Gabriel Levy asks What does “climate emergency” mean? Let’s define that Outside parliament.

Strikes by school pupils, and civil disobedience by Extinction Rebellion, pushed the UK’s House of Commons into declaring a “climate emergency” yesterday. The government is so weak and divided that – having said one week ago that it would not make such a declaration – it caved in and lined up behind a motion put by the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.

The Tories’ weakness really is part of this. The prime minister, Theresa May, lost the ability to tell her MPs how to vote on anything, during repeated breakdowns of their traditional discipline over Brexit. And the “climate emergency” vote took place on the day that she fired her defence secretary Gavin Williamson for breaching security. 

School pupils on strike in Australia. Photo from #climatestrike on twitter
And the movements outside parliament made the difference. The Labour MP Faisal Rashid pointed out during the debate: “We are not here because of an international effort co-ordinated by world leaders. […] We are here because a small group of schoolchildren decided to walk out of school to take a stand against climate change, and they have inspired a global movement.” It is “an indictment of our global political leadership”, he argued.

Another reason the “climate emergency” motion passed is that it committed neither the government nor parliament to do a single thing. It could be, and was, supported by many total hypocrites as a way of co-opting and defusing people’s anger.

Anyone who thinks that parliament actually meant what it said, when it voted for Corbyn’s motion, should bear in mind that:

■ Parliament believes it can declare a “climate emergency” while supporting a third runway at Heathrow Airport. That will help ensure a global expansion of aviation, which is completely incompatible with averting dangerous climate change. Yesterday, parliament took a written statement from Chris Grayling, transport secretary, welcoming the High Court’s rejection of five legal challenges to the third runway. Green MP Caroline Lucas asked environment secretary Michael Gove about Heathrow during the “climate emergency” debate, and he sidestepped the question. When parliament voted in June last year to support the third runway at Heathrow, 115 Labour MPs voted with the Tories in favour of it.

■ While the Labour leadership moved the “climate emergency” motion – and good for them – a Labour-led council Cumbria in March approved the UK’s first new deep coal mine in decades, and Labour councils in London continue to support the Silvertown Tunnel and other car-focused infrastructure while public transport is cut.

■ Tory MPs in parliament – and some Labour ones too – see no contradiction between a “climate emergency” and government policies that support fracking for gas; boost subsidies to fossil fuel production (especially, tax breaks for oil companies working on the North Sea); and trash measures to support solar power, onshore wind and zero-carbon homes.

■ Greg Clark, the business secretary, wound up the debate in parliament by claiming capitalist economic expansion was the best way to deal with climate change. “Enterprise [he meant, private enterprise by capitalists] has been the greatest rebellion against extinction in the history of the world”, he said. The big lie of our time.

It’s not only that these politicians are hypocritical and treacherous in their claims to be dealing with climate change.

It’s that the solutions they propose range from measures carefully crafted not to damage the capitalist economy (e.g. opening electricity markets to renewables, but only in a way that helps big corporations keep control); to those that try to inflict austerity on working people in the name of “climate emergency” (e.g. the French government’s diesel tax that triggered the “yellow vests” revolt); to actively destructive policies such as geo-engineering (which was mentioned by Michael Gove when he met an Extinction Rebellion delegation last week).

To the extent that the far right gains traction in government and parliamentary politics, the “emergency” could also be used to justify anti-migrant policies and austerity measures even harsher than were planned in France.

This parliamentary decision tells us that the public space for discussion of climate change is shifting. In my view this means that, outside parliament – in climate campaign organisations, in the labour movement, in social movements, in communities – we have to develop real discussion about the measures we think need to be taken in the light of this climate emergency.

We need to work out how the fight to avert dangerous climate change, and the struggle for social justice, can be combined. Nixing the third runway at Heathrow and the Silvertown Tunnel, ending fossil fuel subsidies, vanquishing fracking – these will be a good start. But only a start.

