Away from the grim tedium of British politics and its cadre of self-serving politicians, two reports this week merit some observations on the health of the planet.
THE BBC ran a clip on the Amazon rain forest highlighting the pace of its destruction. Under the stewardship of the populist, President Bolsonaro, who believes the rights of farmers ‘trump’ environmental concerns, destruction of the Brazilian rain forest incredibly is speeding up. One football-pitch sized piece of rain forest is being destroyed every 60 seconds with all the threats to indigenous populations and wildlife that brings. That is before we consider that the Brazilian rain forest currently absorbs 20% of the world’s carbon dioxide.
At the same time, a piece of analysis from the shrewd Gideon Rachman in this week’s FT about ‘the perilous politics of climate change’ appeared. In Australia, amid unprecedented high temperatures and drought, a conservative coalition intent on embracing fossil fuels won a surprise election victory. As Rachman suggests, when you take the US into consideration too, there are ‘important and potentially discouraging lessons for climate campaigners’. Politicians advocating radical actions to tackle climate change are at risk of electoral defeat if it is perceived to hit living standards.
Climate change and protection of the planet are key concerns of a good part of the electorate. It is now high up in the list of concerns of the investment community as it embraces Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) policies. It is apparently ranked as the top issue by US Democrats. The Green Party surges across Europe. Then David Attenborough makes a guest appearance at Glastonbury to wild cheers, not heard since the appearance of Jeremy Corbyn…umm…
More needs to be done to allow climate change and environmental concerns to overcome populism and define election results, however. It cannot be an issue simply of the wealthy and better educated. Or left to Extinction Rebellion blocking roads in London.
Which takes us to a second article in the FT. Yesterday, one by an equally shrewd Martin Wolf, outlined the causal link between liberalism and stronger economic performance. Societies that embrace economic and political rights guarded by independent legal systems are wealthier. Those that do not are not. Take Russia for example.
So combining liberalism with the case for tackling climate change both at a micro and macro level in language that wins over those who embrace populism might just work. That means not just lofty scientific reports by inter-governmental organisations (the ‘elites’) but explaining country by country, district by district, what it means for them. The cost of environmental disaster versus a vibrant green technology industry creating jobs and wealth for everybody. You have coherent debate backed by facts in a liberal setting applicable to all voters.
Actually, the UK is getting quite good at this as it seeks to become carbon neutral by 2050. Even on the Right of the political spectrum, May and Gove, sometimes offset sadly by the lovely populist, Johnson, are good advocates of the benefits of liberalism and environmental considerations.
So, imagine a world where coherent policies on the environment determine most election results. Where liberalism dominates populism on this topic through open, fact-based debate because it is couched in terms everyone can understand and benefit from. A world where David Attenborough is listened to by everybody. Now there is a goal to aim for and, to use an unfortunate analogy in this context, ‘kills two birds with one stone’…
Inside Right Politics 