No Pressure

With the release and subsequent withdrawal of the 10:10 climate change campaign’s controversial “No Pressure” short film written by Richard Curtis, I wonder whether 2010 will turn out to be a kind of tipping point for climate change activism.

In the despondency of post-Copenhagen failure for the world to agree a concerted approach to tackling the problem, it’s easy for climate activists to become increasingly radicalised in our approach to getting the urgency of the issue ‘out there’.

I think in private there is a lot of agreement amongst frustrated activists, who understand the sentiments expressed in the film, which is obviously just meant to be over-the-top funny with a serious point, in the Monty Python style tradition.

But coming as it does towards the end of a year which has seen heatwaves and wildfires in Russia, floods and landslides right across China, Pakistan and India, with around a third of Pakistan under the floodwaters, and huge quantities of crops destroyed, I really wonder whether 2010 will actually be remembered as the year when the pressure to act on climate change really started to become obvious to even the most hardened sceptics.

It has now got to the stage where climate change scepticism has started to sound less like a perfectly reasonable questioning of the situation, and more like obstructionism in the face of an urgent need to take swift, concerted and decisive action.

I wonder if the 10:10 film would have been more effective if it had shown the majority of people being blown up, leaving only those who have been prepared to make the sacrifices and put in the work to get on with the task.

Still, we live in hope that people are slowly but surely catching on. It’s either that or extinction.

1 Comment

  1. zenid10 said,

    October 6, 2010 at 11:24 am

    As much as I sympathise with the message of this ad, I can’t believe they thought they could get away with something so gruesome and graphic. But perhaps there was method in their madness, and they were deliberately provoking the predictable outrage for the huge publicity that the ad eventually received. Either way it’s only served to re-invigorate the controversy, and highlight the urgency of the environmentalist cause, so I’m delighted with the outcome either way 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: