This is from the Guardian this morning:
World leaders must “stop dawdling and start doing” on carbon emission cuts, as rapidly rising temperatures this year have put everyone on the frontline of disaster, the UN's top climate official has warned.
You would never have known that from this week's Autumn Statement.
You would never know that from the Labour Party's reaction, and its apparent abandonment of its green spending plans.
Both the Tories and Labour think keeping markets happy much more important than the impending climate disaster that those markets are still funding.
When will we get the change that we need?
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:
Given governments record on immigration and debt is setting out to reduce it and it going up, so it’s for the best that they don’t set out to reduce CO2 emissions. If they stuck a consistent CO2 tax on, then markets would gradually do it. But never mind that, what would making markets sad look like.
Since when did government start serving the markets and their party donors instead of looking after the country and ALL its people as they were elected to do ?
Probably since Thatcher…
Well it has to stop !
We need a referendum on the voting system for PR as the current system does not give people any meaningful choice
You ask “When will we get the change that we need?”
Only when the electorate dumps BOTH the dinosaur main Parties, opting instead for candidates and groupings offering hope, vision, and a real concern for the 99%, as against the 1%.
PS: I no longer consider either main player as a political Party, but rather as a street gang held together by irrational impulses and hatred of everyone not in their gang.
That being so, the REAL surprise is how much the two gangs identify with each other, recognising they both hate and despise the 99%
Also, were these 2 gangs each an individual, there’s little doubt they’d each be sectioned as suffering from an hysterical psychological collapse, rendering them a danger to themselves and anyone they might encounter.
In a less enlightened age, they’d each be candidates for straitjackets in a padded cell, but nowadays they’d probably receive some sort of counselling.
Whatever treatment they might receive, it would be enough for my liking if it meant they were taken off the street, under secure supervision!!
If our politicians are more accountable to ‘the markets’ than the electorate, then there is something wrong with the basis of our democracy.
If our politicians are beholden to an outside agency, that agency needs to be brought inside. It is The Market needs to have representatives to explain what they’re doing and put their ideas, proposals and action plan forward to be voted on.
Otherwise, we the electorate, are voting for the cart, not the horse.
Agreed
This is democracy failing into oligarchy, as predicted by Aristotle, I believe.
I’m not confident we will get the changes needed to halt or even slow down carbon emissions until irreversible changes are on-going (if we haven’t already reached that stage).
Our politicians can’t even get the day to day business of running the country right, what chance of dealing with the big stuff ? Are other countries doing significantly better and even if they are the Brexit/little Britain mindset is opposed to co-operating.
I think we are doomed to fight the best rearguard action we can as the situation gets progressively, but only gradually, worse. More flooding, more wildfire, more drought, and all the social upheaval that goes along with it – mass migrations et al. These things will become the new norm. I think perhaps we are already well on the way to accepting them.
It’s a dismal prospect, but what will it take to get global agreements up and running ? The archaeologists of the future will find lots of potsherds bearing the legend “Keep Calm and Carry On”
We’re liable to more flooding, fires, droughts and bizarre weather in general anyway – mustn’t forget increased volcanic activity too – as we’re in a solar minimum (possibly a Grand one) where such things are to be expected. The principle concern is the effect this will have on food supplies as if the regular seasons can no longer be relied upon (and a glance out of the window will confirm this to currently be the case) then we can’t grow food. A spot of dieting won’t do me personally any harm but we can expect civil unrest on a huge scale if supplies do run low and, of course, the Tories are planning on bringing just that lamentable scenario about by implementing the long-overdue Brexit import controls in January. A Perfect Storm, then born partly of accident, partly from design, is soon to hit our food supplies. Bon appetit!
“The archaeologists of the future will find lots of potsherds bearing the legend “Keep Calm and Carry On” ”
You are demonstrating a belief that seems to be very common and is, to me, incomprehensible.
You don’t think humans will modify their behaviour enough to prevent cataclysmic climate change effects. Those effects are unlikely to allow the human race to survive. Yet you have a mindset that imagines arachaeologists of the future. You are very much not alone in this inability to accept the logic of your own argument. There will not BE any archaeologists of the future.
Perhaps it is the human ability to hold those 2 irreconcilable beliefs at the same time that is causing humanity’s failure to take remedial action – while logically believing that annihilation will be the outcome, viscerally believing that something will turn up.
Great comment. And they so flatter themselves that they’re Very Serious Persons (VSPs).
