There was always going to be a moment when the far-right would try to mount a backlash against the inevitable progress of the climate change movement that has rightly persuaded the world of the threat that it faces. There was also always going to be a place where this challenge would become particularly apparent. It would seem that the moment is now, and the place is here in the UK.
In a little over a week, one by-election result and a massive wobble from the Labour Party on climate-related issues gave Rishi Sunak the excuse that he needed to backtrack on many of his climate commitments.
First, he questioned the ultra-low emission zone in London, even though it was created by Boris Johnson and its expansion was required by Grant Shapps, a member of Sunak's own cabinet.
Then he explicitly came out in favour of motorists, with the inference being that he was really supporting the SUV driver.
After that, he challenged traffic reduction schemes.
And now he is quite explicitly supporting the extraction of more oil and gas from the North Sea.
There are no arguments that can defend any of these policies. ULEZ will save the lives that are lost to air pollution now. Children in London and elsewhere are dying as a result of the emission of car exhaust fumes. Sunak has chosen not to save their lives.
By choosing to burn more oil and gas, when the resources that we already have available are more than enough to raise global temperatures to the point where life on Earth may not be possible, Sunak has proven that he is totally reckless and irresponsible.
Every young person in this country, from his own children onwards, should be livid with him. He has set this country on a path that can only harm their future.
So why has he done this? There are, inevitably, three reasons.
The first is to appease his backbenchers in the Conservative party, whose stupidity knows no limit.
The second is to appease the right-wing media, who are totally out of sync with the population of the UK on this issue.
Thirdly, he has done this to appease the oil companies. It remains the case today that they, along with a range of other big businesses, and particularly global finance whose fortunes are intimately related to oil because of the funding that they supply to it, remain dedicated to extracting oil and gas from the planet, whatever the consequence for humankind. It is as if those who lead the sectors are utterly incapable of appreciating the stupendous harm that they are doing by permitting this course of action.
How can they persuade themselves of this? Again, there are three reasons (at least). The first is money. They make a lot of it in the short term by ignoring the long term harm that they cause.
Second, they utterly bizarrely think that they can buy themselves and their children out of this crisis. They are wrong.
Third, they just do not care. A lifetime of education based on economic thinking that suggests a) there are no externalities, or if they are, they have already been priced b) there is no long term as everything can be discounted to the present, and c) in the present, all seems to be OK (so long as one does not spend too long looking at the news) has left them utterly unable to appreciate the consequence of their actions.
And in all this, the Tories and big business have been massively aided and abetted by Starmer sending out the signal that he will not seek to change anything the Tories might do if he gets into office. He cannot be let off the hook on this.
What will happen as a consequence? First, global boiling will get worse. That is inevitable.
Second, the backlash will get angrier. That is also inevitable. People whose lives are threatened are hardly going to accept that threat without protesting.
Third, something will have to give. It may be the current parliamentary system. That would be the best outcome. It may be democracy. That would definitely not be so good. Or it may be the planet itself. That is the worst outcome.
What is certain is that the heat, both actual and political, will rise. And with regard to that political heat, I am on the side of anger. It is the resource we have available to us now. It will be hard to constrain. The idiots (I use the word wisely) in charge really need to understand that.
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:
God Almighty Richard, what words are there to describe the wretched fools in government and business who are pushing this?
I can’t improve on your analysis of their reasons for this, it’s spot on.
All I can say is to agree with your many previous comments on the almost total lack of real political talent in this country. (And the rest of the world perhaps?).
The Tories worst possible characteristics are represented by Sunak’s government. Vicious, stupid, cynical, greedy, desperate for power at all costs and liars.
And labour’s insane tribalism and factionalism is worse than ever under Starmer. Threatening to expel Neal Lawson!!!!!!!!…
And their gutless and self defeating refusal to oppose the Tories’ nonsense? How many voters do they want to lose to the greens?
They’ve already lost this one, and I won’t be going back!
Such stupidity is beyond belief. Does he not see the climate-related catastrophies now occuring on an almost daily basis around the world, the latest being the devastating floods in Beijing yesterday? Or does he just not care ?
‘Thirdly he has done this …. stupendous HOME …’ is an unfortunate typo. But maybe that is indeed what Sunak thinks he is creating?
Edited. Thanks.
