big brother and climate propaganda

8/14/2019 Big Brother and Climate Propaganda

1/5

Big "Climate" Brother

Posted by Richard Saturday, March 06, 2010 climate change

One of the more sinister aspects of the "climate change" miasma is the insistence of campaigners

and governments that saving the planet requires personal sacrifice and significant changes in

personal lifestyles. However, while we may be dimly aware of government exhortations along

those lines, few people realise quite how much of our money is being spent on trying to make uschange our ways.

A significant amount of that money is spent by one government department, DEFRA, on

"behavioural research", and a record of its recent expenditure provides a chilling testament to theOrwellian world of climate advocacy, where every aspect of our lives is coming under official

scrutiny.

The record, which starts in 2005, has the University of Surrey doing a project called "Choice

Matters", exploring how to make sustainability "an automatic and primary part of producer andconsumer choice, rather than a self-satisfying added extra." This cost a relatively modest

21,775.

For 63,017 meanwhile, the University of Westminster carried out an analysis of existingresearch relating to "pro-environmental behavioural change", aiming to contribute towards a

better practical understanding of how DEFRA could influence behaviours.

Cranfield University, on the other hand, took on: "Sustainable development as a "collective

choice" problem: theoretical and practical implications". The aim if this research was to explore

thoroughly the potential of a highly promising and unique body of research, known as"collective-action theory", for achieving DEFRA's goal of finding new ways of motivating

people to produce and consume in a sustainable manner. This cost a mere 23,333.


2/5


3/5

It then commissioned a series of reports, all on the theme of"sustainability". Nottingham Trent University got 59,971 for examining the "Public

Understanding of sustainable clothing", with a view to providing indications of how changesmight successfully be made in our "clothing culture". Looking at the finished report, few would

appreciate just how much it had cost.

A firm called Synovate then got paid 64,277 for a report on, "Public understanding of

sustainable water". Ipsos-Mori was paid to look at "sustainable investment", getting paid 54,150

for the work. And then the Policy Studies Institute got paid 12,220 to write a synthesis report,pulling together the disparate work.

Another venture was to explore "innovative approaches to achieving sustainable consumption",paying Brook Lyndhurst 59,770 to carry out some research. AEA Technology, meanwhile, waspaid 77,971 to look at, "Household and economy wide impacts of changing environmental

behaviours."

Surrey University was set on to investigate motivations for change, using six identified pro-

environmental behaviours, for which it was paid 110,000, while Brook Lyndhurst was hired to

gauge the role of influential individuals in social networks, at a cost of 77,800.

AD Research and Analysis was asked to do some methodology development, for segmentation,

getting paid 19,950 for its trouble, then being rewarded with a 89,275 project on, "Unlocking

habits to enable pro-environmental behaviours." Later, it got another 12,000 for moredevelopment work.

The Policy Studies Institute was given 115,323 to find out what "further" short term actions the

public thought the Government should take to mitigate climate change while the EPPI-Centre

was paid 93,304 to research ways of encouraging "more pro-environmental behaviour amongstSMEs".


4/5

For 58,380, DEFRA dreamed up another study, commissioning the New Economics Foundationto carry out a project called: Moments of change as opportunities to influence behaviour". This

research explored whether "moments of change" times in a persons life where existing habits

and behavioural patterns are disrupted provided a significant opportunity to encourage thetake-up of pro-environmental behaviours.

Brook Lyndhurst was asked to explore "catalyst behaviours", the idea that taking-up a newbehaviour (such as recycling) may cause people to start another, or many more, beneficial

behaviours. These, it was suggested, could be closely related behaviours or exist across a broader

range of lifestyle activities. That cost a mere 78,365.

A synthesis report on food related consumer behaviours cost the department 75,320, which

went into the coffers of AD Research and Analysis. It synthesised the evidence on the factors

driving consumer food behaviours and "applied the findings in the context of individualbehaviour change for sustainability."

Once again, the Policy Studies Institute was employed, this time testing "innovative approachesfor achieving pro-environmental behaviours." It was paid 111,380. National Union of Students

Services got a similar project, testing out the thesis on students living in halls of residence. As

this was the first time they had moved away from home, the "significant lifestyle change" was

seen as an opportunity for testing the effects of indoctrination. That cost 126,602.

Over the years 2008 and 2009, DEFRA followed through with the 2007 attitudes survey,

commissioning a tracker surve from TNS Social at a cost of 187,695.

Now, Brook Lyndhurst is currently undertaking a project which tests a variety of techniques forencouraging "pro-environmental behaviour" in schools in Peterborough. The findings from the

research will provide evidence to support more widespread promotion of pro-environmental

behaviours in schools in particular, and through social networks more generally. That is costing149,655.

The consultancy is also assessing green claims in marketing, for a mere 109,510.Simultaneously, for 130,391, the Policy Studies Institute is carrying out a review to ensure that

key social research findings from a broad evidence base are accessible to natural environment

policy and decision makers.

All this amounts to a relatively modest 2,574,376 a tiny amount compared with general

government expenditure and just a fraction of what a big corporate might spend on consumer

research.

Nevertheless, this is still a significant amount of money, and it is actually just the tip of the

iceberg. Other government departments are also commissioning research, and the researchcouncils are spending many millions. The EU is spending a huge amount of money and much of

the international spending particularly in the US is also being employed. I'll have a look at

some of this spending in another post.


5/5

Crucially, though, this research has "guided" an increasingly expensive advertising campaign.According to official figures, spending in the financial year 2005-06 was a mere 661,120 and

remained roughly static in 2006-07 at 627,216.

In 2007-08, however, spending escalated to 4,491,921 on "public engagement", while 650,307

was spent on a campaign called "Climate Challenge". And on the 1 January 2008, anothercampaign called "Act On CO2" was started. For that financial year, it cost 695,497 but, over2008-09, costs soared to 12,185,373, bringing the total outlay to 19,311,434. Add the research

and the grand total is close to 22 million.

For warmists though, nothing here will be sinister. But, to the rest of us, the idea that ourgovernment is spending our money changing our behaviour especially on such a contentious

issue where there is no popular enthusiasm for the changes sought is getting far too close to

Big Brother for comfort.

big brother and climate propaganda

Documents