It is my usual habit, as is apparent from this blog, to write posts quite early in the morning. However, given the state of the weather this weekend, my wife and I were out by the river in Ely by seven this morning, walking and birdwatching.
It was peaceful, beautiful and rewarding. Garden warbler, linnets and what looked to be a young male reed bunting seeking to claim its first territory and singing loudly whilst doing so were the highlights, but the usual rewards of river watching from great crested grebes to herons and young moorhen, plus the sound but not the sight of a kingfisher, were all there.
I admit that it was also fun to go out for a coffee afterwards to take the time to reflect upon the morning's news, which is depressing.
The Greek government is evacuating Rhodes.
Simultaneously, it seems that both the Tories and Labour want to backtrack on their environmental commitments because of the supposed marginal impact it may have had on election results in Uxbridge.
Newspapers are excitedly declaring today that enormous pressure is being brought to bear upon Sadiq Khan to reform his ULEZ policy, even though that was actually imposed upon him by the current government as a condition of funding for Transport for London. In truth, therefore, Starmer is demanding that a Labour mayor backtrack on the already pathetic level of environmental commitment our current government has.
I long suspected that something like this would happen. It was always obvious that at some point a political commitment to climate change would conflict with the policies of neoliberal growth that have a so long underpinned the thinking of our major political parties. That conflict is now happening at exactly the same moment that it is becoming very apparent in multitudinous places around the world that the cost of that growth is already unsustainable.
The early commentators on this issue, from Schumacher in the 1970s onwards, predicted that this would happen. For a while it was possible to pretend otherwise, particularly after events like COP 26. The truth, however, is that the commitments made there were just a sham. Big business, governments in hock to it, and politicians living in fear of the mainstream media that incites hatred against any alternative to current environmental destruction as well as the idea that there might be a social purpose to politics, meant that those politicians were always going to oppose the policies that are now necessary to tackle the threat from climate change.
The threat created by climate change is now bigger than that which was created by Covid.
It is bigger than the threat created by the global financial crisis in 2008.
It is also likely that the threat is now at least as big as that created by the Second World War because as many people as then are now at risk from democidal governments.
The problem that we face is that we have to live with politicians who deny all these things. Indeed, they now appear to be in denial of the basic facts of climate change and the resulting fact that climate change demands that we must change the way that we live.
It will no longer be possible for us to consume in the way that we did.
It will not be possible for us to travel in the way that we did.
It will not be possible for us to despoil our planet in the way that we have.
It will not be possible for us to eat in the way that we did.
What, however, is possible despite all these things is that we can live well. That, I believe, is possible because what brings us the most pleasure in life is, almost invariably, the company that we share, the experiences that we have on a day-to-day basis and the sense of well-being that both can generate.
What does not bring us a sense of well-being is the sense of inadequacy that is fundamental to almost all advertising that is used to promote excessive material consumption, which advertising and excessive consumption are always linked to the desire to keep us in debt, upon which outcome almost the whole of the financial services industry is dependent, which is why it too is such a threat to our survival.
What most definitely causes us stress in life are threats to our health, our ability to make ends meet, and threats to those for whom we care, including all those younger than we might be.
What is indisputably true as a result is that most politicians from most major political parties (Labour, the Tories, LibDems and SNP) pose a major threat to the well-being of all young people in our country and so to the wellbeing of all of us. Their collective denial of climate reality, coupled with their refusal to deliver the necessary required changes and to make clear how those changes must be funded (very largely by major redistribution of wealth to counter the impact of the necessary spending that must take place) represents a total negation of responsibility on their part.
I continue to believe that it is possible for the human race to continue to inhabit the earth and to have rewarding lives. But I have to stress the word possible in that statement because that possibility is under threat from timid political leadership on almost all sides of our supposed political spectrum.
Will we see the recovery of the body politic in the UK so that it might recover the courage required to tackle these issues? I genuinely do not know, but I am quite sure that the need for it to do so is essential for our survival.