Much to agree with.
Some numbers. Gas is rumbling around Euro30/MWh (Dutch TTF). It costs roughly Euro2/MWh (or less) to extract. Henry Hub prices (USA) are roughly Euro3/MWh. Translating this into what UK serfs pay – typcially (2020) £50/MWh – now £100/MWh. Thus companies extracting gas from the North Sea have a nice little earner playing out, with margins perhaps 200% (allowing for trivial network costs). This compares with low margin renewables where you will be lucky to see 12 – 14% (I’m talking margins not dividends – although these feed through to dividends).
The point being that the fossil mafia want to keep this going and thus “own” assorted politicos such Sunak. That said “own” is perhaps and inadequate word to describe a reality in which he (and others in gov’) are 100% part of the fossil system. My guess is that Sir Kid Starver and co’ are less “owned – at the moment. But give it time and they will be massaged into position.
As I have already argued, MPs need to be changed from “representatives” into delegates – and told what they will do and what they will vote on, by their electorates. Info Tech has reached the point where it would be trivial to have regular votes on all sorts of subjects – direct democracy. This would cut the ground from under all the parties and reduce the power of the lobbyists. UK needs to try new forms of democracy, the connection between citizens and delegates needs to be strengthened.
Those Henry Hub prices are not what you claim Mike – they don’t measure in dollars per MWh, but in MMBtu.
The other correction needed is to UK domestic gas, currently capped at £80 per MWh (0.08 per kWh equivalent) as far as I know.
Thanks for the correction.
1Million Btus = 0.3MWh. So taking todays Henry Hub price of $2/MBtu gives a price of around Euro6/MWh (expressed in Euros and MWh). The point I am making is that the oil&gas mafia are making money hand over fist – in the UK and Europe. They are taking Euro & UK serfs (you, me everybody) for a ride.
Extraction cost (North Sea) £2/MWh, retail capped at £80/MWh – that looks like a 4000% mark-up to me (I missed out a zero on the 200%) – nice money if you can get it. Ditto for the carry trade USA to Europe. Again, the point is both the oil&gas mafia and the finance companies (Goldmans etc) are very happy for this to continue, ditto the arabs – delighted to sell us lots & lots of high price gas – keeps them in Mercs (compressor-class natch).
Earlier this year one of my contacts in the gas business asked a very senior Commission guy why the Commission didn’t hire some LNG tankers and bring low cost Henry hub gas to the EU. Response: “anti-market”. Most government institutions have NO interest in our best interests, they are owned, body & soul by lobyyists/corporations. Fact.
It’s so sad. I feel like we are pandering to the older largely Conservative voting generation, who lack the knowledge to understand the seriousness of the situation we are currently in. But Sunak is young enough, that with regards to climate change he really should know better. But he arrogantly assumes money and technology can make everything okay.
And still I see Labour supporters berating those who voted Green at Uxbridge. Nothing I hear from the Labour party convinces me that they take climate change and the green agenda seriously.
It isn’t an age thing though. It’s a class thing and it’s a right-wing thing. Many many older people – myself included, I’m 57 – have been taking mitigating actions such as much less flying, trains instead of cars etc for a long time because we understand the issue. I remember these issues coming up in the 70’s and 80’s with CFC’s and the damage to the ozone layer.
Many people are just selfish and it’s easier to believe what the right-wing rags say and then get in their car and drive half a mile to the supermarket in their SUV’s. And a lot of these people are middle/upper class and see it as their right to own large vehicles and also see it as going against their freedoms to be told to change their behaviour to protect the environment. That’s why many hate JSO, because they hate being told what to do.
I’m in rural mid Devon and it’s definitely an age thing. But I’m thinking 70s+ not late 50s, who left school at 15 with less opportunities than we had.
I’m slightly older than you and have worked in environmental science and been green for many years. Until I moved here I’d not encountered the type of elderly person who gets their view of the world from the right wing MSM and will swallow what is being said and see it as truth. These are mostly Brexit voting and down here always voted Tory even though they are generally not well off. I feel like much of this dog whistle politics is aimed at this group to true and luer them back to voting Tory.
Thanks for once more raising the most important issue of the day.
