BADGER has previously spoken to you about so-called ‘green energy’. Badger is not sceptical of the value of green energy in improving our country’s energy security: far from it. Badger is not sceptical about the threat that humanity’s need to consume more natural resources poses to our planet. Nope. Badger is bang on with that. Badger is similarly, not sceptical about humanity being the prime mover behind recent climate change (either as the cause or the major cause). Badger is, however, rather doubtful that there is any real taste for the implications of adopting green energy, or even that the green energy can get to where it needs to go in the UK market without massive public investment, tax breaks, or subsidies. Let’s start at the beginning, readers, the key issue of price. In the abstract, people will express a willingness to do many things — pay higher taxes to support the NHS; pay a little more for ethically produced food; and accept that the cost of fuel and power will rise. Badger is, however, convinced that – human nature being what it is — when it boils down to pounds shillings and pence, a voter faced with the certainty of price rises and higher taxes on the one hand and the promise of jam today on the other will opt for the preserve of the status quo. The thing about doomsday readers is that it is always tomorrow, while there are bills to be paid and food to be bought today. Badger has similar feelings about France. In the abstract, he is sure France is a beautiful and fine country, rich in culture and heritage. In the particular, however, it is choc-a-block with the French. All the hot air of all Guardian writers, columnists, correspondents and readers combined crying softly

into their polenta while sipping their fairtrade herbal tea is unlikely to change a single mind about green energy; still less in an economy where people at the sharp end are facing the reality of high energy prices and low incomes. Badger believes the problem is more than one of communication and persuasion. there is a massive disconnect between the public and policy. There are several reasons for this.. but Badger wants to draw attention to two in particular. The scientific consensus is that climate change is being either accelerated or caused by humans. Climate change is a fact, even though it is expressed as ‘a theory’. but a scientific theory is not the same as just an idea that is somehow unprovable. Science is built upon the scientific method, a logical process of observation, experiment and analysis subject to peer-review. Scientists arrive at a consensus about the evidence that supports a particular set of principles about the science being researched. Arriving at a scientific consensus is not something that happens overnight. The slow process by which science arrives at a consensus keeps out poorly supported ideas, but gives strength to ideas that have lots of evidence. So, readers, when the media report on climate change and we see — for example — a newspaper columnist being given time to say that there is no such thing as climate change; we should take their assertions with a large pinch of salt. Newspaper columnists are seldom scientists. Politicians do not subject their judgements to the scientific method. if they did, you would have to ask where George Osborne fits into the tree of life. Neither politicians nor columnists even those with public school and

Oxbridge backgrounds understand the important distinction between scientific theory and rabble-musing argumentation. The second part follows closely from the first. The media presents a false equivalence between the scientific consensus and those who do not accept it.

Dr Nedwin Shellwinkle, Professor of Marmalade at the Ohio Institute of Jam-making and Chutney Creation, might be the bees knees on how to get loganberry preserve to the setting point. His qualifications as either “professor” or “doctor” are, however, most unlikely to give him insight into the complex systems of geophysics, chemistry and atmospheric dynamics to enable him to reach a considered and research-validated conclusion about climate change. Similarly, the facts that Lord Lawson has the reputation of being awfully clever and that he was once Chancellor of the Exchequer do not mean that his opinion is of equal weight to a scientific theory. The fact he can find people who believe as he does not mean that he has built a countervailing consensus of similar weight to the scientific one. So, readers, when the public are asked to think about ‘green’ energy and ‘green’ methods of power production, there is an awful lot of bag and baggage to get through. If the public do not believe that climate change is taking place or that it will affect them, they will not be interested in ‘greenness’. The other side of that is self-interest, if it will cost them more, people will cling to any opinion — no matter how facile or misinformed —to justify doing nothing. That is the expedient and selfish approach to most issues. It is human nature. And so, readers, at the point

we come to superficiality, we come to David Cameron. Funny that. If David Cameron thought there were five hundred votes in every marginal constituency that the Conservatives could get if they were a bit ‘greener’ in word and deed, you can damn well guarantee that the UK would be festooned with wind farms in such density and of such number that it could ride out any increase in sea levels by hovering over the lapping waves. That is die expedient and selfish approach to most issues. It is human nature. In Pembrokeshire of course, we are no strangers to local politician adopting expedient positions Jolin Allen-Mirehouse said he objected to one wind far development in 0 1 2 on the grounds that it would spoil his view of the peasants working in his fields (or something like that). Funny how old Johnny was rather more on board with being green when there was the chance of having some turbines on his own land. That is the expedient and selfish approach to most issues. It is human nature. All Johnny’s pompous wind-baggery cannot change that. So, if we are to proceed with a ‘green’ agenda those who favour it have to tap into the basest of human feelings. The ones that matter when folk in marginal constituencies vote Conservative but tell pollsters they voted for one of the other lot. Not abstract carbon swaps or our long-term interests. But greed: the here and the now. Persuade the people that you can satisfy their immediate desires — or sate their fear oi and there change -will be real transformation. That readers, will not take a wind of change that will take a miracle.