We need to envision a transition away from fossil fuel consumption (the main cause of global warming) that involves the transformation not just of some parts of the economy, as some people claim, but of the whole economy and of society. The corporations that develop the fossil-fuel-intensive industries, and the relationships of wealth and power with which these industries are tied up, will need to be confronted and defeated.

Parliament’s decision is a double-edged sword.

On one hand it’s a weapon in the hands of each and every campaign on climate change in the UK. It makes it all the more difficult for politicians and trade union leaders to defend their indefensible decisions to support fossil fuel companies and fossil-fuel-intensive infrastructure projects.

On the other, it’s a reflection of a huge political effort to co-opt, neutralise, patronise and smother the growing movement against politicians’ inaction on climate change. The cynicism and sophistication of these efforts should not be underestimated: they have been going on globally ever since the Rio agreement on climate change was adopted in 1991. And meanwhile, fossil fuel use has risen by about 60%.

We need to define, outside parliament, what this emergency means, and how it is going to be tackled.

Climate change must be a thing. It’s on prime time TV

Heathrow: “jobs vs climate action” is a false choice

The Red Green Study Group on social justice and ecological disaster

People & Nature site contents

Keep up with People And Nature.

What Does “Climate Emergency” Mean?

Gabriel Levy asks What does “climate emergency” mean? Let’s define that Outside parliament.

Strikes by school pupils, and civil disobedience by Extinction Rebellion, pushed the UK’s House of Commons into declaring a “climate emergency” yesterday. The government is so weak and divided that – having said one week ago that it would not make such a declaration – it caved in and lined up behind a motion put by the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.

The Tories’ weakness really is part of this. The prime minister, Theresa May, lost the ability to tell her MPs how to vote on anything, during repeated breakdowns of their traditional discipline over Brexit. And the “climate emergency” vote took place on the day that she fired her defence secretary Gavin Williamson for breaching security. 

School pupils on strike in Australia. Photo from #climatestrike on twitter
And the movements outside parliament made the difference. The Labour MP Faisal Rashid pointed out during the debate: “We are not here because of an international effort co-ordinated by world leaders. […] We are here because a small group of schoolchildren decided to walk out of school to take a stand against climate change, and they have inspired a global movement.” It is “an indictment of our global political leadership”, he argued.

Another reason the “climate emergency” motion passed is that it committed neither the government nor parliament to do a single thing. It could be, and was, supported by many total hypocrites as a way of co-opting and defusing people’s anger.

Anyone who thinks that parliament actually meant what it said, when it voted for Corbyn’s motion, should bear in mind that:

■ Parliament believes it can declare a “climate emergency” while supporting a third runway at Heathrow Airport. That will help ensure a global expansion of aviation, which is completely incompatible with averting dangerous climate change. Yesterday, parliament took a written statement from Chris Grayling, transport secretary, welcoming the High Court’s rejection of five legal challenges to the third runway. Green MP Caroline Lucas asked environment secretary Michael Gove about Heathrow during the “climate emergency” debate, and he sidestepped the question. When parliament voted in June last year to support the third runway at Heathrow, 115 Labour MPs voted with the Tories in favour of it.

■ While the Labour leadership moved the “climate emergency” motion – and good for them – a Labour-led council Cumbria in March approved the UK’s first new deep coal mine in decades, and Labour councils in London continue to support the Silvertown Tunnel and other car-focused infrastructure while public transport is cut.

■ Tory MPs in parliament – and some Labour ones too – see no contradiction between a “climate emergency” and government policies that support fracking for gas; boost subsidies to fossil fuel production (especially, tax breaks for oil companies working on the North Sea); and trash measures to support solar power, onshore wind and zero-carbon homes.

■ Greg Clark, the business secretary, wound up the debate in parliament by claiming capitalist economic expansion was the best way to deal with climate change. “Enterprise [he meant, private enterprise by capitalists] has been the greatest rebellion against extinction in the history of the world”, he said. The big lie of our time.

It’s not only that these politicians are hypocritical and treacherous in their claims to be dealing with climate change.

