LONDON - The government is to launch a controversial £6m ad campaign aimed at global warming sceptics, in which a British town is shown submerged under water.
The campaign, created by AMV BBDO, will launch during Coronation Street on ITV1 this evening.
It was prompted by government research that revealed more than half the population think that climate change will have no effect on them.
ADVERTISEMENT
The launch of the activity marks the first time that a government advertising campaign conveys the message in a factual way that the human race is causing global warming and endangering life on Earth.
Given global warming is not accepted as scientific fact by a large and usually silent part of the scientific community fearful of a backlash, the campaign could provoke anger that the government is broadcasting political messages with taxpayer's money.
A government spokeswoman defended the government's decision to launch the campaign: "The overwhelming body of scientific evidence tells us that climate change is a serious threat to the UK. It is a far-sighted and responsible government that informs the public of this."
A spokeswoman for the Advertising Standards Authority also backed the campaign. She said: ""The ASA has received complaints in the past disputing whether climate change is man-made or not; the ASA has dismissed these complaints in line with the overwhelming evidence of the majority of scientists who have studied climate change."
The creative is hard-hitting, and as such could also become controversial due to its alarmist tone.
It is designed to make adults feel guilty about the legacy they will leave their children and features a father telling his daughter a bedtime story of "a very very strange" world with "horrible consequences" for today's children.
The ad then shows a British town deep under water, with people and animals drowning. Carbon dioxide is shown rising from cars, homes and everyday appliances in clouds of black soot, which then form a jagged-toothed monster.
The daughter asks her father if the story has a happy ending at which point a voiceover cuts in, intoning "It's up to us how the story ends" and directs viewers to the Government's Act on CO2 website.
Joan Ruddock, the Energy and Climate Change Minister, said: "The survey results show that people don't realise that climate change is already under way and could have severe consequences.
"With over 40 per cent of the UK's C02 emissions a result of personal choices, there is huge potential for individual behaviour change to lower emissions."
Was there a typo here? Surely you mean 'global warming is not accepted as scientific fact by a small and usually unhinged part of the scientific community...'
The innocent smoothie drinking, Guardian reading, wristband wearing worthies out there get very angry and offended when anyone dares suggest global warming is anything but a stone cold fact. Word to the wise people - global warming is not a fact and lots of very bright people are far from convinced that the case is closed. Sudden temperature changes and sea level rises are nothing new in the earth's history. I should know - I'm a geologist. This very important point aside, debate is healthy and those who seek to argue silence those with a different point of view are not helping anyone, least of all the planet.
It's hard to take people seriously when they resort to trite stereotypes such as the 'innocent smoothie drinking, Guardian reading, wristband wearing worthies'.
Next please.
@ David - stereotypes tend to be stereotypes for a reason but I apologise for using one. For those who try to provide an objective, scientific opposite point of view on this issue, the barrage of abuse it is always met with can be very tedious at times.
The fact that "global warming is not accepted as scientific fact by a large and usually silent part of the scientific community fearful of a backlash" is neither here nor there: you can't argue with the scientific fact that both population and atmospheric CO2 have already risen exponentially and will continue to do so. If you choose to believe that a finite system like the Earth's atmosphere can soak it all up indefinitely, you're living in Cloud Cuckoo Land. The biggest factor is the crops on which our whole civilization has been built, which won't survive outside of a narrow climate window; and we have already created the conditions for a chaotic leap into uncharted waters. Why this campaign is a waste of money is because this is now purely a matter for governments. Turning off domestic lights is a drop in the ocean against the monstrous greenhouse-gas emissions for which politicians bent on development at any cost are responsible.
Dazza, I'm waiting for you to join in on this! As Marketing's first ever sustainability editor, I am, of course, disappointed by the tone of your story but am pleased that it is generating debate.
The United Nations estimate we're losing 13m hectares of Rainforest a year
– or almost 50 soccer pitches a minute. Which = 20% + of annual global CO2 emissions but, more importantly, the loss of Grilla's natural habitat. Jessica, I need a place to stay. I'm house-trained, toilet-trained, well behaved on a train. We can while-away the long winter evenings in debates about Carboniferous periods and suchlike while supping a pair of Innocent cellulose smoothies. How about it?
For what it's worth, there was an article in the Economist a few years ago that argued western governments were aggressively pursuing climate change agendas because it stopped 3rd world economies developing industries that would compete with their own because of the penalties and limits involved in producing CO2 emissions. A massive economy involving numerous quangos and multinationals is built around the belief that man causes climate change so it's a political issue for some.