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:
You are absolutely correct in what you say here. The ultra low emission zone in London is essential to protect people’s health. The right wing press attacks all such initiatives. The low emission zone in Glasgow is being similarly attacked as are the highly protected marine areas that are the only hope of ensuring the future of our inshore waters. The main problem is the monopoly on communications held by the right wing. Overcoming this is essential. I have always been an advocate of mass leafleting as a means of disseminating information. It is cheap, easy, and effective and needs only large numbers of volunteers. It is political wisdom that if you have to explain, you have lost the argument, therefore simple slogans are an essential ingredient. Who can do it?
Great point! The media poisin debate, thought and altruism. Time and time again it is proven that what they say and what they decide is news does not chime with public concerns and opinions. Yet politicians are constantly snuffling at their trough.
I was struck by an article I read one time about how generally people in Norway are ‘proud’ to pay taxes because they understand a clear link between that and the function of a society. I have often thought how it would benefit society and government if public works were emblazoned with things like ‘this bridge built with our taxes’ or ‘this library a collaboration between volunteers and local government’.
I wonder if somehow, someway a free weekly non-partisan chronicle could be published, overseen by fact checkers, that explained the political machinations of the day, what had been achieved by government – national and local – perhaps opinion pieces from two or more sides on notions for solutions to problems that affect our lives.
Blue sky thinking maybe but I think your point is so important. Information is lacking. We should be proud for what we achieve as societies, not ashamed.
Try Byline Times
Just bought a copy of your book ‘The Courageous State’ and have just read the Introduction…
Clear, concise, compassionate, and rational.
It took me many years to realise, IMHO, how stupid, irrational and selfishly greedy so many people are.
In a way, I feel Food Banks are letting the Govt off the hook.
Thanks
I must say that is an excellent point by Pilgrim Slight Return.
“fun to go out for a coffee”.. what an exciting life you lead
I do, actually
Edward Hearn
Do us all a favour and go back to sleep will you?
Appreciated.
Thank you Richard for this and for your ongoing campaign. We need more people of influence to join you in speaking out.
With most politicians still locked in to the endless economic growth mindset, it’s easy to despair at our future prospects.
But for the sake our children and theirs, we must carry on persuading as best we can, until hopefully the momentum builds sufficiently for real action to be taken.
The British ignorantly are on a trajectory to planetary extinction because they can’t do joined up thinking. Clearly massive UK state spending is needed to help tackle climate change but the British want the government’s books balanced! How dense and smug can a people become!
On another point of failure to do joined up thinking most people don’t see how free-market capitalism has to be associated with the human race’s propensity for selfishness manifested as imperialism. It clearly is a case of imperialism for China to currency rig for example so much of the world’s manufacturing now takes place there and to boot a country that is still heavily dependent on fossil fuel burning for that manufacturing. Where was the West in trying to find a balance here? Missing in action except to fatten up bank accounts!
Current crop of politicos = managerialists – they can manage their way out of the current crisis. They can’t.
Chapter 4 of Monbiots “Regenesis” is worth reading and shows what can be done with 8 hectares of land. I have contacted one of Europe’s leading soil scientists who I know well and we will visit the place mentioned, with a view to validating what is done. After that, I will seek to replicate the project in another location. I have one in mind and will integrate renewables such that one ends up with a +/- self-sustaining food and energy system (note that word) – with minimal outside inputs. By the way, Monbiot gets some details wrong (on biochar and glosses over the role of local renewables) but otherwise he points in the right direction.
The current crop of politicos & the penumbra of corporate lobbyists that surround them are functionally incapable of understanding the direction of travel.
Those interested in the 2nd para & want more details (from the point of view of replication – I’m not angling for funds – don’t need them) know how to contact me.
I will forward mails to Mike if people want to make contact.
I never share email contacts without permission.