First I believe it is vital that everyone understands the fundamental issue. We share a single atmosphere and there is a direct relationship between CO2 concentration and temperature. It is my opinion that all fossil fuel that is extracted will be burned so we have to stop looking for it! The sensible way to tackle energy insecurity is to increase renewables and improve efficiency.
Second your final paragraph reminded me that yesterday I was musing on whether there is such a word as idiocracy because we are certainly living in one.
It will be interesting to see the polling data after this. It may be that the tories are just operating in a silly bubble that has no real impact on opinion. How many of the people that read the sun telegraph etc would vote anything other than Tory? There is a lot of childish stuff that goes on such as Shapps calling Labour the political wing of just stop oil.
I just wish we could get some proper debate where the super rich explain their vision for a future in a world where large highly populated areas are no longer habitable.
BTW I recently did Elon musk a disservice. I understand that he is investing in Captura which superficially looks like a promising way of extracting CO2 from the atmosphere via the ocean.
Entirely agree Richard and I share your anger at the sheer greed and cynicism of Sunak and his cabinet.
This should be an open goal for the Opposition, be they Labour, LibDems, Greens or SNP. Gloves off time, calling the Tories out for what they are – a threat to our futures. It is hugely frustrating that they are all apparently hiding behind their collective sofas.
“stpendous harm” not “stupendous home” and in the following para, “ignoring the long term harm” not “ignoring the going term harm”.
Agree with the message otherwise, wholeheartedly.
Thanks
Updated
Too much haste this morning
“to the point where life on Earth may not be possible”
I see that the new head of the IPCC has said that doom-mongers do more harm than good, that warming of 1.5c above pre-industrial levels was “not an existential threat to humanity” and that “If you constantly communicate the message that we are all doomed to extinction, then that paralyses people and prevents them from taking the necessary steps to get a grip on climate change,”
As one of the doom-mongers (despite having no expertise at all in climate science) what is it you claim to know that the head of the IPCC does not? For example, which scientific report, anywhere, suggests that we are even remotely likely to get to the point where ‘life on earth may not be possible’? Or do you simply not care that you may be doing more harm than good, so long as you get a few clicks?
Take this morning’s award for stupidity, Simon.
No one is saying that 1.5 degrees is an existential threat to human life. That is obvious.
The threat is from 1.5 degrees. The threat is fromn the fact that the temperature is rising – and reaching 1.5 degrees is just a staging ooint on the progression to 3 degrees or more as curtent trends suggest likely – and that is an existential threat.
The doom is not in what is happening now – although it is now apparent that for some thgis is already pretty intolerable. The threat is in what is to come which is likely to be an exctinction event.
Are you stupid enough not to realsie that? Your disingenuous argument actually suggests that you are not. Bit in that case what are you instead?
Well, if I have taken that award, it breaks a long run which you yourself have enjoyed.
So I’ll ask again – what scientific report (and where in that report) is it suggested that under any realistic or even plausible scenario is there “an existential threat” or that “The threat is in what is to come which is likely to be an exctinction event.”
https://www.ipcc.ch/2022/02/28/pr-wgii-ar6/
You are now banned from crass stupidity
IMO 1.5 degrees has gone already. Many climate models from 10-20 years ago have already shown to have underestimated trends.
The key thinking to 2 degrees of warming is that this is the point where the feedback loops really take on a life of their own and, for all intents and purposes, there is virtually nothing we can do except hope.
Talk of 3 or 4 degrees certainly doesn’t mean the end of humankind, but it will mean an end to our civilisation.
So, the end of life as we know it with the likelihood of massive loss of life. I call that an existential threat.
A useful reference thanks Richard.
I suspect (simple) Simon does not understand exponential either, let alone non-linear/complex when there are step changes such as methane releases in Siberia as the permafrost melts or failure of the Gulfstream. Mind you the same could be said for most economists.
Agreed
https://youtu.be/YBjyxA-wYS4
Timely video from Juice Media for you blog. I know it’s about Australia, but like with most of their videos, you can read UK, or most places really for that matter, instead of Australia .
Very good
in the First World War there was a recruiting poster showing a little girl sitting on her father’s lap, looking at a book and asking,’Daddy, what did you do in the Great War?’
I imagine Sunak’s daughter asking the same question of the Great War against Climate Change.