SO, let's carry on burning the rainforest, the fossil fuels, the planet's finite resources like the proverbial candle, at both ends, let's put the Artic meltdown down to natural planetary cycles, let's convince ourselves that climate change is global spin weaved by deranged scientists and Guardian readers [and former tree-huggers like Grilla who have been deprived of a tree to hug], let's maintain the status quo, let's leave future generations with nothing but a burnt-out hole where earth used to be, yeah, let's carry on with what we're doing because we've grown to be the best there is at it, experts in greed, selfishness, short-term-ism and great excuses for not having to change our comfortable lives because we'll be dead long before CC kicks in. The 6th Extinction beckons, and none of you saw it coming...
Nothing wrong with a bit of healthy scepticism and debate. I'm all for recycling and the rest of it Grilla though it does feel like a futile exercise when China and the US continue to burn through fossil fuels at a rate of knots with no end in sight.
The Homo Sap App - shows humans how to get to the point where they stop debating CC and start doing something effective to combat it.
The Apple guys are biting already...
Hi David - Regarding your comment "all five of you" - i hate to burst the hermetically sealed bubble you clearly live in but "more than half" the UK population does not believe in climate change. I'm afraid you are very out of touch with public opinion. If you find that hard to believe there are lots of surveys to back this up. Here is an excerpt from a recent Mori poll:
A survey by the polling organisation MORI, published at the end of last year but unreported by the mainstream media, found that about a third of the population - 32 per cent - still knows little or nothing about the threat of climate change. Of those who had heard of it, half thought it was at least partly a natural process, and only 11 per cent of those questioned thought it was up to individuals to change their behaviour.
All the more reason for the ad then Jessica, wouldn't you say? One thing we can combat is ignorance, and at least then people can make up their minds. Has anyone mentioned common sense in this debate by the way?
People should deal in facts. the average world temperature hasn't gone up since 1998, and mans emissions equate to 0.001% of all emissions. Therefore even if man stopped producing any emissions from today, it would hardly scratch the surface. Man does not control the climate, and does not affect it. Its just a bandwagon that has got out of politcial control and now there are too many people 'employed' in this 'industry' to turn back anytime soon, so we will continue to waste breath and money for years to come.
I assumed that people who read Brand Republic would be well-read, intelligent forward thinking individuals. I am aghast at the attitudes of some of the respondents:
"Its just a bandwagon that has got out of politcial control"
"it does feel like a futile exercise when China and the US continue to burn through fossil fuels at a rate of knots"
"global warming is not a fact"
I can not believe that any intelligent person could argue that it's all a scare story and it's fine for us all to carry on churning out CO2 at greater and greater levels.
Clearly I was wrong. It's not just a few crack-pot conspiracy-theorists. So who are you people? Do you really, really think that if we ignore the whole idea of global warming it would just go away and everything would be fine?
I'm also really disappointed Brand Republic have employed a journalist so uninformed and/or lazy as to write the line
"Given global warming is not accepted as scientific fact by a large and usually silent part of the scientific community fearful of a backlash"
I will make a mental note to ignore any further comment that appear under this byline: Darren Davidson.
@markgreenwood - your response is typical of what john lush describes as a bandwagon. Climate change science is not fact, it's a consensus. Even eminent climate change scientists agree that a conclusive argument has not been won. There is scarcity of hard facts and only trends and correlations which can be interpreted in many different ways. John Lush is also right to point out that temperatures have indeed declined. Unlike the hysterical nonsense in the mainstream media this article has balance and I can testify that there is in fact a great deal of scientists in the science community afraid to speak up because of the stigma attached to doing so. Well done Darren.
Postscript - has it not occurred to you Mark Greenwood that if climate change is readily accepted as fact why is the government spending £6m to persuade people that it's caused by man?
Thanks Jessica. I haven't said anywhere that climate change is hokum. I merely pointed out that a quite a few people don't believe in it. Leading a frugal life in terms of what you consume is common sense whether or not you believe in climate change.
@mark greenwood By 'I assumed that people who read Brand Republic would be well-read, intelligent forward thinking individuals' did you mean 'I assume everyone thinks exactly like me and anyone who does not is an idiot'. While I agree with many of your points by denying the existence of the debate over climate change you undermine your entire argument.
You've got to hope that climate change denier nutter types are over-represented here because this is a campaign that's targetted at them. I'm always a bit gobsmacked by people who don't believe that mankind is having any negative impact on the planet when it's so obvious and happening so quickly - you just have to care to take a look. Coral reefs anyone??
Darren - it's nice that you're into a bit of recycling. Can you see the link between people \(voters) caring about climate change and governments taking action??
IDIOTS! Carbon dioxide is produced in far larger quantities by many natural means: human emissions are miniscule in comparison. Volcanic emissions and carbon dioxide from animals, bacteria, decaying vegetation and the ocean outweigh our own production several times over.
