If climate change protest is to work, it must be realistic
There has never been a more acute sense among the student population that climate change is worth protesting about. Barely a week passes without students protesting at a coal-fired power station or lobbying and environmentally reckless company.
Environmental concern has fuelled the creation of groups such as Camp for Climate Action which was responsible for the protests at an E-On owned plant in Nottinghamshire at the end of October, in which University of Manchester students participated. A widespread consensus has emerged that government concern for cutting greenhouse gas emissions is limited, and that environmental politics must be upheld by other methods.
Student protest is a key factor in the climate change protest movement. At a time when national politicians take such a disinterested and pathetic stance on the environment, activists have a responsibility to ensure protest movements due not lose sight of the grave threat post by reckless pollution. But such protest must be relevant, and acknowledging the shortcoming of overly-ambitious green proposals must be at the core of action on climate change.
The political community has once again failed to grasp the seriousness of the situation. At the recent Copenhagen climate change summit, the US suspended desperately needed decisions on emissions targets. The Guardian reported: “Britain’s climate change secretary, Ed Miliband, tried to put a brave face on Obama’s move, insisting it is still possible to reach a broad political agreement on carbon emssions targets, but senior Labour Mps admitted they feared the necessary momentum for a detailed agreements would be sucked from the Copenhagen event of politicians know a deal has been postponed to the next scheduled meeting in Mexico City next year.”
Political point-scoring has had the effect of crippling meaningful environmental decision-making. In particular, the US government has been intimidated by the interests of corporate America, which mounts a formidable opposition to any meaningful action on cutting emissions or weaning America off its addiction to cheap oil and high emissions.
International climate conferences are, in reality, little more than a PR stunt for the new ‘green’ America. In the run-up to the Copenhagen summit, several poor African nations threatened to walk out of the conference unless they saw meaningful promises from Obama that their own sacrifices would be met by guarantees from the US that it would take a closer look at its own environmental shortcomings.
It is, of course, welcome that the US is attempting to tackle the issue of emissions cuts seriously. The years of climate change denial that characterised George Bush’s presidency exacerbated tensions on cutting greenhouse gas emissions among the developed states, whose responsibility it is to set an agenda that is meaningful and realistic to poorer states. Without the US on board, any climate change proposals are seriously undermined simply as a result of America’s economic clout and its colossal impact on the environment in terms of emissions.
Prior to the Copenhagen summit, the Times reported that Obama intended to “wait until the final stages of the negotiations” in order to “achieve maximum political impact” through his announcements on emissions cuts. The US “was not expecting smaller countries to cut their overall emissions but it wanted to see specific commitments from them on reducing their growth in emissions.”
But political messages do precious little if they are not backed up by hard commitments. It is imperative that pressure is applied to the most industrially advanced developing states - namely China, Brazil and India - to make urgent commitments to reducing emissions. The political and economic sensitivity of such demands - given developing states’ reliance on high levels of fossil fuel consumption - must not detract from the urgent need to address the dangerous pollution trends associated with these states.
There is an important distinction between these states and those at the very bottom of the pile - the small African and Asian countries that make a much smaller impact environmentally. Whilst quality of life is undoubtedly poor in many areas of the industrial powerhouses such as China, overall economic deprivation is much more acute in smaller states that have been frozen out of global climate dialogue because they lack political clout.
If action is taken by the better-equipped industrialised members of the developing countries, the tendency for the worst-off countries to feel ’victimised’ by richer nations may well be reduced. It is true that for decades the developed world has applied breathtaking double standards on climate change. Western countries have demanded that the developing nations curtail their rate of industrialisation to an extent that would have been economically crippling had the same rules been applied to them.
But this environmental hypocrisy is not only restricted to climate change deals between states. There is a tendency in the climate change movement to set unrealistic targets for emissions cuts. This is most visible in the sustained attack on the aviation industry, with the increasing trend for cheap air travel becoming the scourge of environmentalists.
Indeed, air travel is a major polluter, accounting for a sizeable chunk of transport-based emissions of Carbon Dioxide - 10% in the US, for example. But the difficulty in reducing aviation emissions is linked to its necessity as the only means of travel for rapid inter-continental travel. While high speed rail is at last becoming a reality in many developed states, geographical and logistical realities mean it can never replace air travel as a effective transportation method across vast distances.
Countries must look at realistic measures to tackle pollution at as simple a level as possible. Congestion charging has proved that, at a local level, emissions can be reduced as people switch from cars to buses or trains. In Manchester, proposals to take cars off Oxford Road would relieve congestion and enable increased public transport efficiency to the main student areas. International climate change proposals must deal with the continued problems of domestic pollution by the richest nations before embarking on overly-ambitious projects that could seriously destabilise the economies of the poorest states.