His answer. ‘I protected the oil companies profits for as loge as i could. I thought our wealth would protect us from the worst effects.’
I sent this to my local papers & The Grauniad yesterday
Sir,
Following the recent by elections where the ‘Low Emissions Zone’ seems to have played a part in the Uxbridge result, the Prime Minister no less has decided to do what he can to stop Councils introducing more 20moph speed limits and ‘Low Traffic Zones’
Micro Management from Westminster it seems.
But lets look at the recent news, from the last three months.
Two children dead after a Driver crashes a Land Rover into a school in Wimbledon. Driver jailed for losing control and killing a woman waiting to cross the road in London. Driver who killed a woman on the hard shoulder of the M66 near Manchester while filming himself doing 123 mph and maimed two children jailed. Drunk and Disqualified driver in stolen car killed woman, injured child and a third victim still in Hospital in Dorset jailed.
Oh and I have just been told that the Frome Bypass has been given a particular name by those morons who like to race on it
Given that you are about twice as likley to be killed in a Road Traffic Collision as murdered why is it exactly that we tolerate no less than The Prime Minister preventing action being taken that might help save lives from the actions of Drivers?
Why dont we start asking some serious questions about the sorts of vehicles we allow on our roads in terms of size, weight and speed? Why are we not being allowed to curb the worst excesses of those who think that roads are their own private playground? Why are we not asking serious questions about the standards of behaviour that we expect from drivers and taking away the licences of those who decide not to meet them?
It seems that the Conservative approach is instead to get more people killed not less.
Yours Faithfully
While it relates more to Road Safety than climate change they are both part of the pushback against controls on unrestricted driving.
What degree of idiocy is required in order to;
A) Turn road safety into another issue for culture war, and
B) To be thick enough to fall for it?
I almost give up!
Can you give the name of the Frome bypass that the morons who like to race on it have given it?
Let’s not forget, the “Cruiser” car modding community like to “de-cat”, “EGRV bypass” and seriously increase size of turbos, injectors and exhausts. All factors that seriously alter their vehicle’s emissions, which only adds to climate problems. Easy to Police but largely tolerated.
How long will it before before people start coming to the conclusion that, with their climate-related sins of omission and commission, our leaders are not only *literally* committing slow-mo suicide, but are *literally* committing slow-mo murder of the rest of us. Then what? Will pitchforks come into it?
Richard – not sure if pointing out the intimate relationship between Sunak’s family interests in Infosys and BP might lower the tone of your blog comments. However, I find it shocking that Infosys has benefitted by around £100 million a year from its business with BP for twenty years.
I leave it to you to decide what to do with my comment, if anything.
This below from
https://www.enterprisetimes.co.uk/2023/05/19/infosys-extends-bp-partnership-to-third-decade/
Infosys and bp have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) that places Infosys as bp’s primary partner for end-to-end application services. These services will include development, modernization, management and maintenance. This MoU extends the two-decade-long relationship the companies have.
Infosys has a long history of working with bp and other energy companies. It has a wealth and depth of knowledge in the transition to green energy. Energy companies worldwide must transform their industries to ensure they can continue in business. For bp and others, it means seeking experts that have helped develop solutions elsewhere and understand the industry.
Infosys understands the industry and bp specifically. It has built trust around delivering application services over the years. As far back as 2009, it was chosen to deliver application development and application maintenance services to bp as the lead vendor.
I think it appropriate to note this
The Guardian has deleted my comment along the same lines three times.
I came across this the other day.
Guardian climate score: how did your MP do? (up to 2019)
Sunak scored zero. (the lower the score, the worse the record on voting for green issues)
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2019/oct/11/guardian-climate-score-how-did-your-mp-do
What is Rishi Sunak’s record on climate change as he pulls out of COP27?
A clue, he mostly votes against green measures.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/pm-rishi-sunak-record-climate-change-environment-pulls-out-cop27-summit-b1036009.html
Follow the money.
https://bylinetimes.com/2022/07/19/rishi-sunaks-family-profiting-from-ties-to-oil-giant-shell/
https://bylinetimes.com/2023/04/19/rishi-sunak-is-still-trying-to-hide-his-financial-interests/
Sunak in the last few days
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has ordered a review of low traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) in England, saying that he is on the side of drivers.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66351785
Sunak’s new oil and gas licences are ‘moral and economic madness’
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/31/new-oil-gas-licences-rishi-sunak-un-climate-crisis
Hard to see how he and his wife will not benefit financially from this (unless he can show us how is wife will not benefit).
