Not directly climate, and risks being somewhat tasteless, but I’ll have a go anyway. Two things come past: Light Blue Touchpaper (which is a lovely pun) discusses Camouflage or scary monsters: deceiving others about risk and ends with1 it might be time for a more careful cross-disciplinary study of how we can change people’s minds about risk in the presence of smart and persistent adversaries. We know, for example, that a college education makes people much less susceptible to propaganda and marketing; but what is the science behind designing interventions that are quicker and cheaper in specific circumstances? This will resonate with those involved in the GW debate.
And the other is the Grenfell Tower fire. From which I read things like In January 2016 GAG [Grenfell Action Grou] warned that people might be trapped in the building if a fire broke out, pointing out that the building had only one entrance and exit, and corridors that were allowed to fill with rubbish, such as old mattresses. GAG frequently cited other fires in tower blocks when it warned of the hazards at Grenfell. In November 2016 GAG published online an article attacking KCTMO as an “evil, unprincipled, mini-mafia” and accusing the Borough Council of ignoring health and safety laws. GAG suggested that “only a catastrophic event will expose the ineptitude and incompetence of [KCTMO]”. The group had also published articles criticising fire safety and maintenance practices at Grenfell Tower. To which the obvious response is: “if you thought you were going to die if you kept living there, why didn’t you leave?” It’s no good answering “because they were poor and couldn’t afford anywhere else”. Even poor people will leave a building on fire. But not one at risk of fire; even one at perceived high risk of fire. The connection to weighing risks from future GW should be obvious.
* Regulatory capture wonders LBT
* Experts warned government against cladding material used on Grenfell
* So, the Council inspected and yet it’s still neoliberalism to blame, eh?
* The aftershocks of Grenfell Tower and the future of austerity – Economist.
1. Just “ends with”. Its not a conclusion.