I am very pleased to be here today to ask the Candidates a question on energy policy, because you can’t talk about energy without discussing Climate Change, and there is surely no issue in the world right now which is more important to the future of human civilisation, yet where political leadership is so obviously lacking.
The integrity of the science that warns of the danger is constantly
being reinforced, whilst those that deny the problem are regularly shown to
have none. The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, led by a Climate
Change sceptic and partly funded by Climate Change deniers, confirmed the
predictions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whilst the
astrophysicist Willie Soon, a prominent critic of the scientific consensus in
the media, turned out to be fully funded by the fossil fuel industry.
We have been aware of this problem for more than a quarter
of a century, yet our efforts to deal with it have come to nothing. Market
based solutions have conspicuously failed. Indeed, Sir Nicholas Stern has
called Climate Change the “greatest and
widest-ranging market failure ever seen”.
The politicians have done a little better than the business
leaders. In 2008 the previous UK government passed the Climate Change Act which
requires an 80% reduction in Greenhouse Gas emission by 2050, but then this
year the current government passed the Infrastructure Bill which includes the
legal requirement to ‘maximise economic recovery of
UK petroleum.’
Meanwhile the fossil fuel industry continues to benefit from
billions of pounds of state subsidies much of it hidden. British companies mine
the tar sands of Canada, explore for new oil in the pristine wilderness of the
Arctic or look to exploit the shale gas in the rocks beneath our feet in Greater Manchester.
Internationally the politics is stalled. Negotiations to get
a global deal come of age this year with the COP21 meeting in Paris, yet we are
no nearer a stalled. Few people would argue with George Monbiot’s description
of the process as “hundreds of intelligent,
educated, well-paid and elegantly-dressed people wasting their lives”.
And it’s not as if we don’t know what needs to be done.
Renewable energy, better public transport and more insulation in our homes is
pretty much all that is needed. What’s more, whilst a cleaner air, less traffic
and warmer houses are all desirable things in their own right, the Campaign
Against Climate Change has shown that making this happen will create one
million new jobs, meaning the solution to our climate crisis can also be the
solution to our social crisis.
It will take a fair bit of investment, but less than it took
to save the financial system after the Credit Crunch. If the banks were too big
to fail, then the climate definitely is.
So what is to be done?
The Guardian newspaper, our only newspaper not owned by a
billionaire, is putting its weight behind the fossil fuel divestment campaign and
efforts to keep the carbon in the ground the case for which, says editor Alan
Rushbridger, “is becoming an overwhelming
one”.
So my question to the Candidates is in three parts; do they
accept the science of Climate Change, do they agree that what we have tried so
far to solve the problem has failed and most likely will continue to fail, and
will they support the campaign to keep fossil fuel fuels in the ground by saying
no to imports of Canadian tar sand oil, stopping British companies drilling in
the Arctic Ocean and ending the rush to frack for shale gas?
No comments:
Post a Comment