This evening I watched the last twenty minutes or so of “How Do They Do It?” with Robert Llewellyn on UK’s Channel 5. The segment I saw was about how fleets of vast container ships are assembled in a Korean shipyard, like gigantic Lego constructions, quite fascinating; and vital to world trade, as 90% of goods are exported by sea. And… there was nothing about carbon dioxide, emissions, Global Warming or food miles. Nothing. Nada. Not a dicky bird.

Yes!!

As we pointed out, that can’t be true where there is a disconnect between politics and ‘society’. That is to say the extent to whch ‘society’ produces politics is the extent to which the process allows society to reflect itself in politics.

It seems that you’re trying to outline some causal relationship between politics and society, where the former is the product of the latter. Why would that be the case where the political process is failing? We might equally say that a oppressive dictatorship is the product of a society. But that argument would surely defeat itself.

The extent to which ‘the politicians are where they are because we the voters put them there’ is the extent to which a genuine choice – or contest – ever existed. Clearly it doesn’t.”

I don’t believe my point is being expressed properly here.

I hear what you’re saying all right, but what I’m trying to put forth here is that the politicians we see in office are ultimately the products of the society they are from and now represent.

That if politics has no direction, then the society that produces it has no direction, either.

That a politics that justifies itself with whatever seems handiest is the result of a society that tries to justify itself in the same way.

Directionless politics is the offspring of a directionless society.

“Although environmentalism hasn’t really won the public’s attention, it not being the subject of controversy as it ought to be means that people don’t really object to it either.”

Because we have nothing to object with. No counter-arguments that the future is not some hidden demon lying in wait down the road that requires constant appeasement for it to let us pass by. Nothing.

Not yet, anyways.

“Yet. Of course, as soon as people start to identify the influence of environmentalism, they will surely object.”

For that they need counter-arguments brought forth. In debates and discussions and forums and whatever and wherever. Any place where it can be heard by the public at large.

People need to see that there’s a better proposal, and if we say there’s “no debate to win. It hasn’t happened. It’s not happening”, then they’ll never hear that argument that says that environmentalism is a bad idea. If there’s no debate to be had, what then is the point of saying that environmentalism is a bad idea [or whatever we call it] if we who criticise it have nothing to put in its place?

[Of course, we also need to cure ourselves of our collective pessimism, but we won't be able to do that either if we don't allow any optimism to be put forth; if we respond to pessimistic proposals with pessimism of our own.]

“You say ‘We choose them, those of us who decide to vote’. But we only choose ‘them’, but the ideas they espouse – if they espouse any ideas worth speaking of – are not the subject of the competition.”

Society at large is no better, because society at large doesn’t seem to have “any ideas worth speaking of” these days, and anyone who dares to go against such a trend is mocked for such optimism.

The politicians we see in office are just one of the many products of a society that doesn’t seem to have “any ideas worth speaking of” any more.

“We are not really being asked to engage with any ideas, just different ‘issues’, to which ‘they’ have assumed (bogus) stances.”

Because nobody bothers to. And because nobody [individually and collectively] knows what they ultimately stand for any more.

The space in our collective lives that was once occupied by our values and visions is largely empty now, and people are trying to fill it with whatever will fit in it in an effort to determine what our values and visions are/should be, including things that were never meant to [like science].

Politics has no direction because society at large has no direction.

It’s easy to blame the politicians, but we forget that they’re part of a larger whole [hole?].

Hence what I’m trying to say, that politicians are where they are because we put them there, and that the kinds of politicians we have are representative of what we as a society is, and are willing to allow to exist. We don’t know where we’re going, and it’s a little silly to think that those we decide are going to be our [political] representatives are going to be any better than we as a group currently are.

You may not see it that way, but it’s the way I’m seeing it.

[Is it any wonder why Obama is so popular in the US? To many he must surely be the only "positive" politician to have come down the the political pipe in a very long time [even if he does ultimately sound like every other twelve-step-dancing motivational speaker out there].]

I suspect there would be three types of response from politicians if power shortages and economic hardship really started to bite. Some die-hards would never change their position – even if people started to freeze in their homes, I’m sure a few dyed-in-the-wool Greens would still be talking earnestly about the planet and our carbon footprints regardless, right to the bitter end. Some politicians such as the Conservatives’ John Redwood, who is critical of government CO2 targets, might become more prominent, and there might well be hitherto unknown anti-AGW politicians emerging to become a force. And thirdly of course, there will be those who see how the wind is blowing and do a U-turn.

At the moment, despite the banking crisis, things don’t look too bad on the whole. It’s still warm in the sunlight, there’s food on the supermarket shelves, and although gas and electricity are becoming ever more expensive, we can still flick a switch and have instant lighting and (almost instant) warmth when we want it. So people still have the luxury of supporting green measures in a small way (queuing up at the bottle bank) or tolerating all the hot air generated by the talk about CO2 targets. Five years down the line, will this still be the case?

If all the contenders for public office espouse environmental ethics, and dare not question them, in what sense have these values been tested, much less ‘voted for’?

The extent to which ‘the politicians are where they are because we the voters put them there’ is the extent to which a genuine choice – or contest – ever existed. Clearly it doesn’t.

Although environmentalism hasn’t really won the public’s attention, it not being the subject of controversy as it ought to be means that people don’t really object to it either. Yet. Of course, as soon as people start to identify the influence of environmentalism, they will surely object. The problem isn’t really that we will end up with an ecocracy, the problem is the damage done in the meantime.

You say ‘We choose them, those of us who decide to vote’. But we only choose ‘them’, but the ideas they espouse – if they espouse any ideas worth speaking of – are not the subject of the competition. We are not really being asked to engage with any ideas, just different ‘issues’, to which ‘they’ have assumed (bogus) stances.

Be that as it may, but the politicians are where they are because we the voters put them there. We choose them, those of us who decide to vote. We give them the offices they hold [at least, in a democracy, we do].

If we [or, rather, if the voting majority] didn’t agree with their arguments, would they still hold office?

Correction: they might still sit in office, but would it be for the same reasons they currently occupy it for?

I think not.

There’s no debate to win. It hasn’t happened. It’s not happening.

The public has not been won over by debate, ideas, nor even propaganda. It’s simply not been won over. The point of environmental catastrophism is not to persuade the public, as such. The point is to legitimise politicians, in spite of the public’s estrangement from the ‘debate’.