Future climate change proposals must take a realistic look at how emissions can be reduced domestically, and remain credible by demanding investment in alternative power sources and transportation by all states.
Tuesday 24 November 2009
Wednesday 11 November 2009
The importance of Green America
Today the Times carries an article claiming that Obama is on the verge of committing to substantial cuts in US greenhouse gas emissions. The news comes as the climate change UN summit in Copenhagen risks descending into a bloodbath as poorer African nations threaten to walk out unless serious guarantees are made by the developed world.
Obama's intentions are welcome. But the report also reveals that the President may
wait until the final stages of the negotiations
in order to achieve
maximum political impact
through the announcement.
The fact the the US is finally taking the issue of cuts seriously is welcome. The years of climate change denial that characterised George Bush's presidency exacerbated tensions on cutting greenhouse gas emissions among the developed states whose responsibility it is to set an agenda that is meaningful and is acceptable to poorer states. Without the US on board, any climate change proposals are seriously undermined simply as a result of America's economic clout and its colossal impact on the environment in terms of emissions.
But the US should not be waiting around in order to maximise the political clout of environmental announcements. It is Obama's responsbility to set out an agenda that is transparent at the start of negotiations. The report highlights that the US
was not expecting smaller countries to cut their overall emissions but it wanted to see specific commitments from them on reducing their growth in emissions
It is imperative that Obama applies pressure to the most industrially advanced 'developing' states - namely China, Brazil and India - to make urgent commitments to substantially reduce their own emissions. Such demands are politically and economically sensitive, as they rely heavily on fossil fuel consumption to expand their economic output.
There is an important distinction between these states and those at the very bottom of the pile - the African and Asian countries that make a much smaller impact environmentally. If action is taken by the well-equipped industrialised members of the 'developing' group, the tendency for the worst off countries to feel 'victimised' by richer nations may well be reduced.
A stronger commitment from Obama may draw the battle lines for a war of emissions that is essential if climate change is to be taken seriously. But he cannot wage such a war on his own.
President Blair
From Student Direct
Well they were warned again and again and now - finally - they seem to be listening.
The wheels of Tony Blair’s Presidential bandwagon appear to be fast coming loose as European leaders turn on the former Prime Minister. France and Germany, the major European political powerhouses whose support is widely acknowledged as being essential if Blair is to win the post, appear to be cooling to the prospect of his controversial appointment as President of the EU. Angela Merkel, whose re-election as German Chancellor has greatly increased her European clout as a result of her increased electoral majority, is withholding her vital support.
And rightly so. The EU is facing a serious crisis of credibility in the wake of the bloody battle over the Lisbon Treaty, which - if ratified - will make significant changes in the way the Union operates. Eurosceptics are furious that the treaty has been ‘railroaded’ through to its final stages of ratification, despite initial opposition from Ireland, which first voted against the Treaty in a national referendum only for the result to be reversed after pressure from Brussels to hold a second vote. Vaclav Klaus, the Czech President and ferocious critic of the Treaty, has been leading a concerted campaign to stop ratification which has won support from various nationalist politicians around the continent.
The emergence of Blair as a serious contender has been viewed with dismay by centre-left parties throughout the EU; who are desperately looking for an alternative contender. The most obvious stain on his record is the Iraq war, with the forthcoming inquiry likely to be heavily critical of his support for the US in bypassing the UN and pressing ahead with the military intervention.
But Blair’s refusal to consider British membership of the Euro or the open-border Schengen arrangement also calls into question his European credentials. The role of EU President must be to represent the majority view held by member states that single currency is an economically sound decision. The logic of European integration is that member states cooperate on projects that are of interest to the Union as a whole. Blair, as Prime Minister, embedded Britain’s status as an EU pariah, ruling out discussion on Euro membership and pursuing an unrelenting approach to foreign affairs that clashed with the more cooperative agenda of the other major Western European member states.
The socialist grouping the European parliament, with which Blair is theoretically aligned, is rightly hostile to his breathtaking arrogance regarding the position he is seeking. According to the Independent, Gordon Brown’s arrival at the two-day EU summit in Brussels the other week was marked by a “shouting match” between Brown and Martin Schultz, the leader of the Socialist group, with Brown defending Blair’s supposed record as a “passionate pro-European”. The Times reported that Blair was only interested in the position if it is “substantial…requiring clout on the world stage.” Allies of the former Prime Minister have confirmed that he would not consider the position if it is seen as having only limited possibilities in terms of global influence.