Richard,
You say “That, I believe, is possible because what brings us the most pleasure in life is, almost invariably, the company that we share, the experiences that we have on a day-to-day basis and the sense of well-being that both can generate.”
Lovely to hear how you and your wife practise what you preach – the description of the Riverside environment early on Sunday morning sounded idyllic. That’s your Sunday church attendance = the church of nature.
If only someone could knock the heads of our misruling class together – preferably ship 95% of the Commons and Lords off to a Rwanda-type destination (the hulk for asylum-seekers springs to mind), and as much of the Deep State as possible, but certainly our unaccountable Press Barons – and let us come together as citizens in the various People’s Assemblies and related organisations, and discuss and implement the sort of society we really want, but first and foremost dealing with the climate crisis.
A replay of the Civil War’s Putney Debates, but successfully completed this time, and out into practice, and not baulked by the top-down forces of reaction that stifled the voice from below, from the sensible grassroots.
The only viable solution is for us to take charge, after kicking out our hopelessly corrupt and visionless ruling class – a revolution via mass civil action and disobedience, as practised by Just Stup Oil and XR.
I live in hope that the worm will turn, but fear we’re just the frog in the pan, being placidly boiled to death.
Thanks Andrew
I clearly share your fear
Excellent, reflective post.
Contemporary models of growth are only ever really a requirement of money – whether invested or through ownership. And it is at odds with the capacity of our planet to absorb the environmental consequences of what is providing that growth.
This is why new forms of growth are needed – innovative growth in modes of providing energy, transport, food, shelter and fresh water.
The returns on these investments are more stark and nothing to do with money. They are to do with survival and reducing chaos. Excellent non-monetary returns in my mind!
Ideally therefore, such innovative investment could be/should be increasingly decoupled from the profit motive/traditional market drivers.
The drivers should be based on needs that sanctify life in the teeth of this crisis.
The time for sovereign investment is now. There is a role for private investment and returns – the oft cited use of pensions and even ISAs contributing to new modes of energy etc., – putting that money to good use. But the onus for me is on the sovereign printing of money to invest. And after 2008, anyone saying otherwise or it cannot be done is a liar.
My worry however is the same as yours – it is that our politicians are fatalists. They have a death wish. It’s all too big and complicated to sort out. Rather than see this is an opportunity, the crippling orthodoxy of economic secularism prevents imagination and suitable recourse. It’s a major pinch point.
And we need to act – that is for sure.
The thing is, in a world on fire, and being inundated with water, what use will all that money be that is being hoarded?
Hmmm? Has anyone thought about that yet I wonder?
That is the question
I noticed the Reform party got more votes in Somerton and Frome than the Labour party with three point four percent, and three point seven percent in Selby-ahead of the LibDems. They did not stand in Uxbridge. If they had taken 3 % there from the Tories, the outcome could have been different.
The Observer had a Opinium poll where the Lib Dems are at 11% and Reform at 10%. It suggests that people state support but don’t follow through. I think they have a total of five councillors. However, if reduce the Conservative vote, that’s to the good.
Looking at their program I saw that they would convert the Internal B of E QE money into a 75 year Corona bond (whatever that is) and pay with a 2% interest. They would stop Quantitative Tightening and stop paying “money printed QE interest. Surprised me.
But then we see 1) slash public spending 2) slash taxes to create growth 3)accelerate oil and gas exploration, restart open cast mines and “unlock the vast reserve of shale gas!!! 4) abandon subsidies for renewables. The usual Right Wing stuff.
3 & 4 are not only nonsense but dangerous.
But around 10% saying they will support a Farage type party is worrying.
Agreed
Thanks for saying all that Richard. So right and really worrying.
And your morning out sounds really great!
Sadly, my ever-increasing mobility problems mean I can no longer do and enjoy such things (frustrating for someone who walked the whole of the Pennine Way back in 1965 – the year it opened – and have also walked between mountain huts in the Jotenheimen mountains in Norway, including Peer Gynt’s ridge and the Galdhoppigen). But at least I have an excellent view from my window with a field and woodland beyond which bring the occasional green and spotted woodpeckers and other birds to my garden which I can watch from the comfort of an armchair!
