The New Climate. New(s)letter #10
Political change, not climate change.
I write this on the morning of the UK general election. When you read this, it may have already happened, and the result known. And we’ll find out if the bottle of Champagne* I bought to celebrate the end of 14 years of environmental vandalism and societal sabotage by the Conservative government, was popped or if the cork remains sadly intact. (*Well, Prosecco — no-one can afford real Champagne anymore, obvs.)
I will spare you my election commentary — a lot been said and written, and the polls indicate a clear favourite — but my fear all along has been apathy. A general fatigue with politics and politicians aligning with a sense of “well the polls say they’ll win anyway, so why should I bother to vote? I’ll just watch it on the telly”. For anyone in the Anglosphere still mentally scarred (which includes me) from the results of 2016, we know how that goes. No-one knows what you believe in, unless you vote. Not turning out is not a protest. A protest vote, meanwhile, is anything but apathetic. Neither is voting for the so-called ‘obvious choice’. A vote is always an expression of agency.
Avinash B’s article earlier this month, How Political Apathy Is Hurting Climate Action, then, hit the nail on the head. The Greens lost 28% of their seats in the EU elections, and Avinash puts much of that down to low voter turnout. In 2024, voter turnout barely broke the halfway mark, at 51% — down from 58.1% back in 2005. Low turnout, it seems, hits Green and progressive climate parties the hardest. Whatever else can be said about the anti-immigration and climate denialist voters, apathy doesn’t seem to be one of them. If we want to see truly urgent climate policies delivered, we need to match — and ideally surpass — their zeal. As Avinash concludes, “With upcoming national elections in France, UK, Germany and of course the USA, everyone that cares even a little about the future of the world needs to turn up to vote, and vote for candidates that will further the climate action agenda.” Hear, hear. (And btw, I was really surprised that his piece wasn’t given a Boost by the Medium Curation Team, so please do give it/him some love with claps and comments).
The time for vague ‘save the planet’ chants are long gone. We need specifics (and when do we want them? Now.) We had articles this month on what climate progressive policies could and should look like. Jerren Gan makes the case for carbon pricing — something that has been touted for as long as I’ve been writing about climate change, and has drifted in and out of fashion. The basic premise however has always been sensible and simple, as nicely summarised by Jerren: “… increasing the costs of pollutive activities makes them less attractive to consumers, reducing the number of such activities happening in general (while nudging these consumers towards less pollutive activities).”
Ricky Lanusse weighs up the benefits of a Livestock Carbon Tax. But rather than making food more expensive, its about levelling the playing field. The EU and US provide the meat and diary industry with around 1,000 times more subsidies than plant-based and lab-grown alternatives, according to a multi-year study. Subsidies accounted for at least 50% of EU cattle farmer’s income. What if those subsidies were still given to farmers, but for plant-based protein instead, making overall protein more available and cheaper to buy, but making meat what it had always been for the majority of human existence — an occasional treat?
Of course, the darker side of politics — particularly when the Hard Right get into power — is all too evident in today’s world. Climate wars is a controversial subject, but Stephen Kamugasa gives us his deeply considered and informed take in How To Fight Climate Change Amid Conflict. Stephen hosts a podcast on genocide, recorded in Uganda, and has spoken to many experts on this. The links to climate are now hard to ignore — as is, he suggests, the UN’s impotence to stop it. What can be done to change this blood-strewn stasis will arguably be the biggest question — alongside emissions reduction — facing humanity this century.
We need new ideas, then, not old — and military muscle, invasion and genocide are surely ones of the Old World that refuse to die. From UN climate negotiations to heat pumps, lessons from 19th Century environmentalists to blockchain smart contracts, there’s plenty of ideas coming through The New Climate at present. I hope it sparks thoughts and inspires action. But without wishing to fire up the old ‘personal action versus systematic change’ argument, there is one beautiful moment where those two Venn diagram circles roll towards each other and become one: at the ballot box. Let’s vote for change.
Tim Smedley, The Editor, The New Climate.
Addendum: 5th July 2024, the morning after…
It went well… ;-)
