuinely don't know what that was), it has done nothing other than further alienate me from their cause.

So what if Tory candidates don't care about the environment?

I can't understand why anyone thinks this is news:

ConservativeHome asked Tory candidates to rate 19 policy issues on a scale of one to five, with five being the most important. Only eight of the 141 Tory candidates who responded gave climate change five marks, the lowest number for any issue.

Yeah, that's 'cos they are Tories, for fuck's sake. They are not the Green party. They are not going to be obsessed by the supposed problem of climate change, in the same way that the Green party isn't going to spend a lot of time thinking about marital tax breaks. And personally I'd rather the party most likely to become the government before the year is out focussed on real issues facing this country, like the shafted economy, the two wars we're fighting and the decimation of civil liberties under Labour rather than made up tripe about the environment.

The Dwindling Influence of Gordon Brown

Gordon Brown on the failure of the Copenhagen climate talks:

"I am now going to lead a campaign around the world with other countries for the legally binding treaty that is the obvious next stage from this."

I think it is sweet that Gordon Brown is already planning what he is going to do with his (enforced, completely involuntary) retirement. The only problem he might find is that no-one is going to listen to him. I mean, I think most leaders struggle to care what Gordon Brown has to say even though he is Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. When he is an ex-Prime Minister, an ex-MP and an ex-politician, they aren't going to give the first fuck about anything he says or does.

It is true that some politicians do have careers after they step down from power. Blair would be a good example of this; he makes lots of money consulting with companies, and also has a job prancing around the world as some sort of envoy to the Middle East. Hell, he was nearly EU President, until wiser heads realised that he would be a fucking disaster in that role. Yet Blair has nowhere near the influence he had when he was Prime Minister, and Brown would be lucky to get even a tenth of the influence wielded by Blair. The reason is so simple it almost seems crass to point it out, but I will do anyway. Very simply, Brown is not Blair.

Blair, for all of his faults (and, by Christ, there are a lot of faults in that man), was a successful politician in that he could win elections and converse with people - from the man on the street through to the President of the United States - effectively. Brown can do neither - although, in fairness, his electoral ability has not really been tested since he runs away every time there is even a whiff of a contest. But whereas Blair could be considered a partial success both as a politician and a human being (as much as it pains me to write those words), Gordon Brown most certainly cannot. It is a bit like when a colleague you really hate resigns from the office. There are the platitudinous promises to stay in touch; but once the office door closes on them, you breathe a sigh of relief and thank your lucky stars that you never have to see them again. That is how I think world leaders will feel when Brown stomps out of Number 10 for the last time.

Of course, some failed world leaders have gone on to have successful careers. One example is Jimmy Carter. Of course, Carter was a colossal failure as President. Really just terrible. Yet, since his time in office, he has managed to salvage his reputation to some extent and do some good work. Likewise, Nixon managed to undo some of the damage that his resignation caused to his reputation. However, again the personalities of those leaders plays an important part in the resurrection of their post-presidential careers. Nixon's greatest strength was a political tenacity matched by few in the history books. He had the determination to fight back and work hard to salvage whatever he could for his place in the history books. Brown - a man who waited ten years to get the job of Prime Minister, and who has had to actually fight for remarkably little in his life - will lack the tenacity to do the same. Besides, Brown is probably deluded enough to not think he has to do any work on rescuing his reputation. Likewise, Carter has something Brown lacks - humility. One story about Carter has the former President working for Habitat for Humanity whilst his Vice-President campaigned for the White House in 1984. It is hard to imagine Brown working for a charity (and actually doing manual labour) whilst his successor as Labour leader campaigns in a General Election. Brown would probably be at the Labour rally, demanding to be made Labour leader again and also Prime Minister.

The sad truth is that the same personality flaws that have made Brown such an atrocious Prime Minister will still be present after he leaves Number 10. And those flaws will probably stop him from rescuing his tarnished reputation, let alone acting as an influencer on world leaders. Brown will probably be as much as failure as a former Prime Minister as he is as Prime Minister. His model won't be any of the leaders mentioned above; it is far more likely he will follow the example of Edward Heath, and be a misanthropic, malign millstone for his party as they try to move on.