It’s that the solutions they propose range from measures carefully crafted not to damage the capitalist economy (e.g. opening electricity markets to renewables, but only in a way that helps big corporations keep control); to those that try to inflict austerity on working people in the name of “climate emergency” (e.g. the French government’s diesel tax that triggered the “yellow vests” revolt); to actively destructive policies such as geo-engineering (which was mentioned by Michael Gove when he met an Extinction Rebellion delegation last week).

To the extent that the far right gains traction in government and parliamentary politics, the “emergency” could also be used to justify anti-migrant policies and austerity measures even harsher than were planned in France.

This parliamentary decision tells us that the public space for discussion of climate change is shifting. In my view this means that, outside parliament – in climate campaign organisations, in the labour movement, in social movements, in communities – we have to develop real discussion about the measures we think need to be taken in the light of this climate emergency.

We need to work out how the fight to avert dangerous climate change, and the struggle for social justice, can be combined. Nixing the third runway at Heathrow and the Silvertown Tunnel, ending fossil fuel subsidies, vanquishing fracking – these will be a good start. But only a start.

We need to envision a transition away from fossil fuel consumption (the main cause of global warming) that involves the transformation not just of some parts of the economy, as some people claim, but of the whole economy and of society. The corporations that develop the fossil-fuel-intensive industries, and the relationships of wealth and power with which these industries are tied up, will need to be confronted and defeated.

Parliament’s decision is a double-edged sword.

On one hand it’s a weapon in the hands of each and every campaign on climate change in the UK. It makes it all the more difficult for politicians and trade union leaders to defend their indefensible decisions to support fossil fuel companies and fossil-fuel-intensive infrastructure projects.

On the other, it’s a reflection of a huge political effort to co-opt, neutralise, patronise and smother the growing movement against politicians’ inaction on climate change. The cynicism and sophistication of these efforts should not be underestimated: they have been going on globally ever since the Rio agreement on climate change was adopted in 1991. And meanwhile, fossil fuel use has risen by about 60%.

We need to define, outside parliament, what this emergency means, and how it is going to be tackled.

Climate change must be a thing. It’s on prime time TV

Heathrow: “jobs vs climate action” is a false choice

The Red Green Study Group on social justice and ecological disaster

People & Nature site contents

Keep up with People And Nature.

38 comments:

  1. Climate Change is beyond restraining now. While humans fret over the minutiae the juggernaught is unstoppable. We should be adapting where able.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Are the additional policies of Green movements world wide, that result in ever growing inhabitants in cities, part of the problem too?

    A family living in sub-Saharan Africa has a much lower carbon footprint than if they live in the West, yet population movement in this direction is precisely what the Greens now advocate as a human right.

    Assuming the heads of states intentions were real at the time, whatever % cuts in emissions they committed to at Kyoto or Paris etc are effectively rendered impossible.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Should it not be a human right? And on what grounds can it be denied to some humans but not others, therefore ensuring it is not a human right? Is the Green policy of wanting that right not compatible with its environmentalism if accompanied by the type of measures that the Greens recommend in the West? Can your comment be read as a criticism of immigration rather than being substantively critical of Green philosophy?

    ReplyDelete
  4. AM, those that think it should be a human right have to weigh this against the planetary right (hehehe beat that!) not to be cooked.
    AM its not compatible because even if we switched to a carbon neutral dynamic, these people still lead to an associated increase in infrastructure to accommodate them (from housing to roads etc).
    Even if you chose to read the most cynical of motives into my comment, the proposition still requires an answer on their probable hypocrisy.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The lack of engagement makes me think this is a good question , maybe some refinement of the wording is needed to make it more concise and damning.

    Do Greens think in principle, there should be an upper limit to the size of cities in industrialised countries? Or do we need to extract from the environment the necessary resources to accommodate any number?

    Many things in business, finance and then politics would change overnight if the assumption that ever increasing growth can no longer be used as a fudge factor to balance equations.

    Of course others will be preoccupied with whether noticing this could make them appear a racist.

