30 Mar 2006
Making Powerdown Electable – who’ll vote for the promise of less?
“Vote for Me – I’ll guarantee you less every year”. Not something you are likely to hear from your local politician. Even though some MPs, like Michael Meacher, talk about the reality of peak oil, they still cling to the concept of business as usual, not really taking on board the depth of its implications and the inevitable need for relocalisation and for economic contraction. At what stage will MPs start to acknowledge the inevitable fact that we have to start rethinking some very basic assumptions and start working out how to make relocalisation and contraction electable? While we might assume never, (and for sure, despite having Zak Goldsmith as green advisor, we can be certain that David Cameron will not run for the next election on a programme of Powerdown), some politicians are at least starting to think about it.
I listened on Tuesday morning as Margaret Beckett, the UK’s Environment Minister attempted on Radio 4 to defend the Blair regime’s woeful record on climate change and recent admission that it wasn’t going to meet its own targets. You can hear the interview here, (scroll down to 8.10am and click ‘climate change’). Interviewer John Humphries did a great job of tearing her to bits, and her refusal to answer the question “so why isn’t the Government doing more to make us change our lifestyles” spoke volumes, she basically talked about something else. She clung to business as usual at all costs. Blair still talks about the need to “develop machines which produce fewer emissions, while maintaining economic growth”. For me the big question it raised was how, and at what point, does a politician actually stand up and say “Vote for me, I promise you a contracting economy and LESS every year”!
Tuesday’s Independent contained an article by Colin Challen, Labour MP for Morley and Rothwell, Leeds, in which he says that business as usual is dead, and that we have to start looking at how to make more radical change electable, and explore mechanisms such as carbon rationing. He concludes *”since none of the mechanisms we currently have in place are solving the problem faster than it is being created, we must look to forging a new consensus which can think the unthinkable – and take the electorate along with it”*.
It was very refreshing to read a politician actually going some of the way to admitting the scale of the response needed; he doesn’t mention peak oil or go so far as talking about localisation and so on, but it is a start. I’m sure he isn’t the only one pondering these issues. Unfortunately The Independent only keeps its articles up for a day, so you can only get at it now by registering. I felt it was a very useful piece, and too good to lose, so I have been a bit naughty and copied it here. I am basing it on the assumption that he is an MP, and therefore he is payed by the taxpayer to do his thing, so as a citizen I kind of part-own it. Or something. Anyway, here it is …
Colin Challen: We must think the unthinkable, and take voters with us
>Climate change means that business as usual is dead. It means that economic growth as usual is dead. But the politics of economic growth and business as usual live on. What needs to change to bring about a political tipping point? What is stopping us from taking the radical path we need to follow today if we are to avoid dangerous climate change tomorrow?
>We are imprisoned by our political Hippocratic oath: we will deliver unto the electorate more goodies than anybody else. Such an oath was only ever achievable by increasing our despoliation of the world’s resources. Our economic model is not so different in the cold light of day to that of the Third Reich – which knew it could only expand by grabbing what it needed from its neighbours.
>Genocide followed. Now there is a case to answer that genocide is once again an apt description of how we are pursuing business as usual, wilfully ignoring the consequences for the poorest people in the world. The DfID submission to the Stern Review on the economics of climate change makes it clear that climate change will do untold damage to the life chances of millions of people.
>To accept responsibility is not merely to say “sorry”. Too often saying sorry seemed to be enough, like saying we’re sorry for the slave trade. Rarely do such apologies come with compensation. But the strength of our relationship with climate change is that it gives us the power to change – it is not the past, it is the future. We can discharge our responsibilities by changing our behaviour. This will only be worthwhile if we can measure the impact of our policies within an overall framework which allocates responsibilities fairly and sustainably. This was indeed the assessment at the heart of the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), that so many countries including the US signed up to.
>We know that we need to reduce our carbon emissions so that we arrive at a safe concentration in the atmosphere – perhaps 450 parts per million. We also know that without developing countries being part of a global agreement, it won’t work. The US Senate rejected Kyoto because it wasn’t inclusive enough. The UNFCCC spoke of equity. DfID told Stern that the ” mitigation of greenhouse gases poses a fundamental equity problem”.
>The answer is convergence – we should aim to contract our emissions while converging to a per-capita basis of shared emissions rights. If our framework is disciplined by science, and not what is simply the current economic model, we may be able to break the Faustian pact we have entered into before it ends in tears.
>Contraction and convergence at the domestic level could be addressed by introducing tradable carbon rations. A national carbon budget would be set each year, with year-on-year reductions, and equal per capita quotas would be issued annually – perhaps starting at around 10 tons or 10,000 ” carbon units” each. For those who didn’t use all their units, they could sell their surplus to those more profligate. Such an approach would stimulate investment in both energy reduction and alternatives.
>These policies are a radical departure from business as usual. But since none of the mechanisms we currently have in place are solving the problem faster than it is being created, we must look to forging a new consensus which can think the unthinkable – and take the electorate along with it.
Colin Challen is the Labour MP for Morley and Rothwell, Leeds and chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Climate Change Group
30 Mar 9:45am
I read that article too. Quite refreshing in that he is an MP and saying things that we believe in. As I said in my blog, the one problem is that political parties are funded mostly by business men and corporations so pressure can easily be put upon politicians desperate to hold on to lucrative jobs.
However, John Prescott said yesterday that political parties should be state funded, which I agree with. We just need to put in checks to make sure they do not waste our money.
30 Mar 10:03am
Given that Contraction & Convergence is already party policy for the Greens, the Welsh & Scots Nationalists, the Lib-Dems and the Tories, it is very good to see this initiative coming from a senior Labour backbencher.
The present “New Tory” regime is not going to last, and having cross-party consensus on C&C and declining national carbon budgets, with responsible industry calling for firm effective targets, is critical to what can be achieved.
So how many here will take action to demonstrate their support for adopting C & C as national policy ?
30 Mar 1:34pm
this is what happens in america when politicians try and warn us about energy dependence and consumer culture.