(This article appears in Insight Magazine April 2008 )
When a social movement is championed by a prince, a Cambridge graduate on the roof of parliament and Waitrose shoppers across the land, you know you have a problem. Yet to say that climate change is of interest only to the middle class of the West is to miss the point entirely.
Much of the response to last months Plane Stupid demo illustrated a growing group of critics who claim that the green movement are little more than “fear-mongering, snobbish, isolationist puritans.” They suggest that the solutions offered to climate change are riddled with class prejudice. By attacking cheap flights and mass consumption they feel the green activists are instead conveying a “shrill middle-class disgust with the greedy masses and their bad habits.”
While the growing ideological debate over how to tackle climate change threatens to obscure action, the doubts over the existence of human-made climate change have, at last given way to reason. Those who still dismiss it as the ‘new millennium bug’ would do well look at the facts.
Between 1950 and 2005 average global temperatures increased by 0.7oC. Over the same period emissions of human-made green house gasses have mushroomed by over 70%. It takes a peculiar bloody mindedness (or funding from Exxon Mobile) to ignore the link. If global temperatures increase by 2oC over pre-industrial levels, we enter the realm of runaway climate change. It is just as dramatic as it sounds. 4 billion people could suffer water shortages, sea levels could rise by 7 metres and the permafrost of the west Siberian peat bogs begins to melt, unleashing 70 billion tonnes of stored methane, the Napalm of greenhouse gases. The cautious but rather aptly titled Stern Report calculated that failing to act would cost us at least 5% but possibly 20% of global GDP.
Slowing the climate’s growing fever is the essential challenge of our age, yet the limp response so far, which is defined by both the moralistic ‘green consumerism’ and their conservative critics, is ineffective and snooty.
When legitimate concerns over emissions are voiced, they are easily perceived as killjoy rantings from a privileged minority. The thick smug that emerges from the hybrid cars of a spoilt few betrays a judgement about how the rest of society should live. And often, their case, though legitimate appears overstated: cheap short-hall flights are seen as disgusting, cheap imported meat is sick, over-boiling the kettle is genocide, and so on. Implicit in their entire effort is the wrong assumption that by changing consumer habits they have tackled climate change. Changing your light bulb is not changing the world – energy efficiency is essential but not enough.
However, the lambasting that the green movement receives from the likes of Brendan O’Neill in The Guardian and his magazine Spiked Online fails to offer any solutions to what is an accepted problem. These self-titled (and usually middle-class) libertarians moan that the entire issue is merely an elitist vehicle to meddle in the lives of ‘the masses’. Yet if this were a genuine ideological concern, they would do well to remember that liberty ends where the one person’s actions limit the freedom of another person’s actions. Unrestricted emissions from some will hinder the lives of many others. Failing to counter that argument these same critics then suggest that climate change is just an anti-progress conspiracy wrapped up in superstition. This sort of drivel fails to contend the science and ignores the fact that social and economic progress demands a stable climate. These so-called “defenders of the masses” end up protecting the interests of the wealthiest corporations instead. It’s difficult to think of many more patronising things then well-paid journalists claiming the voice of millions of working-class voices, especially when, as Green Party MEP Dr Caroline Lucas notes, “if you look at the impacts of climate change, it’s the poorest that are hit first and hardest.”
Until government takes action to draw in the whole of society – business included – the mass effort against climate change will forever be undermined by precious minorities on either side. Rather than relying on the good will of British Petroleum, or hoping that people will give up weekly flights to their holiday homes in Monaco, the government should stand up to the challenge and set an equal limit on how much carbon we can all emit.
Dr Lucas added “the science demands action. We are told we have between 8-10 years in which to put in place a rigorous policy framework to ensure serious emission reductions. It is as much a social justice issue as an environmental one.”
Through setting limits on national emissions, government can sanction one proportion for businesses and then divide the rest equally amongst citizens. Rather than attack the poor – as the much vouched-for carbon taxes do – this would progressively redistribute wealth. Those who expend less than their entitlement can sell off their excess to others who demand it. Remember that despite what they may think, the self-congratulating rich actually consume more carbon than the poor.
With similar incentives placed on businesses effective action would be demanded. It would no longer be profitable for a BP to emit a 100 million tonnes of carbon dioxide to produce crude oil from tar sands; instead they could employ part of their enormous annual profit to genuinely invest in sustainable alternatives.
That we should all be taking action to tackle climate change is unquestionable. But when in 1940 we were faced with a global threat to our livelihoods, the government wasn’t afraid to lead a mass campaign. Food rations were an immense sacrifice, but rather than having an elitist few telling the poor not to eat, everyone was in the same boat. The scale of this threat may not be entirely predictable as yet, but unless we move beyond are limp response, we may have to face the horror of finding out.
I have recently had the dubious fortune of becoming a research assistant with an MEP in the European Parliament. As I was thrust into this new skin I was told that I was entering the ‘frontline of politics’.