He is a climate denier. His record shows this. Hopefully it is a massive own goal for the Tory party and will put a few more nails in their political coffin. Unfortunately, Rishi “max out” Sunak wants to put future generations in an early coffin as well. Old Mad Max Sunak – go on Labour, I’ll give you that slogan for free to use in the election campaign.
Thanks
Whilst I agree with the sentiment and I wholeheartedly agree with the OP…..I think it’s too late.
We had a chance during COVID to change things. Everyone was cycling, working from home and all the rest and the drop in global emissions was significant. It also demonstrated that much of what we do to earn money is just paper shuffling and creating work for the sake of it.
….but the reality post COVID is that nothing has changed. We’re back to normal with a bang. Even the Greek tourist minister speaking from a burning Rhodes a week or so ago said that Greece was suffering from the effects of climate change like every other country….but please keep flying here for your holidays! Oh the irony.
So it’s a fact that there is too much Co2 in the atmosphere as it is. Even zero Co2 output from now on won’t stop the inevitable chain of events that has been described and I don’t think anything the little old UK does will make the slightest difference. Whilst we in dear old Blighty fret over putting a used teabag in the right bin, the Chinese are building a coal fired power station. Whilst we worry about paying our electricity bill, billionaires are firing themselves into space on their private rockets.
In time, the planet will recover. Probably with many fewer humans than we have currently. Will we learn from it though…..?
Maybe. For a while at least.
I thinl you are too optimistic
The Tories and big business have certainly got their heads in the clouds if thy think that massively expensive techno-fixes like carbon capture and storage will go anywhere near offsetting the huge CO3 emissions that will result of burning the new oil and gas off the shores of Scotland.
Although I agree totally with the sentiments you express Bill, with the amount of contortion our political and business “betters” practice these days, I don’t think it’s up in the clouds where they put their heads……..
Food for thought, or thought for food?
Climate catastrophe is about far more than “weather”, which is the object of deniers, or about cost, which is Sunak’s excuse.
Ongoing research confirms the findings first reported in 2015-2016 about the nutritional quality of food grown in elevated CO2 atmospheres.
QUOTE of summary from 2016:
• As CO2 levels rise, so do carbohydrates in plants, increasing food’s sugar content. While carbon-enriched plants grow bigger, scientists are finding that they contain proportionately less protein and nutrients such as zinc, magnesium and calcium.
• A meta-analysis of 7,761 observations of 130 plant species found that overall mineral concentrations in plants declined by about 8 percent in response to elevated CO2 levels — 25 minerals decreased, including iron, zinc, potassium and magnesium.
• New research found that as atmospheric CO2 rose from preindustrial to near current levels, the protein content in goldenrod pollen fell by 30 percent. Bees and other pollinators rely heavily on goldenrod as protein-rich food for overwintering. The loss of pollinators could devastate many of the world’s food crops.
• Research into the correlation between CO2 concentrations and the nutrient content of food is in its early stages. More study is urgently needed to determine how crops and ecosystems will be altered as fossil fuels are burned, plus mitigation strategies.
END QUOTE
https://news.mongabay.com/2016/06/rising-co2-is-reducing-nutritional-value-of-food-impacting-ecosystems/
Latest report on UK harvest in the last couple of days read in the Guardian – “enhanced harvest with less fertiliser”. There is no reference to the nutritional value of this year’s crops, of course.
And tomorrow, 2 August 2023, is Earth Overshoot Day.
https://www.overshootday.org/newsroom/press-release-june-2023-english/
All there is
Lives on
All there is
Lots of great posts here and real anger about this topic.
I will be a bit more prosaic as to why Sunak is doing this and it is just to ensure that even as his party seem to be mounting the edge of being out of power, he wants the carbon funding to keep coming in – after all he’s got to compete with fellow carbon lover Kid Starver/Stymied for those funds – he’s just signalling to carbon that he’s on their side come what may..
