This is from my Green New Deal colleague and Green MP Caroline Lucas, in the Guardian this morning:
We must be able to leverage whatever finance is necessary to tackle the [climate] crisis. This is not a Trumpian border wall emergency — this is a real emergency. Critics might denounce such a plan as fantasy politics — but I ask them, with just 11 years left to halve global climate emissions, what is your alternative?
Young people understand what's needed to secure their futures. Last month, they went on school strike across the country to protest about government inaction on climate change. In our cities and towns, Green councillors have persuaded more than 25 local authorities to declare a climate emergency — and now schools and universities are doing the same. These are some of the most inspirational and hopeful acts I've seen in years. And where the people lead, politicians must follow.
Parliament must now declare a climate emergency. It must debate climate change regularly. It must develop the laws necessary to implement a Green New Deal and climate-proof every piece of legislation. And the government must ensure climate change is a priority in all departmental and cabinet decision-making. But government and parliament will only act if we tell them to. So talk about climate breakdown — to your friends, your family, your neighbours and your colleagues. Join the school strikes. Join peaceful direct action initiatives like Extinction Rebellion. Write to your MP. Write to your councillors. Write to your banks. This is an emergency. Let's treat it like one.
No apologies for the length of the quote: Caroline and I are in frequent touch with each other right now.
And I agree with her, entirely, on this being a real crisis.
And one that means that wee have to found the funding.
And put our old economics behind us.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I watched the documentary about bringing the woolly mammoth back to life last night.
I was aware that in some parts, the permafrost is melting but did not realise the environmental implications was that, as it melted, the result is more methane being released into the air as frozen plant matter begins to thaw and rot. Methane is a major greenhouse gas.
Research suggested that forests were prone to holding heat and thawing took place in the permafrost below. The permafrost was better sustained on open savannah and grassland. So the idea was to bring back a northern habituated elephant that would knock down the trees, and turn forests into grasslands and help preserve the permafrost in the North.
All I can say is, how many jobs would be created by a GND sawing down those trees as apposed to spending money dubiously on hi-tech biology? If the theory is correct, we have the ability to deforest appropriately now.
I have to say once again that I had not thought about permafrost melted methane and I am sure that that cold shiver that went down my neck had nothing to do with the cold windy weather we had here yesterday evening!
Goodness me – we are storing up some big problems for ourselves aren’t we?
Yes….in a word
And in the ‘Guardian’, as well as Caroline’s excellent article, I found at least four other articles on climate change – except that they weren’t strongly highlighted as being about climate change. Potential suicides among British farmers, forest devastation in Eastern Europe, water quality in New Zealand, and the huge sunfish that washed up on a California beach.
Caroline’s the only MP who seems to notice that we’re on the road to nowhere. More than half of the carbon present in today’s atmosphere has been belched out during the past three decades. With new dirty gas, coal and oil-fired power stations being built all over the world, there’s no sign of any country coming to its senses.
Agreed
All of the above and of course we need a Green New Deal. But if the situation is as bad as the scientists are saying and, if anything I think it is worse, we — starting with ourselves and, nationally, starting with the UK — we need to cut emissions urgently and dramatically.
Legislation is needed to restrict energy use in all its forms so that entire businesses are likely to be diminished or redundant and a new economics is needed to take account of that.
If we really knew the number of innocent lives cut short by our casual profligacy, we would change our ways. It is the government’s job to educate everyone. Campaigns such as the wartime slogans ‘Is your journey really necessary?’, ‘Grow your own food’ and ‘Make do and mend all’ could all be adapted for the crisis that we face.
In the House of Commons climate debate my MP, Sir Oliver Letwin, said ‘the single biggest risk to international security today is the question of the climate fence around Bangladesh and the possibility of rising waters forcing tens of millions of people up towards the border with Calcutta?’
Sir Oliver is not a radical lefty. The danger is real, yet we accelerate the danger of which he speaks with every gram of fuel that we burn. Fences, walls or even a coastal border force will not prevent those displaced by sea-level rise, drought, wildfire or flood from seeking refuge where the can.
The world has 11 years. Europe must act very much more quickly. If for no other reason, Article 50 should be revoked by the current set of MPs. Existing UK laws, regulations, standards and institutions are a good enough basis from which to embark on dealing with the crisis that the world’s children have so clearly identified and there is not time to fiddle about.
