Thread by @EdmundGriffiths

Suppose you could argue given it's the PM that he'd be doing it fatuously whatever he did; but this way of posing the question is itself more than a little, y'know

https://twitter.com/peston/status/1455210878777839619

One of the biggest obstacles stopping the general public taking the climate situation fully seriously—I suspect, the biggest obstacle—is politicians who _talk_ as though it's an existential global crisis but _act_ as though it's nothing to worry about

I think most people just take it for granted that political rhetoric is mostly exaggerated (that's why they prob don't think e.g. the Tories will really privatize the NHS—they think people who say so are overegging things as always)

I don't get the impression many people are too open to overt, no-holds-barred "it's all just made up" climate scepticism; but I do think a _lot_ of people are _very_ open to "yeah but if it were as bad as they say they'd be trying to do something about it"

(Incidentally the same reason why "project fear" didn't cut any ice in the runup to the brexit referendum: if you were _that_ sure it was going to be _that_ bad, why on earth would you be holding a referendum on it)

By contrast, in the early days of the pandemic people decided the politicians _weren't_ exaggerating the danger—& the result was full & willing compliance with lockdown, even at some personal sacrifice, with ~zero need for coercive enforcement (which doesn't mean none was used)