If Brown wants to influence anyone on any issue, then he has - at best - 6 months to do it. After that, no-one is going to care.

Quote of the Day - Explaining Global Warming

"The problem we are faced with is that the meteorological establishment and the global warming lobby research bodies which receive large funding are now apparently so corrupted by the largesse they receive that the scientists in them have sold their integrity."

Piers Corbyn, speaking in 2000

Climate Change *Proof*

DK is (naturally) celebrating the news that some of those Climate Change "scientists" have been caught being somewhat economical with the the truth. Now, the climate change brigade would probably argue that this makes little difference; that the environment is still under threat even if these scientists have been caught constructing the sort of fabrications that might normally be associated with a Nu Labour government preparing for war. Certainly, I'll concede that the climate is changing, and that humanity often does have a negative impact on that environment. And I'll also concede, since I am in an unusually generous mood this morning, the deceit of some environmentally focussed scientists does not dismiss the findings of all environmentally focussed scientists. However, it does bring it all into question.

Which is the point. I, for one, am sick of being called a "climate change denier" in the same tones that are normally reserved for Holocaust deniers. I don't "deny" climate change, I simply question the extent to which humanity is responsible for it and also doubt how convincing some of the supposed evidence for it is. Guess what? I'm a skeptic - and this evidence shows that being sceptical is a good position to be be in.

Blind adherence to the "truth" about climate change is a frankly moronic position. Like every other part of life, science can seldom offer an absolute, indisputable "truth". And it is also open to use and abuse by those with agendas. So for all those environmentalists out there who wish to close down the debate because the evidence for climate change is now "indisputable", take a step back and a deep breath, admit you are wrong, and start making your case again. This time without the shrill, strident tone that sounds more appropriate coming from a religious fanatic than someone talking about reality.

Climate Change Insanity

It falls to another to accurately sum up my position on climate change as well as his own:

And I am not - I am, still, not - what they refer to, so offensively, as a "climate change denier". I believe that mankind can and does affect the planet, and I believe that effect is usually negative.

Will rising CO2 in the atmosphere cause warmer temperatures, changing weather patterns, and a few inches' rise in sea levels? Yeah, maybe - though the jury is still out. Even if the science were settled, though, does that justify dismantling the edifices of our civilisation, one by one? No, of course it doesn't. If it rains more, buy a fucking umbrella. If the seas rise, don't build your house on the beach.

I'd advise everyone to go and read the angry baby man's article in full - it neatly sums up just how insane the environmental industry lobby can be.

Saving The World, Paul McCartney Style

Paul McCartney has some sage words to help us with the problem of climate change:

Sir Paul told the Independent: "Many of us feel helpless in the face of environmental challenges, and it can be hard to know how to sort through the advice about what we can do to make a meaningful contribution to a cleaner, more sustainable, healthier world.

"Having one designated meat-free day a week is a meaningful change that everyone can make, that goes to the heart of several important political, environmental and ethical issues all at once."

Not sure what this goes to show, other than Sir Paul and I have very different definitions of the word "meaningful". 

However, for me, this doesn't get to the heart of the problem with climate change and "environmental challenges". The problem isn't the changes we are seeing within our world. The problem is people - in particular rock stars who left anything even approaching every day reality decades ago - giving me spurious advice on how to live my life based on bugger all evidence. That really does my head in. This idea that because someone is famous they suddenly become incredibly knowledgeable on anything they care to dabble in is simultaneously idiotic and dangerous. After all, if Sir Paul - or Bono, or Thom Yorke, or that dweeb from Coldplay - wandered into the operating theatre with some advice for the surgeon just before they start operating on your brain, you'd tell them to fuck right off. And this flows across all the different parts of life. I'd probably take advice from the person who wrote "Live and Let Die" on songwriting; for just about anything else I don't really need the glib pronouncements of the man who wrote "The Frog Chorus."

So, in order to deal with my "environmental challenges", I've decided to never again listen to anything Paul McCartney has to fucking say. That goes to the heart of several important political, environmental and ethical issues for me all at once...