The GND would have to include legislation to enforce lower emissions
It could not just be carrot
It would have to be stick too
On another note…. He he
https://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2019/03/04/beneficial-ownership-debate-withdrawn/
See blog just posted
I agree this is an emergency and if radical reductions of greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced drastically the planet has had it. The IPCC report says we have 12 years but the latest information about the perma-frost melting and releasing methane (10 times as bad a green house gas than carbon dioxide) and the arctic and antarctic exponential rate of ice melting really is frightening so for effective action must be much more than the IPCC recommendation.
Locally Wiltshire Council (Tory) has declared a climate emergency (bravo) but Swindon (Tory also – just) stubbonly refuses to recognise the crisis and meekly thinks setting up a climate working group is the answer! Yes the youth4climate protests are most encouraging – the next one due on Friday March 15th. All power to their elbows!
It’s 11 years now….
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/04/uk-co2-emissions-hit-lowest-level-in-almost-a-century-research-says.html?__source=twitter%7Cmain
So why do we need a hugely expensive Green New Deal?
Because the overwhelming evidence is we have 11 years left to save the planet
But a Green new Deal in the UK isn’t going to “save the planet” is it?
Emissions are already down at 1888 levels without the help of a GND, and are set to fall further.
So what is the Green new Deal going to achieve exactly?
How much money are you going to be spending for a given reduction in CO2 production? As far as I can tell the GND hasn’t been costed at all, and is just a Green party/big government socialist wishlist. Some of the ideas have already been tried and haven’t worked either.
And of course the elephant in the room: What is the GND going to do about Chinese and Indian emissions? Countries which are currently opening a new coal plant every day…
Emissions are not at 1888 levels
Shall we stick to the proper science and not fairy tales please?
The GND aims to have zero carbon emissions because they are causing global warming
The cost of not doing it is the only matter of concern
And India is de-carbonising faster than any nation on earth
So frankly you are putting forward nonsense
Please do not call again
Thanks for the link – unfortunately it is guilty by omission. From the 1990s onwards the Uk “outsourced” its emissions to places such China. As Mrs Lucas noted in her article, if these are taken into account, the Uk has reduced its emissions by circa 4% – after around 30 years off effort. Bravo.
Coming to the word “expensive” as you may be aware, green tech such as off-shore wind can, mostly, deliver electricity at a lower cost than fossil generation. Indeed it has a good “business case” & this business case requires for the most part no subsidy. I am thus puzzled by your use of the word “expensive” in this context. A Green New Deal would fund both renewables and energy efficiency – there would be a return on both – what’s not to like? where is the expense?
What follows is some e-mailed comments to a political discussion group – its your fault richard that we are still meeting once per week on Skype 🙂 (I think three or four years down the track). The comments are relevant since they relate to – how are we going to change the “steady as she goes” situation wrt global warming.
Your comments about “generational differences” and “confrontational versus collaborative tactics ” triggered thoughts regarding efforts to address global warming/energy transformation. Most of the lobby mob in Brussels are much younger than me and use mostly, collaborative tactics – with respect to action against global warming/energy transformation. They are reasonably successful…..but……..the end result is gradualism – this does not fit with the time frame of where Europe (or indeed the world) needs to be.
It is mostly one big happy family – EC/lobbyists. I think they have been co-opted.
In his book Voltair’s Bastards (towards the end) – Ralston Saul discusses the value of panic – the ability to see that things are very badly out of control and that emergency action is needed asap. He notes that technocrats tend not to do “panic” or “emergency” it is all “steady as she goes”.
I guess that is where I differ from the younger generation –
a) I prefer a bare knuckle confrontation – when needed (& it’s needed now)
b) I am quite capable of panicking and taking emergency action – & which is what is needed – now.
I accept the blame
The conclusion seems appropriate
Its interesting what Mark van Baal and I created with the Climate Change shareholder resolutions at Shell which this season has just gone global. Global being the big sisters of Chevron, Exxon Mobil, BP, Shell, Equinor.
The resolution asks that the company become responsible for their clients CO2 emissions and to plan to meet the Paris Climate Change accord.
After 5 years as a founder signatory of the Shell and BP groups we need an urgency and we now have debate and the pension fund trustees are taking note of their grandchildrens futures. Any volunteers for signing further resolutions in other industrys.
Might you write a blog with links to the ideas – or provide links so that I might?