Perhaps Sunak and his fabulously wealthy family and friends are hoping to create a future as imagined in HG Wells’ Time Machine. A work of future history and speculative evolution. Two separate human species emerge. Fair, childlike Eloi who live in plenitude and the savage, .simian Morlocks. Decedents of our upper and lower classes . Could the rich engineer such a future. Just a thought!
It seems pretty obvious that the Tories have decided that they have no chance of winning the upcoming election. From that assumption, they have decided that they need to lay the groundwork for the next election after that. “Chopper” Sunak is therefore creating ongoing windfall wealth for the Energy and Financial giants that the Tory party will rely on to fund the recovery of their votes after the wipeout they face next year. The fact that his family will benefit from the relationship with BP is just icing on the cake.
Time for Labour to wake up and recognise that promising not to overturn all of Risky Rish!’s increasingly desperate gambles is simply going to lead to Labour being overwhelmingly outgunned in the next election – as per usual, on steroids.
I’m an old person who does not have children and I’m beyond livid at the utter stupidity and recklessness of Tory policies and the enfeebled so called Opposition.
There is one government argument that seems to make sense – we are going to have to use fossil fuels for some time to come. Importing them is less ecofriendly than using our own so it makes sense to develop Noerth Sea fields. Any answer to that?
Yes
First, it makes no sense, so nor do you.
Why? Because the oil or gas will be sold on international markets at international prices so we get prcisely no benefit at all doemstically. Zilch, zipp, nothing. Can I be clearer?
And nor do we raise any real revenues because of the massive subsidies we give and we will pick up the clean up costs.
Inless you want to burn the planet – and I presume you do – this policy makes not one iota of sense.
Pie on point again…
https://youtu.be/8Y_0rjKfyzw
Already lined up for the morning.
I am outraged by the deliberate disinformation perpetrated by both the Tories and Labour, bedded-in by the media regarding ULEV policy and the Uxbridge bi-election result. They are all hoping that the public will not discover the well kept secret of the Green Party success: the Greens came third in all three bi-elections including Uxbridge. Increasing their vote share in Uxbridge certainly wasn’t due to the Green Party position on ULEV expansion. The Labour loss was almost certainly due to Labour votors disgust with ‘Sir Kid Starver’s’ determination not to scrap the punitive two child policy!
Deeply embarrassed by his against the odds failure to take Uxbridge, Starmer blamed the result on ULEV. If that was true, why did the Greens increase their vote share despite their support for ULEV? No one is calling this discrepancy into question and Sunak is now capitalizing on Keir Starmer’s capitulation over ULEV. In truth Starmer has never been very supportive of Sadiq Khan so the London Mayor became an obvious choice for a scapegoat. Please give this reality some publicity, if only to put pressure on Starmer to mend his evil ways. I think that both the Tory and Labour leaders are a total lost cause. Please do not give up on the Green Party due to their misguided judgement on PM as it is very possible to change under well informed influence.
I read your post “The Green Party’s policy on money, and so on the economy, is a work of economic fantasy” with horor as I am a Green Party member. I wanted to Post a comment, but by the time I was ready to post the option was closed. Like you I had not paid much attention to the Green Party economic policy’s alarming similarity to ‘Positive Money’; this requires a serious overhaul. Among the comments I noticed there were other Green Party members who were equally alarmed by your astute evaluation of Green Party economic policy.
The good news is that this reeducation is entirely possible within the Green Party due to the way policy is directed by the members and not, like in other parties, by ductat from the top down. Even nonmembers can attend Green Party Conference under the ‘supporter’ category. I doubt that it would entitle you to vote, but I would like to see you invited as a speaker to raise the issue of our economic policy with the hope that properly informed party members would feel strongly motivated to rewrite this section of party policy. Although it might not make it into the emergency voting schedule for this conference it could be raised for a vote at Spring Conference.
Tony wrote “That Greens have little interest in ‘Money’ is a major opportunity though, don’t turn your back on a group of wonderful people who need educating.” Then Jim commented “the PM-supporters managed to get their perspective built into Green Party policy. It’s just been waiting ever since for GP members with a better understanding to come along and feed in the MMT perspective.” Leading the Green Party off-track is not so difficult given the fact that all party members have a voice and many have a stronger focus on other areas. However, this also means that it is just as easy to get your position heard if you become positively engaged with the Greens.