This is hardly surprising. Blair’s period in office was marked by an imperious leadership style through which - like Thatcher before him - he aimed to sideline opposition within his own party and cabinet, and instead run the country as he personally saw fit. His huge electoral majorities of 1997 and 2001, which brought with them the potential for serious reform, were thrown to waste as the government embarked on socially and economically suicidal programmes that have only embedded the inequality that was the trademark of Conservative government.
Admitting Blair’s toxic brand of individualism to the heart of European decision-making is the recipe for unmitigated disaster. The debate over the Lisbon Treaty has been cynically exploited by a range of far-right parties, represented in Britain by the BNP and UKIP. They have, with some success, equated membership of the EU as adversely affecting the democratic rights of European citizens. The more hysterical members of the anti-EU clan have even attempted to paint a picture of Brussels as the capital of a Europe-wide empire of bureaucracy that will, if the Treaty is ratified, stifle the last remnants of opposition.
Most of this, of course, is grossly exaggerated. While concern about the EU’s democratic shortcomings are well founded - members of some institutions in Brussels such as the Commission are not elected - the notion of a battle for democracy is preposterous. The EU has in fact played an important role in upholding, not suppressing, the rights of its citizens. The European Court of Human Rights has seen its caseload increase dramatically in recent years, with the backlog standing at 70,000 as of early 2007. Many of these cases relate to human rights abuses in central and eastern Europe, where judicial rigour is sometimes questionable. The Court was also responsible for upholding the right of gay men and women to serve openly in the military in Britain.
Sending Blair to Brussels would have the effect if exacerbating the influence of virulent Eurosceptics who pedal this misinformation. The Labour party, struggling for electoral survival, could not score a more sensational own goal than supporting the candidacy of this discredited and morally bankrupt man.
But this is precisely what it is doing. On the BBC’s Question Time, former Home Secretary Jacqui Smith stated that Blair was “accountable to the 27 member states” of the EU and that he was the only candidate capable of making people “listen and engage.”
Accountable to who exactly? Blair will be appointed, not elected, and his record on European integration is a far cry from the integrationist and co-operative approach required to succeed. Journalist John Sergeant supported Smith‘s position, accusing “small-minded” politicians of descending into a “silly squabble” about “how we don’t like Tony Blair”, he advocated Blair’s candidacy because “it’s always important to make sure that as many Brits as possible are in the senior positions [in Europe]”. It is precisely this flawed nationalistic view of the EU - that Britain is right and the other member states are wrong - that has limited, not extended this country’s political influence in Brussels.
Blair’s interest in a high profile role in Europe will not allay the fears of many European citizens who are angry or perplexed by the workings of the organisation. A more low-profile candidate, focused on addressing the EU’s failings rather than advertising it to the world, may well reduce the sense of detachment felt by many people in its member states. Speaking on the ITV’s News at Ten, Jean Asselborn, Luxembourg’s Deputy Prime Minister, noted the “link for the coming generations between Iraq, Bush and Blair. Sometimes in politics you have to show that you can bring thing together and not divide them. There are better candidates than Tony Blair.”
If EU politicians have any sense, they will realise that the solution to Europe’s problems lie with a more humble and honest politician that Tony Blair can ever hope to be.
From Student Direct
Well they were warned again and again and now - finally - they seem to be listening.
The wheels of Tony Blair’s Presidential bandwagon appear to be fast coming loose as European leaders turn on the former Prime Minister. France and Germany, the major European political powerhouses whose support is widely acknowledged as being essential if Blair is to win the post, appear to be cooling to the prospect of his controversial appointment as President of the EU. Angela Merkel, whose re-election as German Chancellor has greatly increased her European clout as a result of her increased electoral majority, is withholding her vital support.
And rightly so. The EU is facing a serious crisis of credibility in the wake of the bloody battle over the Lisbon Treaty, which - if ratified - will make significant changes in the way the Union operates. Eurosceptics are furious that the treaty has been ‘railroaded’ through to its final stages of ratification, despite initial opposition from Ireland, which first voted against the Treaty in a national referendum only for the result to be reversed after pressure from Brussels to hold a second vote. Vaclav Klaus, the Czech President and ferocious critic of the Treaty, has been leading a concerted campaign to stop ratification which has won support from various nationalist politicians around the continent.
