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.

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.

The truth about the 'special relationship'

Published in Student Direct

Delusion is rife in Westminster. With President Obama busily attempting to complete reforms on climate change and healthcare, the British government is convinced that the ‘special relationship’ between itself and Washington is as important as ever. Brown, since the American election last year, has tried to paint himself as a force for ‘change’ in British politics, a hopelessly vague agenda that seeks to please everyone, but actually has resulted in alienating his own party and plunging ratings in opinion polls that now seem irreversible.

The notion of the ‘relationship’ dates back to the Second World War, when British and American cooperation against Nazi Germany become symbolic of their populations’ disgust at Hitler’s fascist policies. Churchill first used the phrase during a speech in March 1946 on the development of the ‘Iron Curtain’ developing between West and East. During the Blair years, Anglo-American partnership in foreign policy seemed solid, with Britain staunchly defending George Bush as he waged his monstrous neo-conservative ‘War on Terror’ campaign. The partnership was also visible between Blair and Clinton during the Kosovo war, with the ‘progressive’ pair promising that Anglo-American attempts to secure an end to the conflict could be the only solution.

But the reality is that Anglo-American relations are spectacularly one-sided. The political changes being wrought by Obama are largely independent of any cooperation or input from Britain. Obama came to power with a promise to look again at the failed policies of the Bush years, particularly in terms of addressing the country’s economic problems. But pressure for an alternative policy on these issues has come from the global community as a whole.

The richest countries are becoming increasingly alert to the devastating effect that global warming is having on the planet. Whilst poorer countries naturally object to more stringent controls on Carbon Dioxide emissions, because of their economic value, there is a growing consensus that climate change is a massive threat to the world’s population. A simple change of government in Australia in 2007 brought about a swift U-turn in policy, with the current prime minister Kevin Rudd enthusiastically signing up to the Kyoto protocol shortly after taking office.

During his election campaign, Obama signalled a desire for increased co-operation with the EU, as a major global financial and political player. At a speech in Berlin, he promised American cooperation in global issues, hinting at an end to American single-track foreign policy so commonly associated with his predecessor. The Obama campaign noted, importantly, that “The Bush administration’s policy of “divide and rule,” splitting Europe into those who were “with us or against us,” has been counterproductive. The United States has an interest in a strong united, and peaceful Europe as a partner in global affairs.”

Obama’s realisation that multilateralism is the way forward in terms of conducting global affairs has laid the building blocks for the development of relationships between Washington and other states in a more meaningful manner than has occurred in the past. With the defeat of the Tories at the 1997 election, Labour embarked on a healing process with the EU, cooperating on the Social Chapter, which deals primarily with social policy and workers’ rights. But this effort was undermined by the critical mistake made by Blair in following a unilateral stance on foreign affairs that strongly resembled Washington’s.

Obama has also signalled a desire to look again at the Middle East crisis and offer a more even-handed approach to the problem, in strong contrast to the staunch support offered by Bush to Israel. But the fact remains that Obama’s desire to broker a deal on the Israeli-Palestinian issue is overshadowed by the virtual impossibility of altering Israeli government policy. The Israeli right-wing government, led by Benjamin Netanyahu, has so far expressed strong resistance to American demands that negotiations on the settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip are a beginning in the process of resolving the conflict.

Michael Heseltine, speaking on the BBC‘s Question Time, condemned the supposed ‘special‘ Anglo-American relationship as “the most naïve delusion fostered on this side of the Atlantic; hardly ever referred to on the other side.” He accurately identified the real relationship of importance: “If America has a ‘special relationship’ it is with Israel. But outside that they have relationships of all sorts of different countries.”

The British obsession with the ‘special relationship’ has caused ruptures within its political parties over the years - the bitter division of Labour party supporters when Tony Blair elected to support Bush on the Iraq war demonstrated that disillusionment with the ‘special relationship’ runs through the political establishment as well as being vented by demonstrators opposed to the American foreign policy doctrine. Whilst the British government is keen to re-affirm its support for the White House, it must realise that in doing so the government potentially ties itself to a political agenda that does not meet British political interests in the long run.

With the general election looming here in Britain, David Cameron and the Conservatives must acknowledge the pitfalls of blindly associating with the White House, whatever Obama’s good intentions. If he wins next year, Cameron must urgently address his party’s bitter divisions over EU membership. Obama is also likely to face trouble, with the Democrats divided between the fiscally conservative ‘blue dog’ camp and the more liberal wing of the party.

These divisions could well derail Obama’s plans to act decisively on global issues such as the Middle East and climate change. His party, long the wet-blanket party of American politics, is incapable of thought or decisive action. The next British government must realise that in the American political establishment, Obama is the exception - not the rule. In aspiring to appease American wishes, the next British government must realise that it runs the risk of further electoral disillusionment. It must acknowledge that the ‘special relationship’ has been exaggerated, and that with Obama’s time in office comes the possibility of increased cooperation on global scale. Neither Labour nor the Tories can afford a cataclysmic internal battle - and adopting compromises with the EU and other major world players such as China and Japan is surely a better key to success than blind faith in Washington.

Unhealthy intimidation

The lunacy of the American Right appears to have reached new heights with last weekend's protest in Washington against Obama's healthcare package. The Guardian reports that protesters deemed it necessary to compare the President to Hitler and portray him as a terrorist.

The report notes:

"The organisers of the march represent a ragbag coalition of disparate groups, joined at the hip by their hatred of Obama's perceived radicalism. They include right-wing thinktanks such as the Heartland Institute, small government campaigns like Americans for Tax Reform and Tea Party Patriots, and internet-based protest networks such as ResistNet."

The debate over healthcare reform has drawn out some unsavoury remarks from Republican ranks in recent months, with a concerted effort to portray Obama as a "socialist" - a threat to the American way of life.

But the real threat comes from the political establishment. The Democrats, as usual the wet blanket party of American politics, have allowed themselves to be intimidated by both the Republican party and the fringe fanatics who bang the rightwing drum. Already the plans are being watered down as a result of threats from fiscally conservative "Blue Dog Democrats" that they will withold support for reform if Obama's plans are seen as too "radical."

The Guardian notes:

"Democratic commentators were quick to dismiss the protest as the ranting of an intensely motivated but electorally marginal rightwing alliance. The Obama administration is intent on pressing ahead with selling health reform to the US public, despite all the rightwing noise."

But Obama must realise that his own ranks may prove far more dangerous than this rabble in the long run.