It has been fascinating to lend my eyes a perspective I had never come across and in doing so I have tried to distill the essence of the political. It seems to me that the role of a government basically boils down passing a law, or not passing a law. All the familiar debates spiral out from this point.
In the last week the EU Parliament has agreed on a motion to improve energy efficiency by phasing out wasteful goods such as Patio Heaters. Whilst the frantic colluding, compromising and horse-trading was going on around the parliament it became apparent that the political frontline is far from such politicians. Ultimately politics is experienced in everyday life, it’s omnipresent and inescapable. When you sit outside a pub no longer experiencing the absurd comfort of heating up the outdoors, you are on the political frontline.
Power, as opposed to politics is more opaque. Politicians, elected solely by citizens appear in submission to a myriad of other influences. In the name of pragmatism ideals, values and morals are easily relinquished.
The battle to prevent run-away climate change, for example needs decisive political action (law making) but politicians seem unable to manage this. The minority who dismiss climate change as the new ‘millennium bug’ are thankfully giving way to reason, yet despite democratic demand for action politicians remain impotent. Instead unaccountable private groups, corporations and their lobbies appear to run the debate and corrupt democracy. With skilled lobbyists, lawyers and PR departments they create a yawning information asymmetry and stifle political action.
In terms of the media, Britain’s leading left-leaning weekly, The New Statesman, for example, obtains of much of its revenue from advertising companies such as BP and BAE systems. This compromises its ability to criticise both these companies and the wider social structure that allows information to be constrained by such companies. Information is perhaps key to an effective democracy yet it’s blatantly undermined in almost all aspects of the media.
If citizens can overcome this hurdle they face further barriers trying to negotiate the lobbyists of unaccountable interests groups. When debating over legislation or other political action, politicians will face a barrage of highly skilled, well versed people who represent the interests of a tiny minority. When these same interest groups also command the funding of political parties, what hope can the majority have of their voices being heard and getting the appropriate law being passed.
It is a crime to blockade the offices of BP but perfectly legal for BP to emitt 100 million tonnes of CO2 producing crude oil from tar sands.
It is the general public who experience politics but unaccountable minority who dictate it. In this situation where power resides is debatable. Perhaps if people realised that they are the ultimate politicians we could retrieve control over our public lives.
I was undertaking the daunting challenge of musing over what the world is all about when, through my musings I was presented with a far more arduous task of trying to figure out what Marx is all about
I must once again stress my disclaimer – I have little to no knowledge of philosophy so my wonders are inaccurate and incomplete. I’m looking for you lot (which I think consists of Euny) to help me out.
Apparently there are two broad approaches that hastily present themselves when trying to garble about what constitutes the world and everything else: materialism and idealism.
Materialism would state that ‘matter in motion’ is the fundamental constituent of the universe. It is wholly objective, acting according to its own natural laws. Materialism would hold that thought/emotion is simply a chemical function – to the brain, as urine is to the kidneys
Idealism would approach the universe as being a series of concepts. Matter, as realised through sensory perception is a construct of one of many purely subjective concepts.
Marx is generally described as a materialist. In its strictest sense, outlined above, I have found that to be an inaccurate depiction. It appears that Marx believes that human conceptual reflexes are relevant but are shaped by the objective conditions in which they are experienced. The conditions in which a women (or man) is forced to subside and reproduce her species shape her universe. Her natural depends on how she produces. This half-way house unification between idealism and materialism could be called ‘humanism’. Marx took from the Hegelian dialect that the objective (material) world is experienced entirely subjectively, to assert that the objective reality of the socio-economic nature directs and shapes the subjective experience of it, and vies versa.
In his conception of history, Marx thought it best, therefore to look at the modes of subsistence, and see how that shaped the moods, motivations the subjective realities which led to humanity taking the course it history it did – instead of looking at idealist conceptions such as God, or materialist concepts such as genetics, he approached from this humanist stance to try to understand what compelled history to pan out the way it did, and what compels it to follow the path it currently does. Economic gain, as a key motivation for a woman’s action is what he called a ‘relative drive’, originating from the mode of subsistence she found herself in, and is not, like hunger, a ‘fixed drive’. So he was wary about trying to understand human nature as an overly objective, ahistorical and acontextual force, instead suggesting it is perhaps more of a social consciousness or force.
Marx stated that changes in these ‘relative drives’ caused historical changes. He argued that such epoch changes would occur when the mode of social organization began to hamper the productive forces hat allows humanity to subsist. Thus evolution (as opposed to revolution, which implies ending up in the same place) could not be imposed on society, it is caused by a challenge to woman’s ability to subsist, due to the social organisation in which she finds herself in. Such challenges lead to a change in the social consciousness which re-shapes the social organisation to one that allows subsistence.
Maybe I’m being optimistic, but faced with the forces of climate change, peak oil, and gross alienation and inequality; the social organization we find ourselves in seems to be hampering our ability to subside. Time for a change, perhaps?