Matt Barker wrote: “thanks for making me aware of that policy on the manifesto. I would be very happy to put forward a motion for the autumn conference to change it, to advocate as you do in terms of MMT.” I will be attending the Autumn Conference myself and I will gladly support a motion to ditch PM; look out for me zipping about in my snappy red wheelchair! However it would persuade more voting Greens if they understood the principles of MMT, perhaps best explained if Richard Murphy was given an opportunity to present the case. This requires us all to persuade the conference organizers to invite him as a speaker.
In reality it would be a fairly low cost, high impact, investment for Richard to become a Green Party member, attend the Autumn Green Party Conference and raise a radical alteration of Green Party economic policy in favour of taking the principles of MMT seriously and abandoning PM. As a new member with a genuine, in depth, knowledge of how economic policy actually functions, a person with your economic credibility has a good chance of persuading ordinary Green Party members to vote for change.
Ann Pettifor was an invited speaker at the Festival of Wellbeing, an online event held by the Resurgence Trust (which owns and publishes The Ecologist). The event was held on Saturday, 30 October 2021 – the day before the COP26 conference opened in Glasgow. Other speakers included Caroline Lucas MP and one can imagine they are on exactly the same page regarding the Green New Deal. I would expect Caroline Lucas to be in favor of trying to get Pettifor to attend Green Party Conference to help solidify the vital connection between the Green New Deal and MMT at a time when both the Tories and Labour have just hijacked the ‘Green New Deal’ as an empty title for sloganizing.
Referring to the Greens, Jenw wrote: “Another way to get them to listen could be through Bright Green, their blog run by Chris Jarvis who is a green party councillor in Oxford, and used to be one of the board of weownit.” Since I live in Oxford, after reading your post on PM I tried to contact Chris Jarvis, no reply as yet, but I will keep trying. I agree with Bernard Little that the person you most need to persuasively communicate with is Green Party Economist Molly Scott-Cato, but it is distressing to hear that she “is a Positive Money advocate.” However, even if she cannot be persuaded, she does not dictate policy, as no one in the Green Party can single-handedly decide policy: everything is democratically voted for at Conference.
Michael O’Byrne highlightedDavid Attenborough and a T-Shirt saying: “Anyone who thinks you can have infinite growth on a finite planet is either a madman, or an economist”. The Greens are the only political Party not incessantly banging on about ‘growth’. I have come to think of this obsession with ‘growth’ as being at least as toxic as my kidney cancer; luckily the latter is under control for now. Greens are receptive to any alternative progressive agenda that makes logical sense without harming the environment or punishing the poorest in society. Although Greens are marginalized in the press as only caring about the environment, in reality they are equally concerned over inequality and would be open to hearing your suggestions on tax reform.
Please consider signing up to attend our Autumn Green Party Conference, with or without membership, since you can attend just as an observer if you wish to. You will observe that it is a very open democratic process of decision making, but it can get led in the wrong direction as it did with PM. We really need you to get us back on track. Autumn Conference runs from the 6th to the 8th of October in Brighton so as a big fan of your enlightened thinking I hope I will get a chance to meet you there, (look out for me tooling around in that red wheelchair). Please send me an email and I will try to obtain email addresses for the people you need to contact, keep up the good work, Kim.
For the record, Ann Pettifor is vehemently opposed to MMT. I have never been able to work out why. She never seems to have worked out what it is.
I am talking to Molly Scott Cato.
Thanks Richard, I stand corrected re Ann Pettifor; I got the false impression she was an MMT supporter based on a comment that referred to the Festival of Wellbeing. Still perhaps it might create an informative discussion within a panel at Green Party Conference if it provided an opportunity to debunk the arguments against MMT.
I have raised the issue of inviting you to Green Party Conference on a ‘Green Spaces’ page on MMT; yes, Greens really are talking about MMT. I wrote: “Can we please consider inviting Richard Murphy to speak at our Autumn Conference? We could invite a panel of several speakers to address the Party Conference so that those who advocate for our current policy get the opportunity to defend this to our members or consider a major economic policy rethink.”
I will also be contacting Green Party members on two Policy Working Groups ‘Economics’ and ‘Tax and Fiscal.’ These Groups are open to all members of the Green Party to discuss and develop policy on various topics. I will let you know their feedback.
Thanks