Don't Vote Green

Here's a new one on me - the scandal around MPs' expenses means we should vote Green*. No, really - this appears to be part of their campaign in the upcoming Euro-elections. Politically, it is a very interesting idea - and does make me wonder why the Greens have moved away from/added another plank to the single issue of environmentalism that has left them to such ferociously useless election results in the past.

I suspect the economy is the answer. Being environmentally friendly, for a lot of people, is something to do when you're feeling economically secure. And Green issues tend to be more prominent in national politics when the economy is doing well. The Greens do better when you can afford to worry about climate change and so on. If you are ever so inclined to worry about such things. 

It follows that the recession will have hit the Greens badly. Note the disappearance of the Green case from the rhetoric of our political leaders. Recently, all Brown, Cameron and Clegg (on the rare occasions when he has been bothered to open his gob) have been going on about the economy and, even more recently, have been trying to out do each other with apologies for the gross abuse of the expenses system. Climate change etc has vanished from their agendas. Because the voters care more about the economy, about taxation, and now about how much they are being fleeced by MPs through their "self-regulated" expenses system. 

So the way the Greens have launched their campaign is actually quite canny, particularly for a group of tree-huggers who normally work hard at detaching themselves from political reality. They are talking about the issue of the moment - expenses. And also talking about how their investment in green industries could create jobs.

Yet, voting Green is still a really, really dumb thing to do. They may be more trustworthy than the three main parties when it comes to expenses; I can't be bothered at the moment to do the research on just how much their existing MEPs have taken from the EU. But when you take a look at their page on Wikipedia (which their own site directs you to) you see some *interesting* policies:

Like many Green parties, the Green Party of England and Wales does not consider economic growth to be the only or the best indicator of progress, as it sees endless growth as incompatible with a planet of finite resources. It is against mass consumption and destructive consumer lifestyles and hopes to encourage an economy built on sustainability and long-term use.

For many people, struggling with recession and desperately hoping for more economic growth to help guarantee their job and ensure that their house maintains value, this must be more than a little wounding. And for those looking for a little more justice in the tax system, well, the Green Party definitely isn't the way to go:

On taxation, the Green Party believes in increasing the top rate of income tax to make the system more redistributive. It is in favour of a more progressive system of corporation tax to encourage small businesses over large corporations. It supports eco-taxes, such as those on packaging and carbon emissions, along the lines of the 'polluter pays' principle.

Old school Social Democracy - worthy of the old school Labour movement. As is this:

Also, the party wants an increase in trade union rights and the renationalisation of the railways and other public utilities.

So, the Green Party wants to increase taxes on the rich and on business, at the same as nationalising things. This all sounds a lot like Labour under Gordon Brown. Or the Labour Party under Michael Foot.

I'm mildly impressed that the Green Party have tried to grab the political moment and try to make the case for them being the real alternative to the main parties. Unfortunately, they aren't that different from the Labour Party of the 1980's and their policies reek of economic naivety. Anyone thinking about voting Green, well, I'd urge you not to. You're not voting for change. On so many levels, you'd be voting for a worse version of the status quo.

*As a heads up, voting for a party in the Euro-Elections will have zero impact on the expenses system. That is created by and regulated by MPs. in order to deal with that, we need a General Election. So on this level - as well as many others - the Green case is very, very weak.

The Underbelly of the Environmental Movement

It happened – third runway, here we come! This can’t be a massive surprise for anyone – after all, the government wanted this bill to pass, and since they have a healthy working majority, it was going to take a lot to stop this proposal from taking on an certain edge of inevitability. I’m quite apathetic on this issue – rather being a NIMBY, I’m more NMFP*. After all, I’m not on the flight path and tend to fly from Gatwick anyway. However, I’m expecting a howl of impotent rage from those who oppose the third runway.

Which leads me back to a point I have already made – just what, precisely, to those who oppose this third runway expect Heathrow to do about all their problems? Yeah, we have Boris’s plans to build airports in the river**, but I don’t hear many of the third runway protestors supporting that idea. Partly because the real nub of the issue isn’t so much the location of the extra runway, but rather the desire to expand air travel. I’d say most of the protestors simply don’t want there to be more air travel for environmental reasons.