You’re lucky with woodpeckers
I saw my first green one for ages this afternoon, on another walk where butterflies turned out to be the main highlight.
I am not trying to lower the tone, but sometimes in frustration about the direction our politicians are taking us in, cause me to to want to scream, but I try to overcome this by having something to laugh about, so here goes –
Young and old want to discuss these issues to find the solutions we know are there, and politicians must debate.
(Spell it how you like, one word or two.)
Here’s an excellent comment from “Tonystoke” on today’s Andrew Rawnsley article in the Observer which bears re-printing in full. It got a lot of upticks!
“We are doing something very wrong if policies put forward by the Labour party end up on each and every Tory leaflet. We’ve got to face up to that and learn the lessons.”
Keir Starmer after Ulez-linked Uxbridge loss
No Sir Keir. Ulez is the correct policy – how the hell are you ‘doing something very wrong’ if your policy is proved to save hundreds of lives a year? It was your ‘timorous response’ to it that was wrong.
Ulez was brought in to improve air quality standards by reducing the number of vehicles in Greater London that fail to meet emissions standards (currently only around 6%) – a policy implemented by a Labour mayor who, unlike yourself, has the courage of his convictions, and has faced up to concerted pressure from petrol heads and their media backers for years. Your statement is a clear sign of weakness. It is NOT `facing up and learning lessons’ as that rather pitiful phrase implies.
Is this a foretaste of what a Starmer administration will look like? Policies designed to alleviate global warming or help those in poverty ditched because a bunch of loud people over there and their press hounds are shouting at me ?
There is only so far this `carrying a Ming vase across an ice rink’ metaphor will stretch. If after the merest featherlite brush Sir Keir wobbles, then really … why bother?
My comment – It should now be very obvious that the timorous Starmer is not leadership material!
It constantly amazes me that with all their PR and communications gurus and focus groups and bins of Big Data our politicians and their advisors are completely incapable of SELLING a good policy.
Starmer’s incompetence is considerably worse. ULEZ was a policy devised by Boris Johnson. Sadiq Khan extended it to cover the area with the North and South Circular Roads. Grant Shapps then insisted that it was extended to the outer London boroughs as a condition for more money to Transport For London. So much for Starmer’s supposed ‘great attention to detail’ – the failure to win Uxbridge and South Ruislip lies firmly at his own door. Hopeless.
Here’s another comment by VladTheImpartial in the same article that I thought hit the nail on the head:-
“Starmer is a political coward and yes, weathervane is a fitting description for him and he points the way the Tory wind tells him to. We so desperately need an actual leader, but instead we’ve got a yougov poll follower.”
Might the main stream media have a significant responsibility for this ongoing material World catastrophe and the accompanying ongoing mass ignorance and mass lack of analytical thinking catastrophes?
Thank you for your increasingly evident efforts to decontaminate the M S M!
Please look after yourself and co.
Thanks
And I will.
I would strongly suggest it all boils down to why bother voting for “More of the Same” Starmer when there’s a good chance of a less right-wing party winning. It’s no wonder Starmer’s against getting rid of FPTP it’s one of the main planks for keeping the Thatcherite dogma “the government has no money of its own” in place. Ex-FPTP sooner or later the competition between parties to put Britain on a better path will have to over-turn this dogma. This will be the sea change the country badly needs!
Thank you for your insights.
Is food security another aspect to consider? What will be the effect on food production, both in the U.K. and the rest of the world with increasing temperatures?