The emergence of Blair as a serious contender has been viewed with dismay by centre-left parties throughout the EU; who are desperately looking for an alternative contender. The most obvious stain on his record is the Iraq war, with the forthcoming inquiry likely to be heavily critical of his support for the US in bypassing the UN and pressing ahead with the military intervention.
But Blair’s refusal to consider British membership of the Euro or the open-border Schengen arrangement also calls into question his European credentials. The role of EU President must be to represent the majority view held by member states that single currency is an economically sound decision. The logic of European integration is that member states cooperate on projects that are of interest to the Union as a whole. Blair, as Prime Minister, embedded Britain’s status as an EU pariah, ruling out discussion on Euro membership and pursuing an unrelenting approach to foreign affairs that clashed with the more cooperative agenda of the other major Western European member states.
The socialist grouping the European parliament, with which Blair is theoretically aligned, is rightly hostile to his breathtaking arrogance regarding the position he is seeking. According to the Independent, Gordon Brown’s arrival at the two-day EU summit in Brussels the other week was marked by a “shouting match” between Brown and Martin Schultz, the leader of the Socialist group, with Brown defending Blair’s supposed record as a “passionate pro-European”. The Times reported that Blair was only interested in the position if it is “substantial…requiring clout on the world stage.” Allies of the former Prime Minister have confirmed that he would not consider the position if it is seen as having only limited possibilities in terms of global influence.
This is hardly surprising. Blair’s period in office was marked by an imperious leadership style through which - like Thatcher before him - he aimed to sideline opposition within his own party and cabinet, and instead run the country as he personally saw fit. His huge electoral majorities of 1997 and 2001, which brought with them the potential for serious reform, were thrown to waste as the government embarked on socially and economically suicidal programmes that have only embedded the inequality that was the trademark of Conservative government.
Admitting Blair’s toxic brand of individualism to the heart of European decision-making is the recipe for unmitigated disaster. The debate over the Lisbon Treaty has been cynically exploited by a range of far-right parties, represented in Britain by the BNP and UKIP. They have, with some success, equated membership of the EU as adversely affecting the democratic rights of European citizens. The more hysterical members of the anti-EU clan have even attempted to paint a picture of Brussels as the capital of a Europe-wide empire of bureaucracy that will, if the Treaty is ratified, stifle the last remnants of opposition.
Most of this, of course, is grossly exaggerated. While concern about the EU’s democratic shortcomings are well founded - members of some institutions in Brussels such as the Commission are not elected - the notion of a battle for democracy is preposterous. The EU has in fact played an important role in upholding, not suppressing, the rights of its citizens. The European Court of Human Rights has seen its caseload increase dramatically in recent years, with the backlog standing at 70,000 as of early 2007. Many of these cases relate to human rights abuses in central and eastern Europe, where judicial rigour is sometimes questionable. The Court was also responsible for upholding the right of gay men and women to serve openly in the military in Britain.
Sending Blair to Brussels would have the effect if exacerbating the influence of virulent Eurosceptics who pedal this misinformation. The Labour party, struggling for electoral survival, could not score a more sensational own goal than supporting the candidacy of this discredited and morally bankrupt man.
But this is precisely what it is doing. On the BBC’s Question Time, former Home Secretary Jacqui Smith stated that Blair was “accountable to the 27 member states” of the EU and that he was the only candidate capable of making people “listen and engage.”
Accountable to who exactly? Blair will be appointed, not elected, and his record on European integration is a far cry from the integrationist and co-operative approach required to succeed. Journalist John Sergeant supported Smith‘s position, accusing “small-minded” politicians of descending into a “silly squabble” about “how we don’t like Tony Blair”, he advocated Blair’s candidacy because “it’s always important to make sure that as many Brits as possible are in the senior positions [in Europe]”. It is precisely this flawed nationalistic view of the EU - that Britain is right and the other member states are wrong - that has limited, not extended this country’s political influence in Brussels.
Blair’s interest in a high profile role in Europe will not allay the fears of many European citizens who are angry or perplexed by the workings of the organisation. A more low-profile candidate, focused on addressing the EU’s failings rather than advertising it to the world, may well reduce the sense of detachment felt by many people in its member states. Speaking on the ITV’s News at Ten, Jean Asselborn, Luxembourg’s Deputy Prime Minister, noted the “link for the coming generations between Iraq, Bush and Blair. Sometimes in politics you have to show that you can bring thing together and not divide them. There are better candidates than Tony Blair.”
If EU politicians have any sense, they will realise that the solution to Europe’s problems lie with a more humble and honest politician that Tony Blair can ever hope to be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