However, this makes the question of what exactly is the alternative even more pertinent and urgent. If we want to stop the expansion of air travel, or, indeed, reduce it, then what precisely is the alternative? Because so much of the modern economy is based around air travel. If we stop the expansion of air travel, or even reduce it, it is going to decimate a global economy that is already floundering badly.

And there’s a further point. Air travel is not alone in being a potentially environmentally unfriendly mode of transport. Yet all the modern modes of transport exist for a reason. They are there to meet the demands of the growing global population. And this isn’t just demands for people to take their annual holidays to Tenerife. This is about the mass transit of commodities people need to survive. Sure, you could reduce this mass transit system across the globe a little bit, and impact on the quality of life for some. As soon as you start radically attacking that system, you are going to start hurting people in crucial ways.

The problem, therefore, is the size of the global population. Some environmentalists concede that only a substantial reduction in the number of humans on this planet can actually save the environment. Which leads us to the unsavoury, brutal, extreme underside of the environmental movement – how we reduce the population. And the ideas are not pleasant. This sort of mindset is, for me, best summed up by this old comment from a radical environmentalist character calling themselves Miss Ann Thropy way back in the 1980’s:

If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human population back to ecological sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS. So as hysteria sweeps over the governments of the world, let me offer an ecological perspective on the disease (with the understanding that the association between AIDS and homosexuality is purely accidental and irrelevant - in Africa it is a heterosexual disease, and is destined to be everywhere).

I take it as axiomatic that the only real hope for the continuation of diverse ecosystems on this planet is an enormous decline in human population. Conservation, social justice, appropriate technology, etc., are great to discuss and even laudable, but they simply don't address the problem. Furthermore, the whole economy of industrial affluence (and poverty) must give way to a hunter-gatherer way of life, which is the only economy compatible with a healthy land.

Of course, such a decline is inevitable. Through nuclear war or mass starvation due to desertification or some other environmental cataclysm, human overpopulation will succumb to ecological limits. But in such cases, we would inherit a barren, ravaged world, devoid of otters and redwoods, Blue Whales and butterflies, tigers and orchids.

Barring a cure, the possible benefits of this (AIDS) to the environment are staggering. If, like the Black Death in Europe, AIDS affected one-third of the world's population, it would cause an immediate respite for endangered wildlife on every continent. More significantly, just as the Plague contributed to the demise of feudalism, AIDS has the potential to end industrialism, which is the main force behind the environmental crisis.

None of this is intended to disregard or discount the suffering of AIDS victims. But one way or another there will be victims of overpopulation - through war, famine, humiliating poverty. As radical environmentalists, we can see AIDS not as a problem, but a necessary solution (one you probably don't want to try for yourself). To paraphrase Voltaire: if the AIDS epidemic didn't exist, radical environmentalists would have to invent one.

Now, I’m not trying to imply for one moment that every environmentalist is like that evil fucker quoted above, but this does point out a fundamental problem at the centre of the environmental argument. The human population needs to decrease, not increase. Making the environmental movement anti-human. And how is this reduction in the human population going to be achieved? The quote above – as odious as it might be with phrases such as “the possible benefits of this (AIDS) to the environment are staggering” – shows that something radical needs to happen. The problem is that any radical solution that fundamentally reduces the human population is, against the parameters of nearly any ethical or moral code, staggeringly evil.

A seismic reduction in the human population – or a radical contraction of the world economy (which would probably cause the former anyway) – may well be the only way to truly achieve these environmental objectives, but it is also worth revisiting why these objectives exist anyway. Some environmentalists argue that the planet is already beyond the point of no return. Which does leave me wondering why we would want to do anything to stop what is now inevitable. Or, as Mr Eugenides puts it:

“…on the "urgent need" to combat global warming (though if it's irreversible, where's the fucking urgency?)”

