Eco scares are really like bush fires: you can set a lot of fires all the time, but only a few will really take hold. There are a few key conditions:
- Ignition: An initial trigger – often quite scientific
- Fuel: that there is sufficient concern – that the subject resonates with the public. I.e. Not “save the cold slimy fish species we eat” but “save the “nice cuddly polar bear”.
- Oxygen … the scare must attract publicity.
- Arsonists: aka the will to fan the flames: people must be able to make money out of a scare to really fan the flames. Simple “concern” is never enough to keep it going. But shear financial greed will bridge any fire break.
- Environment(wind, rain, humidity): to really fan the flames, the environment must be right:
- beyond the horizon: the concern & action must extend “beyond the horizon” so that concern today doesn’t have an immediate affect on pockets and so that action is done out of sight and not e.g. by putting up birdmincers across everyone’s favourite landscape.
- Guilt: It must tap into people’s guilt. Guilt about eating too much, about consuming too much, about being rich when lots of the world is poor, about being responsible for “poor” creatures dying. About using the car and being responsible for polution.
- Scientifically unverifiable … you can’t have something that can be disproved by a bit of simple science. It can’t be testable … it’s got to be something on which testing is either impractical (the globe) or unethical (people’s health)
- A straight forward message: you can’t say: recycling is good but only if you recycle plastics because there’s no benefit recycling glass and paper because there’s less energy/pollution just using fresh material. It’s got to be simple: “ALL RECYCLING GOOD”, “ALL FOSSIL FUEL USE BAD”, “ALL MEAT EATING BAD”, etc.
- Innocuous: The eco-scare must sound “good” and have no glaring drawbacks. “A few windmills on out of the way places” is good, raising petrol to £3/litre is bad.
- Lack of opposition: (see below)
- A false opposition/demon: It’s important that there is no paid up opposition. E.g. Oil companies benefit from rising oil prices, so at best one can only expect crocodile tears from them. But, casting them as the bogey man willing to pour millions into propaganda fighting GW, gives the impression there must be a huge campaign against GW when in fact no such opposition exists. … and what do the oil companies care so long as they make money because people will continue buying fuel … just at higher prices and more profit.
Taken from a post on BishopHill which I then wanted to edit!
The ‘arsonists’ don’t have to be funded. Genuine concern can and does fuel the most ardent supporters. They are effective (as are sceptics) because their messages come from passion rather than payment. While I despise certain climate scientists for their corrupted messages I accept that they’re doing it ‘for our own good’. The think that exaggerating the truth will help us make the right decisions.
Other than that I’d say your template for a scare was a good one. I’d also say that it doesn’t just apply to eco scares.
New technology. The leaders of entire eco-fascist movement are actually Luddites in disguise and it is far easier to ramp up a scare about something new, however false (eg GM foods) than about something similar but real but which has been around forever (eg peanuts). By any objective test peanut allergy is far more dangerous, it actually killas 4 or 5 people annually, than the entire GM industry.
There is always funding …scientists dependent on research funding have always been compelled to tow the line and ensure a favourable outcome for the sponsor. Although the scientist may not be the one getting the big financial gain, it does pay the mortgage and get a paper or two published.