    ReplyDelete
  6. DaithiD - but by that logic you would argue against them having the infrastructure for roads and homes as well in their home countries where they live. So maybe the Greens are not as hypocritical as you think if there view is compatible with planetary rights. My problem with them is they are not willing to tax the greedy rich.
    A racist is merely someone who thinks they are so special others should not access the same rights they have: that people are in fact less than human

    ReplyDelete
  7. AM, these kids are shutting down central London, calling politicians and heads of businesses killers because of what they see as complicity in the mass extinction of life on earth. In this context, I suggest worries of appearing racist seem quite frivolous.

    If we were to join the dots from disparate data sources, and see worries about racism also use to justify the erasure of a persons digital identity , their ability to transact, their ability to earn a living, we could reasonably conclude there are worse things than being a racist.

    ReplyDelete
  8. DaithiD - there are worse things than being a racist. A genocidist for example, or war criminal. Do you think you are a racist?

    ReplyDelete
  9. AM, i don’t. Nobody that has spent time with me , like my friends think so. But it’s probably accurate to surmise most people on here think I have passed the threshold to be a racist.

    In the past I messaged you a picture of my social group on a night out. Unsolicited of course! This sort of demonstration often invites scorn, the old trope of “I’m not racist, look ive got black friends”. However, any political group or event who document their meetings but does not have a visibly diverse element in the media invite scorn too (think Jon Snows comments over the Brexit protests outside Parliament, I paraphrase, ‘never seen so many whites people in one place’ etc).

    ReplyDelete
  10. Ps

    AM, this is the conundrum for me: in that picture there was a self described Muslim who I don’t consider a Muslim because he follows the faith loosely and is mostly a liberal (he was drinking in that ffs!) So according to that logic for me to consider myself not racist is irrelevant if others disagree, even if for over zealous reasons.
    I resolve myself that self avowed “anti-racists” are unambiguously perpetuating the greater, more cynical, more authoritarian problems in society, so as long as I’m not confused with that(anti racism), then it’s a small comfort at least.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. DaithiD - there are people who feel you are a bigot. That would not make you a racist per se. I haven't concluded that you are a racist but the problem for me is that I generally am able to think A or B is not a racist. With you the matter is not resolved that easily.

      Delete
  11. DaithiD - which is what we have been saying on this site for years, Frankie in particular - people who describe themselves as Muslim are pretty much like the rest if us, yet you get hooked on text.

    self avowed “anti-racists” are unambiguously perpetuating the greater, more cynical, more authoritarian problems in society

    A separate issue but one which is close to the mark - they are the PC World mob.

    ReplyDelete
  12. AM, I too have acknowledged over the same period there are many self described Muslims who have a far from doctrinaire approach. The difference between myself and Frankie’s summation I do not see them as being on the Islamic spectrum; according to their scriptures they are apostates.

    This is where comparisons to other faiths like Christianity become unhelpful, as people try to force parallels between the two, to compensate for a lack of Islamic scriptural awareness.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. if every religious advocate took a doctrinaire approach, we would have the same fundamentalist problem from them all that we have from Islamic fundamentalists. The greater threat to freedom in the US today comes no from Islam but Christian nationalism. By your own acknowledgement the Christian bible legitimises genocide.

      Delete
  13. And arguably the legacy media is a bigger threat than both. The Russia Hoax being the latest example of them agitating for thermo-nuclear war ( and that’s not an exaggeration) on the back of a lie.

    ReplyDelete
  14. DaithiOD

    What is the Russia Hoax?

    ReplyDelete
  15. BG, that the Trump election campaign in 2016 colluded with the Russians to influence the election. The thing that “news” anchors like Rachel Maddow insisted impropriety over, every day for two years.
    But I’m sure you could of guessed what I was referencing BG, or am I mistaken, that the Muller report did not exenorate Trump? That Barr drew an incorrect summary etc ? What is your “win” in this BG? How did Russia hoaxers not infact show themselves to be enormous hack-wankers? Pray tell.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. DaithiOD

      Meuller pointedly refused to exonorate Trump from the charges of osbsructing justice. So plenty of material for an impeachment should Congress decide to elect for one which I hope they do.