Comments
David Singleton - 09/10/2009
Was there a typo here? Surely you mean 'global warming is not accepted as scientific fact by a small and usually unhinged part of the scientific community...'
Claire Murphy - 09/10/2009
If it provokes 'anger' then good - might force a few head in the sand types to wake up to what's going on.
Jessica Summerfield - 09/10/2009
The innocent smoothie drinking, Guardian reading, wristband wearing worthies out there get very angry and offended when anyone dares suggest global warming is anything but a stone cold fact. Word to the wise people - global warming is not a fact and lots of very bright people are far from convinced that the case is closed. Sudden temperature changes and sea level rises are nothing new in the earth's history. I should know - I'm a geologist. This very important point aside, debate is healthy and those who seek to argue silence those with a different point of view are not helping anyone, least of all the planet.
David Singleton - 09/10/2009
It's hard to take people seriously when they resort to trite stereotypes such as the 'innocent smoothie drinking, Guardian reading, wristband wearing worthies'. Next please.
Jessica Summerfield - 09/10/2009
@ David - stereotypes tend to be stereotypes for a reason but I apologise for using one. For those who try to provide an objective, scientific opposite point of view on this issue, the barrage of abuse it is always met with can be very tedious at times.
David Singleton - 09/10/2009
What, all five of you?
mike mathieson - 09/10/2009
@ Jessica Summerfield - clearly you have been living under one of your rocks.
John Bunyard - 09/10/2009
The fact that "global warming is not accepted as scientific fact by a large and usually silent part of the scientific community fearful of a backlash" is neither here nor there: you can't argue with the scientific fact that both population and atmospheric CO2 have already risen exponentially and will continue to do so. If you choose to believe that a finite system like the Earth's atmosphere can soak it all up indefinitely, you're living in Cloud Cuckoo Land. The biggest factor is the crops on which our whole civilization has been built, which won't survive outside of a narrow climate window; and we have already created the conditions for a chaotic leap into uncharted waters. Why this campaign is a waste of money is because this is now purely a matter for governments. Turning off domestic lights is a drop in the ocean against the monstrous greenhouse-gas emissions for which politicians bent on development at any cost are responsible.
Gemma Charles - 09/10/2009
Dazza, I'm waiting for you to join in on this! As Marketing's first ever sustainability editor, I am, of course, disappointed by the tone of your story but am pleased that it is generating debate.
Grilla Login - 09/10/2009
The United Nations estimate we're losing 13m hectares of Rainforest a year – or almost 50 soccer pitches a minute. Which = 20% + of annual global CO2 emissions but, more importantly, the loss of Grilla's natural habitat. Jessica, I need a place to stay. I'm house-trained, toilet-trained, well behaved on a train. We can while-away the long winter evenings in debates about Carboniferous periods and suchlike while supping a pair of Innocent cellulose smoothies. How about it?
Darren Davidson - 09/10/2009
For what it's worth, there was an article in the Economist a few years ago that argued western governments were aggressively pursuing climate change agendas because it stopped 3rd world economies developing industries that would compete with their own because of the penalties and limits involved in producing CO2 emissions. A massive economy involving numerous quangos and multinationals is built around the belief that man causes climate change so it's a political issue for some.
Grilla Login - 09/10/2009
SO, let's carry on burning the rainforest, the fossil fuels, the planet's finite resources like the proverbial candle, at both ends, let's put the Artic meltdown down to natural planetary cycles, let's convince ourselves that climate change is global spin weaved by deranged scientists and Guardian readers [and former tree-huggers like Grilla who have been deprived of a tree to hug], let's maintain the status quo, let's leave future generations with nothing but a burnt-out hole where earth used to be, yeah, let's carry on with what we're doing because we've grown to be the best there is at it, experts in greed, selfishness, short-term-ism and great excuses for not having to change our comfortable lives because we'll be dead long before CC kicks in. The 6th Extinction beckons, and none of you saw it coming...
Darren Davidson - 09/10/2009
Nothing wrong with a bit of healthy scepticism and debate. I'm all for recycling and the rest of it Grilla though it does feel like a futile exercise when China and the US continue to burn through fossil fuels at a rate of knots with no end in sight.
Grilla Login - 09/10/2009
DD, leadership is called for. Problem is very few homo saps are showing any.
Grilla Login - 09/10/2009
The Homo Sap App - shows humans how to get to the point where they stop debating CC and start doing something effective to combat it. The Apple guys are biting already...