And if the status quo is reversible, then I think it is still worth challenging some of the fundamental assumptions of the environmental case. DK takes a look at some of the facts around climate change for a US Senator:

Yes, yes it is. Still, here are some facts for you, Senator Cardin:

 The world may or may not be warming. Honestly, we don't really know.
 The world may or may not be warmer than at any time since the last ice age. But, honestly, we don't really know.
 If there is some warming trend, man may or may not be contributing to it. Honestly, we don't really know.
 Ah, fuck it—you get the idea...

So, we don’t know whether we are causing some of the environmental damage to this planet. Therefore, we don’t know whether pursuing an environmental agenda would actually stop that damage. Culling the human population, or fucking with the global economy, is problematic even if you think it will do some good. When we are lacking in any real evidence that it would make a blind bit of fucking difference anyway, it becomes even more nonsensical.

Digging into the environmental and ecological movements shows that there is far more to both of them than a bit of fashionable airline bashing – and I dare say some environmentally minded people would be surprised where the extremes of their movement are at, ideologically speaking. However it also sums up nicely why I could never be an environmentalist – I refuse to sign up to an ideology that, deep down, is anti-human. And I’m also happy to be called a climate change sceptic*** - because, although conclusive proof will be next to impossible to come by, I would like something a little more concrete than the incoherent and utterly inconclusive “evidence” of the climate change lobby.

*NMFP – not my fucking problem.
**Can’t help but think of recent events in New York here, but I know I am being deliberately obtuse.
***Not denier, please not. Sceptic. Climate change happens; it is the causes of it and what we can do about it that I am sceptical about.

That'll be a penny please, sir.

So, WH Smith have followed in the example of Marks and Spencer by charging for carrier bags. Although for some reason Smith's bags are 4p cheaper than M&S. Still, at least we know which company offers value for money.

There will be some that praise the decision of various retail outlets to charge for carrier bags, and praise this as an increasingly common example of companies becoming environmentally responsible. Now, I hate to rain on anyone's parade, but the reason why shops have started to charge for bags isn't because they have been won over to the environmental cause. No - the reason why they have done this is to make money.

Think about it. By pursuing this policy - a muted nod in the direction of the environmental movement - large companies may be able to win over some people who might not normally shop at their stores. Let's be honest, the Friends of Swampy probably don't spend a lot of time and money at M&S normally. The charging for carrier bags may help to make more money because it may attract new customers.

Furthermore, as someone who was a retail manager for over four years, I can tell you that carrier bags cost money. Believe it or not, carrier bags don't appear free of charge in M&S and co. They are bought - and whilst the cost is not debilitating, it still represents a substantial cost that hits the bottom line of the P&L. By reducing the number of people who want bags, you reduce this cost - and make your business more profitable. Also, you reduce the costs of storing the plastic bags - 200 boxes of bags takes up a lot of space in a store warehouse - space that could be used to increase product availability and therefore increase the amount of sales.

So, by charging for carrier bags, stores may win new customers and will reduce costs. It isn't so much surprising that some stores have stated charging for bags; what I find more amazing is that it has taken them so long to do so, and that more haven't jumped on this bandwagon.

Still, at least WH Smith have managed to do something positive by charging one pence for carrier bags. They have managed to find a use for the increasingly redundant 1p coin. And that should be a blessing to anyone who wants to spend their pennies on second rate carrier bags in a second rate newsagent who would have gone out of business a long time ago has they not got such an unlikely stranglehold on this nation's station platforms.

Plane Stupid: Getting Stuck In

Protests can, of course, take any format. And there have been some dramatic forms of protest in the past. Firebombing shops that sell fur, rioting over the poll tax in Central London, taking over Strangeways prison, throwing yourself in front of horse at the races - that is legendary, memorable and controversial protesting.

This, however, really isn't. But what else might you expect from the morons in Plane Stupid?

I mean, seriously, what sort of a plan is this? Gluing yourself to the PM? From the words of the protestor:

"My left hand was covered in superglue and I stuck it to his sleeve... I just glued myself to him and after 20 seconds he tore my hand off - it really hurt. He had to give it a couple of tugs before it came away."

