No time left to indulge climate change deniers

A recent Daily Telegraph front page nicely encapsulated the sense of denial that still abounds over climate change.

The page juxtaposed superstorm Sandy and wind farms. A picture of devastation was accompanied by the headline: "The thriving community turned into a wasteland by Sandy," below the second story: "Death knell for wind farms."

Sandy blew in causing devastation across the US just as the presidential election campaign was entering its final week.

A campaign that, incidentally, had not featured climate change as a topic at all.

The one politician to push the issue forward was New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg who saw the ravages being caused at first hand as a result of the effects of climate change.

Meanwhile, in Britain new Tory Environment Minister John Hayes was attacking wind turbines.

Hayes gave an speech sounding the death knell for wind turbines, something the Tory right and assorted odd-bod celebrities have been campaigning for for some time.

It's extraordinary that climate change, the biggest threat facing the survival of humankind today, can still be treated with the gravity of a sixth-form debate.

In little England the climate change deniers are still getting a disproportionate share of air time to put their side of the argument.

The lords of balance at the BBC have played a particularly active part in continuing to maintain the farce that there are two sides to this argument by giving a platform to climate change deniers, who in the main receive support from the oil, gas and other energy companies.

However, another more subtle approach has crept in whereby climate catastrophes, whether drought, hurricane or storms are reported as isolated and separate incidents. There is no narrative joining these happenings together - the words "climate" and "change" in some cases seem deliberately to have been removed from the vocabulary.

The approach is difficult to understand. As scientists have been warning for some time now, there needs to be urgent action taken to address climate change.

It really is the most indulgent form of naval-gazing to still be arguing over whether it is happening or not.

From the residents of New York who have been blown out of their homes to humble allotment holders like myself, the evidence is clear for all to see.

This year has come as a rude shock to those of us with dreams of becoming self-sufficient and growing our own food.

Rapid shifts from drought to flood have made growing vegetables desperately difficult.

In the south, we have managed to come through with some decent crops. Other allotment holders living further north gave up due to the effects of the weather. It was simply too wet.

Climate change is not, as some tabloids would have us believe, all about a warming climate that will turn British beaches into Mediterranean idylls, with vines growing inland.

What is difficult to understand is why the public discourse remains so backward.

In Britain steps have been taken to address climate change, such as big investments in renewables, though these have been reined back since the present government took office.

Chancellor George Osborne appears to be a paid-up member of the climate sceptic club. He neither seems to accept the threat or want to embrace the opportunity that green technology offers for economic growth.

Britain has been retreating from the green technology field, leaving it to the likes of Germany to take the lead.

The public debate needs to move way beyond tepid acceptance that maybe climate change is happening.

No house should be being built now without full insulation and equipped with solar energy. The impetus needs to return to the renewables market.

Then there is the incredible amount of hot air being expended discussing where airport capacity can be expanded.

This is totally unrealistic - the world has already reached the point of peak oil.

The next few years are going to see oil exploration becoming increasingly desperate and expensive.

As oil prices rise there will come a time when the taxpayer is no longer willing to continue to subsidise air travel to the extent it does today.

The cost of air travel will rise inexorably and passenger volume will reduce accordingly.

Any new airport built now will be seen as a huge white elephant in 20 years' time.

Indeed, the way the airport debate is conducted, with the accepted truth being that passenger growth will continue forever, serves only to expose the land of denial most politicians inhabit.

The only place seemingly more backward on climate change than Britain is the US, where even the devastation caused by Sandy has not been a wake-up call.

For a politician to discuss seriously addressing climate change is about as popular as advocating the abolition of the death penalty.

The US is a huge carbon consumer and polluter that needs to accept the realities and act accordingly if the world is ever to seriously address climate change.

Elsewhere, real steps need to be taken - the fundamental nature of the shift required in all our lives just to have any chance of survival needs to be accepted and, most importantly, be seriously acted upon.

• For more of Paul Donovan's writing visit www.paulfdonovan.blogspot.com