Jessica Summerfield - 10/10/2009
Hi David - Regarding your comment "all five of you" - i hate to burst the hermetically sealed bubble you clearly live in but "more than half" the UK population does not believe in climate change. I'm afraid you are very out of touch with public opinion. If you find that hard to believe there are lots of surveys to back this up. Here is an excerpt from a recent Mori poll: A survey by the polling organisation MORI, published at the end of last year but unreported by the mainstream media, found that about a third of the population - 32 per cent - still knows little or nothing about the threat of climate change. Of those who had heard of it, half thought it was at least partly a natural process, and only 11 per cent of those questioned thought it was up to individuals to change their behaviour.
Aidan Walker - 11/10/2009
All the more reason for the ad then Jessica, wouldn't you say? One thing we can combat is ignorance, and at least then people can make up their minds. Has anyone mentioned common sense in this debate by the way?
john lush - 12/10/2009
People should deal in facts. the average world temperature hasn't gone up since 1998, and mans emissions equate to 0.001% of all emissions. Therefore even if man stopped producing any emissions from today, it would hardly scratch the surface. Man does not control the climate, and does not affect it. Its just a bandwagon that has got out of politcial control and now there are too many people 'employed' in this 'industry' to turn back anytime soon, so we will continue to waste breath and money for years to come.
Grilla Login - 12/10/2009
The age of stupid, this must be it.
mark greenwood - 12/10/2009
I assumed that people who read Brand Republic would be well-read, intelligent forward thinking individuals. I am aghast at the attitudes of some of the respondents: "Its just a bandwagon that has got out of politcial control" "it does feel like a futile exercise when China and the US continue to burn through fossil fuels at a rate of knots" "global warming is not a fact" I can not believe that any intelligent person could argue that it's all a scare story and it's fine for us all to carry on churning out CO2 at greater and greater levels. Clearly I was wrong. It's not just a few crack-pot conspiracy-theorists. So who are you people? Do you really, really think that if we ignore the whole idea of global warming it would just go away and everything would be fine? I'm also really disappointed Brand Republic have employed a journalist so uninformed and/or lazy as to write the line "Given global warming is not accepted as scientific fact by a large and usually silent part of the scientific community fearful of a backlash" I will make a mental note to ignore any further comment that appear under this byline: Darren Davidson.
Grilla Login - 12/10/2009
He should don a pointy white hat with the initials DD on it and go stand in the corner.
Jessica Summerfield - 12/10/2009
@markgreenwood - your response is typical of what john lush describes as a bandwagon. Climate change science is not fact, it's a consensus. Even eminent climate change scientists agree that a conclusive argument has not been won. There is scarcity of hard facts and only trends and correlations which can be interpreted in many different ways. John Lush is also right to point out that temperatures have indeed declined. Unlike the hysterical nonsense in the mainstream media this article has balance and I can testify that there is in fact a great deal of scientists in the science community afraid to speak up because of the stigma attached to doing so. Well done Darren.
Jessica Summerfield - 12/10/2009
Postscript - has it not occurred to you Mark Greenwood that if climate change is readily accepted as fact why is the government spending £6m to persuade people that it's caused by man?
Darren Davidson - 12/10/2009
Thanks Jessica. I haven't said anywhere that climate change is hokum. I merely pointed out that a quite a few people don't believe in it. Leading a frugal life in terms of what you consume is common sense whether or not you believe in climate change.
Jessica Summerfield - 12/10/2009
Common sense is something that some people lack I'm afraid Darren. They only deal in hysterical, shallow, kneejerk reactions.
john lush - 12/10/2009
For the doubters out there about global warming - its not true, this is from last Friday ! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8299079.stm
Nicola Clark - 12/10/2009
@mark greenwood By 'I assumed that people who read Brand Republic would be well-read, intelligent forward thinking individuals' did you mean 'I assume everyone thinks exactly like me and anyone who does not is an idiot'. While I agree with many of your points by denying the existence of the debate over climate change you undermine your entire argument.
anthony agarrat - 12/10/2009
Jessica Summerfield is my hero.
Fiona Lydon - 16/10/2009
You've got to hope that climate change denier nutter types are over-represented here because this is a campaign that's targetted at them. I'm always a bit gobsmacked by people who don't believe that mankind is having any negative impact on the planet when it's so obvious and happening so quickly - you just have to care to take a look. Coral reefs anyone?? Darren - it's nice that you're into a bit of recycling. Can you see the link between people \(voters) caring about climate change and governments taking action??
Media Village - 18/10/2009
IDIOTS! Carbon dioxide is produced in far larger quantities by many natural means: human emissions are miniscule in comparison. Volcanic emissions and carbon dioxide from animals, bacteria, decaying vegetation and the ocean outweigh our own production several times over.