      Delete
  16. How the fuck did this go from Climate Change to wondering if Daithi is a racist?

    ReplyDelete
  17. “When two or more gather on the Quill mentioning racism, there am I also”

    Barry 18:20

    ReplyDelete
  18. DaithiD - do you believe in human rights and their universal application? I remember a Trot saying to me one night he didn't believe in the concept because once you accept it there is no exceptions. Everybody has to have them. I got his point but wonder how we would be without the concept. I was always taken by Mencken's comment that there comes a point in the life of every person where they feel it is time to raise the black flag and start slitting throats!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Human rights. Isn’t that what we gave the Afgani’s and Iraqi’s? Am, I in favour of manifesting the purist realm that only exits inside your head where human rights are the highest ethical code? Yes. But this is the sort of nativity you take the piss out of the religious for.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Theres your win BG, you found it! I knew you would. It’s not the Russia hoax, but hey, consume, enjoy, then onto your next win.
    #Winning

    ReplyDelete
  21. Ps I meant naivety not nativity ! Damn auto correct weakening my put down !

    ReplyDelete
  22. DaithiD - human rights are not something that we should be in a position to give. People by virtue of being human should have them. Or is it your belief that we in the West should have rights which we should seek to deny to others outside the West?
    Your put downs never seem to work except in your own head. They merely seem as evasive further reinforcing a belief that you have no answers and therefore avoid the engagement.

    ReplyDelete
  23. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Apologies DaithiD - I hit remove rather than delete. I will see if a copy of it arrived by email and repost

      Delete
    2. Censorship! Jeez, They got to you man!

      (I’m not remotely serious btw)

      Delete
  24. DaithiOD has left a new comment on your post "What Does “Climate Emergency” Mean?":

    I have similar reservations over the implications of measures to combat so called climate change. A global problem will require a transnational solution, which historically has led to an erosion of individual/human rights. A dynamic so frequently observed it appears pursuits of this type are features not bugs of such initiatives. Alleged human rights considerations have been the prime justification of war mongers to change the rulers of sovereign states, which has led to the collapse of civil society in these target states. Yet to caution against the practicality of such a abstract concepts like human rights beforehand makes one appear a heartless bastard, or worse still to some, a racist.

    It’s naive to think solutions under a similar global framework as applied to climate change will focus on the wealthy, it will most likely fall on the shoulders of populations already paying for the previous largesse of their rulers, with money that isn’t theirs.

    Where we are now, when considering any future political challenges, I would look favourably on simple, heuristic approaches that benefit my family and Ireland first and foremost, and then other people after our peoples concerns are dealt with. The downside risks of such an approach to others are vastly reduced, and thats perhaps the most ethical thing we can do these days.

    And it’s hardly being evasive when I have dealt with your diversion into the topic of racism that surprised Steve R. You have detailed less of your ideas in comparison, and so are open to the criticism you level at current physical force Republicans, a destination (of universal human rights) with no strategy of how to get there.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Daithi - is climate change not real?

    Many of us have grave reservations about strategies that are perhaps more PC than realistic. Nationalisms have been more destructive of human rights than transnational regimes set up to tackle an extra national problem. A global government might well protect human rights much more than what we have at present. I ultimately favour a global regime if only because it is what is needed to solve global problems. My fear as always is if the greedy rich get their hands on it, humanity will be screwed.

    The greedy rich have indeed used human rights as an instrument to control much of humanity much as they used to claim they were spreading Christian civilisation to the natives.

    But humans exist and they should either have rights or not. Are you suggesting that the rights of others should be put on hold until we Irish have ours? Ireland, before all else? That might be okay on an aircraft where you get your own oxygen mask on first.

    Human rights are nor an abstract concept - the right not to be murdered, tortured, raped, enslaved are abstract concepts?

    People think you are a racist not because of what anybody else says but because of what you say. I think you are a bigot but I have never concluded that you are a racist.

