I have done several posts on Extinction Rebellion (XR) this morning, and rightly so: what they are doing is incredibly important and I support much of it.
But what I have sensed on the blog over the last few days has been a tension between those who think there is no room to compromise on the demand for net-zero carbon by 2025 that XR promote, suggesting that even 2030 is too late and the proposals of the Green New Deal Group. And in the process criticism has been levelled at the Green New Deal plan for ensuring 30 million buildings in the UK are made as efficient as possible, as if this goal is insufficient when it is, in fact, necessary. In the process a second concern has been raised, which is that the Green New Deal might engage the private sector in the delivery of its plans. I will be candid: I really do not see any alternative.
I admire the radicalism of Extinction Rebellion. But, as Roger Hallam explains in the book to which I have linked this morning, whilst its objective is radical social change, and that is almost certainly necessary and something that I discussed in my book The Courageous State, the process of creating the necessary change to achieve that radical outcome is necessarily short-lived: the Extinction Rebellion can only last a few months, at most, if it is to work.
Extinction Rebellion then suggests that citizens assemblies must decide the future direction of the country. I admit this is where I differ: I believe that it is wholly unfair to place the burden of deciding the future upon people who have not sought the task, and may not be able, emotionally or otherwise, to handle the responsibility given to them on a sortation basis. That we need radical change I do not dispute. But if there is too be a citizen's assembly the most that I think might be asked of it is to choose an alternative electoral method. Thereafter I do not think we can avoid the need for a Parliament, and I would not wish to do so.
And for those who might pin their hopes on a People's Assembly to deliver radical change in the economic and social structure of the UK so that privately owned business ceases to be a part of the social infrastructure of the country I think I have some bad news: that is really not going to happen in this country where so many are engaged in that sector, and happily so. I want, seek and have worked for radical change in the way business should be regulated, and think that is wholly desirable. But to seek private businesses abolition? I can see no way that is going to happen. And that will include large business as well as small, some sectors (maybe) apart.
Why say all this? Because I am a carbon radical: I think 2030 is a necessary goal. It's also the earliest, in my opinion, that is pragmatically possible. And that is the key issue. Pragmatically those in Extinction Rebellion are leading the way. And they will, I sincerely hope, achieve radical change because nothing less than that is essential. But when the Extinction Rebellion is over the question will be 'what do we now?'And the answer to that is 'the Green New Deal', just as the answer to occupy was 'deliver tax justice'.
So, we will come back to what is pragmatically possible, like it or not.
And at that point pragmatism will say that making 30 million buildings energy efficient will be very high on the list of priorities. Because people are not going to stop living in them. And people are not going to stop working. And so the emissions from this source must be tackled.
And we will need people, many of them organised in businesses, to do this work, up and down the country.
So there is no conflict between Extinction Rebellion and the Green New Deal. It's all about timing. That's all.
Right now XR is taking the headlines and creating the environment for change. But we will need a Green New Deal when that environment is created. Of that I am sure.
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:
The private energy companies are not going to make the radical reductions necessary to avert climate catastrophe. What is needed is a public body like the old Central Electricity Generating Board who you father worked for before it was abolished by Ma rgaret Thatcher. Only then will the massive transition to renewable energy supply be put in place. As for the private oil, coal and gas companies no way are they going to voluntary give up the huge profit making business they are in. On the question of peoples’ assemblies as I see it they are for guidance of Parliament not necessarily the sovereign decision making bodies. Retrofitting 32 million homes for energy eff iciency is vital as well as major changes in transport, food security, re-aforestation and the multitude of transition measures at a local level.
I entirely agree that we need central energy planning again
And not one fuel source at a time
I’ve just read Roger Hallam’s booklet, I was pleasantly surprised by it’s scope and found myself agreeing with it entirely,
I’ve also read this post by Richard and fully agree with all the reservations he voices,
Rogers premise is that ‘they’ have done literally nothing and we’re running out of time and we’ll just have to do it ourselves, ie. Rebel
Richards premise is that there is so much that government and business could be doing if they just got off their blinking arses and started, ie. Reform
both are right, in the face of all evidence it’s apparent hardly anything is being done and either ‘we’ or ‘they’ will have to do it,
what cannot be denied is that ‘someone has to do something’, inaction is not an option.
