10 Propositions on climate change journalism

(Sorry - this is more than 10 Propositions - but at least they are all one-liners)

A crib sheet for climate change policy journalism
by Richard D North
2 February, 2008

A note for economics, poltics, business, diplomatic journalists

Suppose UN/IPCC are right about the science, what are the policy implications?

Here are some big immediate policy questions:
Will fossil fuel use will be much dented by climate policy?
Will rainforest will be protected by the countries which have it?
Is big cost and inconvenience necessary to make useful dents in carbon emissions?
Will voters and leaders bear big cost and inconvenience to bring down carbon emissions?
How do we balance carbon rationing (quotas, tradeable permits) and carbon taxation?
Are treaties and policy statements with long end-dates likely to be delivered?
Is there any sign that present action is on track to deliver longterm undertakings?
Is the work of Stern and King and other optimists properly challenged?
When will carbon capture be possible and how much will it cost?
Does offsetting work?

Here are some considerations about the future:
Will greenhouse gas emissions be reduced at all, or slowly, or quickly?
If the effects of climate charge are worse for poor countries, will rich countries care?
What is the merit of small action now if big action will be quite easy in 20 years?
How seriously will present generations care about future apocalypse?
How much civilisation will survive climate chaos?
Will it prove much cheaper to "live" with climate change?
How much is it worth subsidising renewables and is nuclear one?
Do we believe small limits on GHG will produce proportionate climate benefit?
How does the public react to the absolute certainty that climate change will worsen?

Here are some difficulties for realistic discussion:
It seems cynical about one's audience
It seems cynical about political promises
It seems nicer to spread enthusiasm for action
It seems dangerous to spread apathy and cynicism
It involves celebrating "bad" treaties as good because realistic
The issues involve complicated pain-gain calculus
Balancing adaptation and mitigation is a nightmare

Here are some ways through the dilemma:
Other huge causes (world poverty?) produce rhetoric and inaction
A"good" treaty or policy is one which is likely to be implemented
Present real action is the only real sign of policy advance
Present policy, rhetoric and action is a rehearsal for possible future action
Individuals can always act voluntarily in advance of compulsory policy
A LibDem vote shows climate seriousness
Labour and Conservative will converge on minimal action
The young are keen and green, and fly all they can
Modern politicians often sound like NGOs, but shouldn't

ends