    There has been no diversion on my part into racism but a simple question to you "Can your comment be read as a criticism of immigration rather than being substantively critical of Green philosophy?" A criticism of immigration does not make a person a racist. My definition of a racist is not the standard one. As I outlined it above "A racist is merely someone who thinks they are so special others should not access the same rights they have: that people are in fact less than human." If the cap fits us we can wear it.

    Steve R is much too discerning not to know why the issue of possible racism comes up. If you feel your Irishness allows you rights which should be denied to others because they are not Irish, how would you avoid the charge if racism? Likewise if you want people in Africa not to have roads and houses in case its increases the carbon footprint. You haven't actually said that so the question is a probing one not a conclusion.

    Again another aunt Sally which invariably reveals the pressure you put yourself under when you try to duck and dive away from the logic of your argument - we have been here so often it is old hat to me. I don't have human rights as a strategic objective because I don't see a strategy other than piecemeal and incremental expansion. For me it is an aspiration and I don't kill anybody in the course of aspiring to it. Physical Force Republicanism has a strategic objective but with no strategy. Its problem lies in pretending to have a strategy.

    ReplyDelete
  26. AM, im well aware where my skills are at, yesterday for example I was covering the French Govt debt auction (8y 2.75% OAT Oct27, 10y 0.50% OAT May29, 17y 1.25% OAT May36, 31y 1.50% OAT May50) just after my comment here. Buy I do not need to justify my position, its for you or the climate alarmists who are demanding something from me to make your case. Whether I am an expert in the field shouldn’t bother you unless you are an elitist. You should listen to people more, beyond just the minimal amount to “catch them out” as it were.

    ReplyDelete
  27. DaithiD - skills no doubt but not in the sphere of clear articulation of ideas.

    I listen to al ideas other than religious ones. I listen more when they are clearly expressed and the author has the moral courage to stand over them.

    I know people do not like being caught out but they should not make statements that lead to them being caught out.

    It is always good advice to try keeping vanity in check. It allows the ideas to circulate more freely rather than have them suffocated by a sense of self preciousness. Free speech is not a free pass.

    Climate alarmists? I need say no more.

    ReplyDelete
  28. AM, I’ve confided much worse stuff to you than anything you are probing on this thread. You suspect I’m being evasive because I’m not serving you up what you expected , you brought evasion up first not me. And yes I say climate alarmist , you didn’t engage with ARIMA models limitations either last time, I’m trying a new tact.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Long PS

    I have some experience with using ARIMA/ARMAX/ARMA models on less complex data sets compared to weather data, like S&P 500 futures data. I found them not useful for prediction on out of sample data i.e they seemed to explain past movements well, but not well on live prices.
    So to hear these being used gave me some caution. But perhaps these climate scientists are using them better than me, just be aware that the choice to use such models are an assumption of the the underlying dynamics too, these assumptions need to be accounted for when processing results.
    Additionally since temperature data does not go back so far , they have estimated past temperatures based on ice core samples content of CO2, then estimating the temperature at that time I.e they assume CO2 levels as a proxy for temperature. This is the process they are also assuming for future temperature predictions, again an assumption on the underlying dynamics.
    I understand the models are not predicting realised global temperatures which should be another reason for caution with their results, and the weight to give conclusions based on those results. If it was a case of hurting billionaires bottom line to potentially help the planet, it would not require such caution, but it seems from China/India exemptions from global initiatives to tackle the alleged problem, it seems we will just outsource all manufacturing to these countries, so they do the polluting not the West, and we are left jobless. I can’t put everything in a comment section, so it might appear incomplete or garbled as i edit bits down, but these are some of the reasons why I urge caution with just accepting the global governments suddenly care about the environment.

    ReplyDelete
  30. That has to make Bates & Wilkes posted under Dr Davy Okwyzil!!

    ReplyDelete
  31. Dr Davy - you served up exactly what I expected - evasiveness.

    Sort of like that Dr Davy tag LOL

    ReplyDelete
  32. Haha Diarrhoea Davy wasn’t it? Happy to declare on this and add no more. Glad you agree I won.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Forgot about that one LOL .. sort of liked that too

    ReplyDelete