Roger & Richard should really be working in tandem and squeezing govt. & business from both sides,
the message to govt. & business is that if you want to head off what Roger is doing and defuse it you must start doing the stuff Richard keeps suggesting,
I propose supporting Roger & Richard to the hilt and piling pressure on govt. & business and squeeze them till the pips squeak,
the only way that govt. & business can relieve the pressure is by actually getting off their arses and visibly acting in a positive and irreversable manner,
so.. it’s up to us, we are going to play good cop/bad cop and the govt. & business is the perp in the spotlight,
do the right thing, co-operate and lets get this all cleared up and we can be lenient or be obstinate and defy us and you’re going to get the book thrown at you and go down for a very, very long time,
any person is free to choose their role, good cop or bad cop, whichever more closely suits your personal perspective, but the central point is both are on the same side and seeking the same overall objective.
let the games commence!
Thanks!
I was encouraged by the booklet and wish I’d read it earlier
This interview (in Euractive) is most interesting in this context. I have no doubt that the S&D group will be joined by the Greens and possibly others. Looks like the European Parliament is leading the way. Interesting proposals & very much in the right direction. & you should like the tax aspects Ricahrd:
https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/interview/mep-larrouturou-entire-sd-group-wants-guarantees-on-financing-european-green-deal
Oh & in response to Mr Hughes – the main players in the Uk building power generation are……state owned – just not UK-state owned. Strange but true.
Strongly recommend that link
A fantastic reflection on where we really are on this issue I feel – thank you.
Thanks
[…] Cross-posted from Tax Research UK […]
If I’m right, what the Extinction Rebellion is calling for is some version of the participatory budgeting processes initiated by the PT in Brazil in Porto Alegre, Belo Horizonte and some 80 other cities – see this rather poignant blog indicating that the Porto Alegre experiment is being wound down, I assume because the political environment has changed – https://www.wri.org/blog/2018/06/what-if-citizens-set-city-budgets-experiment-captivated-world-participatory-budgeting
Not only is this kind of citizen participation in politics and government necessary, it’s vital if the ‘localization’ that must accompany any kind of radical social transformation in the UK is to happen. This is the kind of change that’s been discussed endlessly by the World Social Foirum in its’ various iterations since 2001 – the website is here – https://fsm2016.org/en/?cd_language=2
The core of the problem is how to combat the endlessly ‘vertical’, hierarchical tendencies of human organizing with ‘horizontal’ checks and balances which allow for more locally-relevant political activity and challenge the massive, centralizing processes that 21st century corporate capitalism is characterized by.
The reason movements like the Extinction Rebellion come into being is that moribund political processes in the UK are controlled by political parties, themselves little more than gatekeepers, which allow small elites to control access to ‘permissible’ democracy, at the same time as selling more and more of its’ attributes to powerful commercial concerns. The ‘revolving door’ we used to talk about where UK politicians move into the commercial sector and vice-versa, the whole process driven by seamless corruption, is now how the whole machine works.
And climate change is out there, the Species Terminator, and it isn’t interested in waiting for international conferences, and white papers, and proposals for action..” That climate change terminator is out there. It can’t be bargained with. It can’t be reasoned with. It doesn’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.”
I think participatory budgeting a decidedly positive step
No problem with that
Most especially locally
The logic of the citizens’ assembly is that no elected politician will bring forward the kind of radical measures we need to keep our planet habitable. Will a citizens’ assembly? I haven’t studied them but I understand that, when properly informed, they tend to come up with radical proposals, and as the choice here is between catastrophe and radicalism, they will surely choose the latter, while elected politicians tend to choose the former to avoid asking people to make sacrifices.
Parliament will still have a role to play in scrutinising and ratifying the decisions of the citizens’ assembly.
I was at the Heading for Extinction (and what to do about it) talk that XR held for MPs in parliament recently and I want to share what Clive Lewis told his constituents afterwards (and I’m heavily paraphrasing here): “I’ve got no issue with your three demands but I have to tell you, we MPs don’t have the power to bring them about. This needs to happen on the streets.” See you there?
That’s a killer phrase ‘ when properly informed’
Who decides who informs and what is proper?
Being properly informed could simply be a summary of the latest IPCC science, along with some information about what a world 4 degrees warmer might look like (something the IPCC hint at but hesitate to detail).
This highlights the importance of XR’s first demand – tell the truth. If government and media were honest that we’re currently heading for a catastrophic 4 degrees of warming and we have very little chance of staying under 1.5 degrees (which anyway might be enough heating to trigger tipping points), everyone would understand the need for emergency action. And that, we hope, is all that will be necessary to prime a citizens’ assembly – tell them the truth as determined by the world’s leading scientists.