We will go hungry unless we do something pretty drastic
A recently published study by the University of Aarhus looked at the potential of agri-solar across Europe. They found that siting solar panels above fields growing non-cereal crops would produce a total of 23x Europe’s current total energy use (in the UK it would be about 4x total UK energy consumption). In addition it would increase crop yields by 10%+, as well as provide a means of protecting crops from storm damage, counter flooding, and capture water for use in irrigation during periods of drought. And all of that by simply implementing existing technology at scale. Free electricity + increased food security. https://www.pv-magazine.com/2023/07/14/new-research-identifies-potential-for-51-tw-of-agrivoltaics-in-europe/
Agreed
It is so stupid to oppose this
Just read the Saturday Interview in The Times, featuring climate scientist Friederike Elly Luise Otto, author of Angry Weather. Perhaps you and she should get together to lobby Government and the Labour Party about the urgent need to invest serious money in climate change and its affordability.
Richard,
Your morning walk got me thinking.
If you were offered the opportunity to double your wealth overnight, but having to give up your morning walks, would you accept? I can hazard a guess.
Just as you argue for proper Environmental costing, we need to have proper “Quality of Life” costing.
A lot of decisions would be clearer if we included overall quality of life in the costing. ULEZ is a nuisance, but how many people is it worth harming or killing to suit Uxbridge quality of life (i.e. convenience)?
Would a £50 million gain on the PM’s investments improve his quality of life enough to outweigh using the money to stop children going hungry?
There may be a point where a small gain on one side is outweighed by very great inconvenience on the other.
What is always wrong is to pretend quality of life costings don’t exist.
Fascinating idea…
Amongst stiff competition the most alarming policy failure in this country is the complete lack of any comprehensive and practical plan to move this country from an insecure fossil fuel economy to a secure all electric economy.
On the Macro level it is exemplified by the lack of any well thought-out national plan to provide this country with barely sufficient generating capacity for our current energy needs let alone secure future capacity sufficient for an all electric future.
On the micro level it is things like the ULEZ policy, that is obviously a necessary health reform, but which has been implemented in a way that disproportionally affects poorer people, already worst hit by the cost of living crisis, who depend on old cheap-to-buy cars for transport. As others have said, the policy really needs to be augmented with a generous scrappage scheme,
A similar problem arises as we all move to electric cars. If you live in a more expensive house with its own drive, convenient and cheap home recharging will become the norm, but what do you do if you live in a terrace or a flat?
None of these problems are insurmountable with sensible planning but currently I have heard nothing from any party that is anything like a fair, practical and secure way of dealing with any of it.
Sadly it is not just the politicians who are at fault – it is ALL of us too.
We vote them in.
Most of the people I associate with recognise climate change – but they won’t change their car (and perhaps even worse their caravan either), never mind agreeing to get rid of both.
I have bought an electric car – I wonder who dug up the lithium? And it was shipped in a polluting vessel across the world.
We live in a house much too big for 2 people – we have no intention of down-sizing yet. So no brownie points for us.
I think that the only thing that can cure this is Nature itself and that will mean a major reduction if not extinction of Homo Sapiens.
I accept that I am far from perfect
But I am definitely on the road I talk about
…another eloquent piece Richard……on the general subject of government, banks, & the seeming imminence of some form of CBDC, I wonder what you & readers make of this contribution from Saule Omarova from a PM webinar. You don’t need to watch it all, just her stuff from say minute 7 to minute 36, then 45-47 – the latter was just Q&A response.
Omara short biography/cv:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saule_Omarova
the Omara webinar contribution:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LF5gGsQMHbI
your thoughts everyone…..
I am not convinced we need a CBDC
neither am I necessarily…it seems to me however that we will get one anyway…ergo it needs to be “designed” properly…if left to the Neoliberal-Banking Lobby (NBL), they will do everything in their very considerable power to render it ineffective, particularly in terms what CBDC advocates want. Note that Omara has in effect already been ousted from even applying for a top job by the NBL! So, if we are to to get CBDC, what can we do to use it for meaningful change?
What if it is the wrong tool for meaningful change?