Ok, worst case scenario, what would have happened? He'd have glued himself to the Prime Minister. And what do we think the Prime Minsiter would have done? Panicked, realised the error of his ways, and changed government policy? Or perhaps he would have just taken his jacket off.

The protestor also notes Brown's reaction:

"He was just grinning about it. He didn't seem to take me seriously."

I'm not surprised. This must have been one of the happiest moments Brown has had since he became PM. For the first time in months, he was the biggest, most moronic and incompetent fool in the room. Brown was actually face to face with a bigger fucktard than himself.

But the protestor, having not made enough of a tit of himself already, went on to further *protest*:

When he left the building he tried to glue himself to the gates of Downing Street but had his hand detached by a police officer.

And how was that police officer able to do that so easily? Again, in the words of the protestor:

"I didn't have much glue left by that point," he said.

*Sighs*.

Look. If you are going to protest through the medium of a moronic stunt, then at least prepare yourself adequately first. And the only thing this fucking chimp needed to remember to do was bring enough glue. And he failed at that.

There is a case to be made against a third runway at Heathrow. However, that case is undermined given it is so voraciously supported by such utter choppers as this lackwit. Seriously, what are people meant to do? Support the guy whose idea of revolutionary protesting is to try (and fail) to superglue himself to the PM? This is the antics of a drunk, retarded student - not of a serious campaigner.

Once again, Plane Stupid are living up to their name. In fact, they couldn't have picked a better title for their group. Unless it was "bunch of fucking morons."

The Environment and The Voters

According to the good people at The Guardian, voters now think that the environment is more of a priority than the economy. Actually, no, let me qualify that – the small group of voters who The Guardian bothered to ask say the environment is more important than the economy:

When asked whether tackling the environment or the economy - given global economic problems - should be the government's priority, 52% said the environment and 44% said the economy. That contradicts the widespread assumption that environmental issues are seen by voters as a luxury to be put aside in tough economic times.

So what’s happened? Has the nation gone nuts for the unproven hypothesis of global climate change? Well, no, not really – not when you drill down and look at the figures and what they may mean. Take this statement for example:

The high cost of many environmental schemes, such as the government's £100bn renewable energy plan announced last week, does not seem to have deterred voters.

Why do we think that is? Is it because voters genuinely believe in the renewable energy plan? Or is it because they feel detached from the government spending process, and don’t realise that for “government spending” you may as well write “your money”. Which is interesting – I wonder what the response to the cost would have been if the question was “what do you think about the government spending £100bn of your money on a renewable energy plan?"

And the idea that people want someone else to sort out the problem is backed up by this statement:

But the poll, reflecting findings in earlier surveys, also shows people want the government to sort out the problem rather than take on responsibility themselves.

Perfect. In other words “I’m happy if the environment gets sorted out, but I am sure as fuck not going to be doing it for myself.”

However, a majority of people seem to back green taxes:

The number of people who oppose green taxes outright is small - only 31% say this, even after they have been asked to consider the state of the economy.

Just before we go on and look at how voters don’t actually support green taxes, let’s take a look at that statement. 31% is a small number – you fucking what? Just under a third of those polled is a small number? Like bollocks is it. 35.3% voted for Labour at the last election to give them their current large majority. Is that a small amount? No, at the time is was trailed as a massive vote of support for the Nu Labour trolls.

Anyhoo, let’s look at how this apparent support is absolutely meaningless:

But 36% say the government should delay bringing them in. That suggests ministers may have a battle on their hands if they press on with plans to increase environmentally-beneficial taxes such as increased fuel duty and higher road tax on older polluting cars.

If people say they want a delay before these taxes are brought into being, then realistically what they are saying is they never want these taxes to be brought into being. Every time this poll is run, every time the government says that they want to bring in green taxes, people will say that they agree because they want to appear right on. However they will also say that they want a delay because – crucially – they don’t actually want to pay anything extra or do anything extra themselves to help the environment.

The title for The Guardian article is:

Climate more urgent than economy, say voters

Yep, they have shown throw this poll that the voters *do* say the environment is more important than the economy – just as long as the environment doesn’t require the voters to do anything and doesn’t cost them anything more.