I checked the Conservative Party website to see what they were saying in their manifesto on envirnmental issues. This is it:
Environment
-
We have pledged to reach net-zero by 2050 by building on our superb global reputation for action to protect the environment and tackle climate change.
-
Today we are announcing a ban on exporting plastic waste outside the OECD, to reduce the environmental impact on the oceans as well as developing countries which do not have the capacity to handle it properly.
-
The manifesto confirms our new Office for Environmental Protection, and our own legal targets, including for air quality.
Seriously: that is all they have to say as their headlines on the issue.
No Green New Deal.
No investment.
No infrastructure.
No changes to transport.
Just boasts, plastic recycling and air quality issues.
It's as if we're in 2005, and the only issues are minor irritations that a regaiultion or two can change.
On the biggest issue of our time; the quite literal existential crisis that we all face, the party that seeks power can only boast about its record, which helped get us in to the mess we are in and offer inconsequential change in the overall scheme of things.
If anything makes these people unfit for office, this does.
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:
Isn’t setting specific environmental targets and an entire new department to implement them, quite a positive step?
The target is way too late
And it won’t be a few civil servants who deliver this
No, all this indicates is that the Tories really do not care about this issue
What was wrong with the old Environment Dept?
Why was it hollowed out and experts on flooding and rivers etc let go ?
Too little too late and a jolly wheeze moving deck chairs that will disrupt the remaining expertise.
It simply beggars all rational belief. This from the political party that will most probably be reelected to govern the nation for the next 5 years. It proves that in addition to being dyed-in-the-wool, Ayn Rand inspired neoliberal and hard core ‘Brexit – at it’s heart it’s also a climate-change denier.
Judging by the published summary (which is all the average voter will read) their manifesto is a master-class in misdirection. There’s just enough on a range of social issues to convince a confused electorate that not only is it ‘safe in Tory hands’ but will also be significantly better off in a ‘Britannia Unchained’. Combined with dissing everything proposed by the LP, their cleverly crafted strategy – with the aid of the MSM and a circle of exceptionally wealthy sponsors (https://truepublica.org.uk/united-kingdom/the-secrecy-behind-130-million-in-donations-to-the-tories) – appears to be almost effortlessly achieving results beyond their wildest dreams – certainly in comparison to Theresa May’s campaign.
They know all that’s necessary is to make popularist proposals, with the minimum of substantiation, and not get drawn into any detailed discussion. As you wrote earlier – it’s an election driven by propaganda**. What more to say? Even allowing for polling error, there is clearly a preference for the Tories to stay in control of the nation’s destiny outside the EU. One has to say that, irrespective of an intelligent, constructive manifesto, this is also a massive failure of Labour to capture enough support. Sadly, Corbyn is a toxic brand among too many potential voters. As mentioned many times hitherto, there is too a generational element at play. I’m clinging to the hope that by 2024 there will be enough new young voters, passionate about the environmental crisis and their future, to make a critical difference. In clichéd terms: ‘we’ll lose the next battle but WILL win the war’.
** Did you see this from Sacha Baron Cohen? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDTOQUvpw7I.
The question is why is Corbyn a toxic brand? We come back to propaganda. Without Corbyn as Labour leader there would be no progressive, hope-inspiring manifesto from any major party.
Where would Labour be with eg. Chukka Umuna?
The real problem is if not now with Corbyn, then when and with whom? In a heavy defeat, Labour will ditch not just the man but the policies. Then where do we turn? Some like me in the 1990s to the Greens as the only radical alternative. But can they grow quickly enough to avert disaster?
I’d like to share your optimism, but after following several generations of Labour infighting, I find it difficult.
I do not now think the Labour Party has a non-progressive future
The right have gone or are going
Just a brief-ish comment. Unlike Richard, I’ve not met Jeremy Corbyn but. based on what I see & hear, he comes across to me as a caring, principled person of some integrity. I’ve also read he’s a very good constituency MP. However, he’s ‘toxic’ to many simply because he’s carrying too much baggage, hence easy to be ‘branded’ by his enemies as a Trotskyite throw-back to the 1970s, a terrorist sympathiser, associated with the problems of previous Labour administrations… and all the other dog-whistle opprobrium that resonates instantly with the Tory target audience. Sadly that’s just the way it is. Yes, he seems to have done a competent job in steering the LP away from the Blairite agenda and appeals to a certain group of young people. That said I don’t believe he’s a natural leader of major political party that must reach out beyond its core membership. In more normal circumstances maybe he would have stepped down to make way for someone younger with natural leadership qualities and wider experience. It strikes me the LP has a far greater depth of diverse talent than the Conservative Party. Corbyn has valiantly done his bit. And I agree with Richard that there’s no going-back now for Labour. It has almost shed its NL skin. Now It needs an inspirational British equivalent to AOC. She’s out there somewhere!
(Sorry the comment wasn’t as brief as intended).
PS: Just to say I’m not a member of the LP nor do I vote for it – although in this election I just might break my rules as a once off.
The scientists that I’ve been reading say that the risks rise gradually with increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, and that the threat is gradual.
They also tell me that the majority of the world live in countries where development is more important than decarbonisation and that is rational thing to be doing at this stage. And that action on communicable diseases, air quality and biodiversity are more important.
That nuclear power is a great way to generate a lot of power at little cost to the environment. Sure, there is an economic cost. And genetically modified crops, strains that are drought resistant or brackish resistant, will permit land to be taken out of agriculture and used for environmental benefits.
I think the voters are catching on to all of this, and when it comes to the polls they will reject the party that prefers a green new deal to insulate houses and other programmes using central planning.
The problem with climate science seems to be that everyone can select their own version of it. There are people asserting that versions that have not been tested using the white heat of the scientific method don’t need to be.
Richard Feynman will be looking down and chuckling knowing that nature can’t be fooled, just people.
With respect, there is now only one version of climate science
Everything else you say flows from your failure to recognise that
Home From Saudi says “The scientists that I’ve been reading say that the risks rise gradually with increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, and that the threat is gradual.”
Who the f*** have you been reading? This is so far from current scientific concensus that you must have seriously cherry picked your data/opinions.
Then again, this is such blatant trolling that I’m almost ashamed to respond…
I am beginning to think a Venn diagram of Johnson v Trump would be a single circle with both names in it. Am I being unfair?
No
Jot down a list of their beliefs, behaviours (illegal and other) and policies, and Trumps Republicans and Johnson’s Tories look like peas from the same pod. Then add in the networks between them, not to mention the Russian connections and hard to believe it’s all a set of coincidences
But…
“It is precisely because we understand the concept of aspiration, and enterprise, that the UK is now leading a new green industrial revolution”
The Conservative and Unionist Party Manifesto 2019 p3.
Thought I prefer p3 re technology and innovation…
“We are the only party that can deliver this programme, because we are the only party that understands the balance and symmetry at the heart of the UK economy.”
It’s like BS on Laxatives!
The claims in the manifesto are bizarre, and show they are hoeplessly out of touch
If we accept that the Tories are serious about tackling climate change and that they are simply following the advice from the CCC, then the amount of money they are committing to is a fraction of the 1-2% of GDP that the CCC have said is necessary per annum.
The CCC report also relies on us magicing up some large scale carbon capture and storage solutions.
Agreed
They are not serious