Very Serious Morons (VSMs) more like – Worthy not of respect, but of complete derision. PR can’t come fast enough to rid UK politics of such appallingly unfit creatures once and for all.
The BBC currently reports that sources within the Labour Party are now saying that they don’t believe there is any chance of Labour reaching it’s stated pledge of £28bn for Green initiatives.
The source says the party leaders thinks following the (completely arbitrary) fiscal rules they have imposed on themselves is their “North Star” and “They stressed that Labour’s fiscal rules were more important than any policy.”
It is all rather despairing.
I completely agree
Absolute despair! Presumably most leading politicians dropped science at 16 like Johnson.
When I was in the civil service decades ago – the mantra was to get more science-literate people in senior decision making positions – and they are still saying it.
But that would be no excuse for Labour doubling down on their stupidity in setting up their ‘fiscal rules’ as their ‘North Star’ to abandon their already inadequate investment plan for green growth.
Ostriches
It now also bizarre that the Tories suggest they may have £50bn headroom for tax cuts for the rich, whereas Labour says ‘no money left’ for green investment – reversing the usual stance between the parties.
Richard please keep banging on that fiscal rules dont exist – but it would also be good to ally with people like Stiglitz, Will Hutton, Mazzucato and many others – even though they may differ in some respects.
There are a decent number of economics voices who agree on the fundamental argument for a much stronger state and that leaving it to the market has failed. (To greatly condense the debates). From our esteemed Mr Murphy, Ann Pettifor, Mariana Mazzucato to Simon Wren Lewis, Will Hutton, Paul Mason, Jonathan Portes and many others. Resolution Foundation, NEF, IPPR et al. What if they were to put aside their differences, concentrate on what they agree on and keep pushing that message through the media, talks and publications?
The Tufton Street mob and their various branches are very good at getting their act together and their messages out. We need the same kind of network and alliances delivering the story, to counter them. That old Left tradition of looking more for traitors rather than allies is disastrous.
It would be good
Could the left do that?
“They stressed that Labour’s fiscal rules were more important than any policy.”
Another Labour source told the Telegraph: “The fiscal rule matters more, and that will dictate how much is in the green prosperity fund.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67528894
Shocking if that’s what they really believe. Fiscal rules are more important than climate change? So, when the worst happens at least Labour will be able to say they balanced the books. Well done!
Labour now appears to be depraved.
This document is now waste paper, it seems.
I am angry about this. It is a betrayal of our children and grandchildren.
https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/12851_19-Finance-and-Climate-Change-Report.pdf
Agreed
And Rachel Reeves has confirmed that the £28 billion for Labour’s green programme will be shelved.
And the Guardian also reports that ISAs have been changed, and comments that:
“While £20,000 a year is more than enough for most people, upping the allowance would mean better-off people and those who have received a windfall could shelter more of their cash.”
Sheltering cash is what rich people do. It sounds so innocuous. But where is the imagination to use this cash for useful and necessary social purposes, instead of bunging rich people another tax break?
So angry. 🙁
Justifiably
Perhaps I am being unreal /naive here, but if ‘The Markets’ are ruling us, why have they not noticed that if we all fail to sort out the climate and biodiversity disaster then collapse of ……….. ‘The Market’ is not far around the corner ?
i blame neoliberalism
Susan George wrote The Lugano Report in the 1990s. It’s a deeply cynical take on what global wealth will do to keep its wealth and power, out of sight, and includes writing off whole nations/continents as irrelevant/a waste of money. Markets are only 1 tool and already highly rigged. Markets eg slave markets, black drug markets, are useful for those outside the formal system. Finance doesn’t need markets to grow. The dire climate data shows us Jevons paradox rules the energy economy. So much is beyond our ken, our capacity to influence but the advocates of degrowth/reduced energy consumption/rationing, energy justice, may have more traction than a govt green energy investment program.
I agree with so many of your proposals on tax and want to see them applied, and I think MMT is right, but I keep wondering: if they were implemented what would be the reaction of ‘the markets’ and what would be the impact on the value of the £? And what would be a feasible way of handling the reaction, politically?
There would be a reaction. But if it was shown why the suggestions would work I think it would be small. This is why theory is an important part of this.
David Byrne says
Aspects of the Tory legacy that don’t receive much press attention are:
-Brexit
-the fall in the value of the dollar v sterling, (1.6 to 1.2 approx. in 13 years). Hardly a sign of confidence in the UK “economy”.
Both issues have and still contribute significantly to the cost of living crisis.
Agreed