For Norman Wilcox
Good job. Governments don’t seem up to the task, so I guess we can only do what we can do. It’s never enough but if 10 million people do something, however small…
I’m English and live in deeply rural (agricultural) West Cork surrounded by the green deserts being produced by the rock-breaking dairy farmers. (Courtesy of the CAP and the fact they need to earn a living.)
l’m ‘lucky enough’ to have a reasonable pension and have just installed 20 PV panels. This will help reduce my oil consumption for heating. We’ve planted 500 native trees for biodiversity and are looking to choose a bespoke electric car when the V2x functionality becomes more widely available.
The following link gives all you need to counter arguments regarding electric car ownership.
https://fullycharged.show/episodes/electric-cars-are-rubbish-arent-they-electric-car-myths-exploded/
The next five years will see the introduction of new solar panels with efficiencies around the 30% plus mark. (Best now just topping 20%.) Also new battery technology with no Cobalt/Lithium content.
All a person can do is what they can do….!?
Yes
Changing diet is another big thing
I am largely vegetarian now and wonder why I ever needed all that meat
Eating mammals now seems like a really weird idea.
“What if it is the wrong tool for meaningful change?”
I take your point: my point however, unless I am very much mistaken, is that it seems inevitable, judging by comments from BoE, ECB & FED et al, that we will get SOME form of CBDC – wanted or not, right “tool” or not.
If I borrow an imaginary NeoL hat, I ask myself what I might get out of a CBDC. The answer in the event of a “full-on” CBDC wanted by its advocates, is nothing & worse still total eradication of my power & influence over government – bad thing for me while wearing the hat, but maybe a good thing in reality?
Now when I remove the borrowed hat, I can see exactly what the NeoL will do & that is to lobby relentlessly (& as usual they are light-years ahead in cordination & organisation & have been actively lobbying central banks & politicians for years now on this very subject) to render any form of CBDC impotent, leaving the NeoL still in control, & the in-office & opposition wannabee politicians alike in thrall to the status quo. The whingeing mantra continues: “where’s the money going to come from”…..”value for taxpayers’ money”…..”you are the party of tax & spend” ad infinitum.
If I have understood Omarova, she seems to think that relative anonymity could be preserved, that banking could be reconstituted, etc…..
My reason for sending her contribution out for appraisal by you & maybe some of your readers, better versed in Economics than me, was to find out if we can do anything with CBDC, given its seeming inevitability….
Maybe, but I am afraid not this afternoon
My writing agenda is full…
…whenever & if you can……remember to give yourself a break – regularly…
Very succinctly put Richard. If we had a political leadership that was literate in science, especially in energy and ecology, they would hammer your 4 “bullet points” home:
– It will no longer be possible for us to consume in the way that we did.
– It will not be possible for us to travel in the way that we did.
– It will not be possible for us to despoil our planet in the way that we have.
– It will not be possible for us to eat in the way that we did.
Our civilisation is based on science, but our culture is not. Therefore the harsh realities are neither perceived or if they are, however dimly, they are not faceable.
I just wanted to share this interesting – and very challenging – discussion between three ecologists I heard recently:
https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/the-great-simplification-with-nate-hagens/id1604218333?i=1000620342218
On this segment of Reality Roundtable, Nate is joined by William Rees, Nora Bateson, and Rex Weyler to discuss the purpose of ecology and what it might look like to have a civilization centered around it. Despite our tendency to think of ourselves as separate from the biosphere, humans are a part of it, just like any other animal. What sets us apart now is our outsized impact on the world around us, as we and our societies take up more space and resources, degrading the ecosystems that support ourselves, our descendants, and other species. How can an understanding of systems and relationships help us rethink how we interact with the planet? Could ecologically literate governments and citizens create wider boundaries across time and space in which decisions are made? What might the parameters be for a civilization centered around ecology, and how can we navigate there through declining energy and resource availability? Most of all, how can we as individuals and communities root ourselves into a deep(er) ecological knowledge and way of being?
I have saved to listen later