5/11/24: A Very Bad Day

The news that Trump has won the vote and will become the next US president is bad for America. It's also bad for democracy, both there and everywhere else. It's bad for the rule of law, for women's rights, for civility in public discourse and for respect for facts. And its bad for the global climate. And for everyone who depends on it. Which is everyone.

The world climate is getting worse. The temperature increase will shortly exceed 1.5C and may reach 3C. But we're also at a point from which peak emissions may be in sight. GreenTech deployment in China and the misnamed (but who cares?) US Inflation Reduction Act are hopeful signs. We are not at peak. And the best that can happen now may not be enough to save us. But there is still hope.

Trump will undermine that hope. The measures in Project 2025 would stop government scientists from discussing the causes of climate change and government officials from even planning to mitigate that change. Or, appallingly, from planning emergency response to extreme weather events. Now we don't know whether Trump will do all that. He may do less. We do know that everything he does do will make effective climate action in the US much harder and will therefore make it harder everywhere. 

It's customary to end a post like this with optimism, however qualified. I can offer only two things. He can only be president for 4 years and he is not immortal.

What Tugendhat should have said

Yesterday I heard Tom Tugendhat on Radio 4 explaining his bid to be the next Tory leader. He said that the Tory party had made mistakes and lost people’s trust. So far so good. But he refused either to say what the mistakes were or to propose policies to avoid repeating them.

And that’s odd because some simple answers are available even to a Tory politician.

Why did the party lose public trust? The reasons include corruption, entitlement, economic recklessness, austerity, immigration, the state of the NHS, financing of elderly care and U turns on climate. In four areas there are policies that most decent people would support.

Some easy wins

Corruption. Tugendhat could say that never again would a Tory government create a VIP lane to bypass public procurement rules.

He could promise that if he becomes PM he would increase the staff of the Serious Fraud Office. He would also promise that every meeting between ministers and lobbyists, pressure groups or business people would be announced publicly and minuted by civil servants.

Entitlement. Tugendhat could say that as opposition leader he would make the shadow cabinet subject to the ministerial code.

He could say that if he becomes PM he would strengthen the code and put final determination of fault in the hands of a commissioner for standards not, as now, the PM.

And, trivial but a good signal, he could ensure that MPs would no longer enjoy subsidised food and drink in bars and restaurants at Westminster.

Economic recklessness. Tugendhat could say that every government financial announcement should be informed by the view of the OBR. 

Climate. Tugendhat could support the unblocking of plans for onshore wind farms and blocking of new North Sea oil and gas licences.

These actions and promises would show that he has learnt some of the lessons and has plans. Plans that would not be expensive. And would indicate serious commitment.

Will Tugendhat adopt these plans? Will any Tory candidate? Probably not. And that will show that they have not yet learned the lessons of government.

The hard stuff

What about the rest? Austerity, immigration, the state of the NHS, financing of elderly care and effective action on climate? These are much harder. Good solutions are expensive and Tory beliefs and track record make it hard for Tories to choose them. But there are some positions he could take quickly, which would show goodwill and enjoy broad support in the country:

1.      Lift the two child cap. If Braverman can do it surely Tugendhat can?

2.      Allow, in fact encourage, asylum seekers to work.

3.      Pay junior doctors enough to end the dispute.

4.      An insurance-based scheme for elderly care based on the Dilnot Report.

5.      Every major decision should be informed by the view of the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) and every government bill should be accompanied by a calculation of the effect on emissions.

 

Its even less likely that he'll take these positions and they would, of course, only be a start. But they would be much better than nothing. 

Lost rights are features, not bugs, of the pro-growth ideology

 

Kate Raworth (What does progress look like on a planet at its limit?, Guardian, 13 May 2024) is right to recognise the need to achieve progress without economic growth. Growth is inconsistent with the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions that is essential if we are to preserve a liveable world.

But she is wrong to see the other bad effects of ‘pro-growth’ policies as accidents; unfortunate results that could have been avoided by better governance. For instance, she suggests that “cutting red tape” need not result in reducing workers’ rights and environmental protections. But that’s wrong because reducing workers’ rights and environmental protections is what ‘growth’ advocates like the Tufton Street think-tanks mean by cutting red tape. It’s also why they want it done.

And they want this to boost the profits of companies they own or invest in or that fund them or because, having lives of privilege, they cannot imagine needing the law’s protection at work.  

So just as ending growth is essential for planetary survival so ending the influence of growth advocates in media and government is essential for creating a sustainable economy.

How can we do this whilst retaining free speech?  I suggest two changes:

1. Require all think-tanks and pressure groups to reveal their funding. Let's know who their paymasters are!

2. Extend 'balance' requirements in public broadcasting to include pro and con views on economic growth.
   

Word, words, words. I'm so sick of words

Words matter and I like Liam Kavanagh's discussion of climate words. 

Kavanagh argues that if we say “1.5 is alive” many readers will think we mean “we’ve got a practical chance of meeting 1.5 °C with the political processes we have in place”. And that, of course, is nonsense.

The IPCC Synthesis report says explicitly that we need (para C.1)

“increased international cooperation including improved access to adequate financial resources, particularly for vulnerable regions, sectors and groups, and inclusive governance and coordinated policies".

Indeed we do but we shan't get it without profound political change.

So we should stop saying the comfortable positive things. If we must say that 1.5 is alive we MUST add that it can only stay alive if we move immediately to increased international cooperation on priorities and funding, and everything else. 

As XR says - Tell the truth.

Excessive optimism by the IPCC

The IPCC has been praised for the stark realism of its recent Synthesis Report[1]. And it’s true that the tone is bleaker and the language more forceful than in previous reports.

But overall I believe it’s far too optimistic. I don’t doubt the science. We do need “deep global GHG emissions reductions this decade” (paras A.4.3 and B.5.1) in order to have even a 50% chance of limiting warming to 1.5°C.

It’s the recommendations! They would be right for a world in which world leaders were good people. People who followed the evidence to find then implement solutions to the climate crisis.

That’s not the world we live in.

The climate emergency is a global crisis, well beyond the control of any one state. The IPCC rightly describes international cooperation as a “critical enabler” (para C.7.6, also para C.1). But you might as well ask Boris Johnson to unite with the EU or Vladimir Putin to respect human rights.

Over and over again progress at the UNFCCC COPs has been blocked by leaders who care more for short-term national advantage and the profits of oil companies than long-term global survival. In the UK, USA, Russia, China, Hungary, Italy, India – it would be tedious to go on – the last decade has the rise of nationalists who barely even claim to respect international law and democratic values. The willingness of countries to collaborate on anything except trade is markedly lower than it was when the UNFCCC process started.

And let’s look at money. We need, the IPCC says, “improved access to finance for low-emissions infrastructure and technologies, especially in developing countries (C.2.5)”.

In the real world the major nations have so far failed consistently to provide climate finance at the long-promised $100B per year. And they have yet to agree numbers or a mechanism to pay for the loss and damage they have caused.

There is just no chance that they will suddenly see the error of their ways and do what’s necessary.

So I just ask this. Shouldn’t the IPCC  be writing for the world we actually live in?

---

[1] IPCC AR6 Synthesis Report (2023)