Written by Gabriel Levy and first posted at People and Nature
Key effects
of global warming were reported bluntly to millions of TV viewers in the
documentary Climate Change:
The Facts, on BBC One on Thursday 18 April.
“It may sound frightening”, the super-popular TV naturalist David Attenborough said, introducing the show, “but the scientific evidence is that if we have not taken dramatic action within the next decade, we could face irreversible damage to the natural world and the collapse of our societies”.
The press
loved it. “A call to arms”, The Guardian said. Would it “wake up
philanthropists, investors and governments to act?” Forbes asked.
I wondered: why now?
The BBC
hasn’t exactly rushed to portray global warming accurately. In 2011, two
decades after the international climate talks started at Rio, scientists were slamming
the BBC for giving air time to climate science deniers. In 2014, a BBC
memo told journalists to stop pretending “balance” was needed between climate
science and its deniers – but the practice continued, leading to
another edict in September last year. By that time, researchers had started
refusing to come into BBC studios to debate deniers.
But
high-profile BBC journalists still felt compelled to interview anti-science
nutters who are paid by the fossil fuel industry to advise Donald Trump. In
October last year, when the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change report outlined measures to limit warming to 1.5
degrees above the pre-industrial level, Evan Davies of Newsnight gave Myron
Ebell air-time to rubbish it.
By some
standards, the BBC is doing well. After all, it took the Vatican 359 years to apologise
for forcing Galileo Galilei to deny his finding that the earth goes around
the sun.
The BBC aired Climate Change: The Facts a mere 30 years after scientists nailed down the causal role of fossil fuel combustion and other economic activity in global warming. Well done.
The BBC aired Climate Change: The Facts a mere 30 years after scientists nailed down the causal role of fossil fuel combustion and other economic activity in global warming. Well done.
So, why now?
Two main reasons, to my mind.
► 1. The
reality of global warming is becoming blindingly obvious. Twenty of the hottest
years ever recorded were in the last 22 years. Effects such as floods and the
wrecking of agriculture have been felt in the global south for many years. Now
rich countries, too, are being hit. Climate Change: The Facts dealt with this
well, showing the devastation caused by wildfires and rising sea levels in the
USA.
► 2. A
completely new protest movement – directed, essentially, against politicians’
failure to act on global warming – has emerged, with school
students’ strikes and large-scale non-violent direct action by Extinction Rebellion (XR).
The school
strikes have spread apparently completely outside of the influence of, let
alone control by, existing political or environmentalist organisations. XR
seems politically similar to earlier environmentalist groups – but, certainly
here in the UK, no such group previously has brought so many people into
potential confrontation with the law.
The political
establishment’s instinct, I think, is to use a combination of dialogue,
concessions, co-optation, and rhetoric to tame, constrain and control these
movements. That’s not to say that repression will play no part: the police
could abandon, at least partially, their softly-softly approach to XR. But social
control under capitalism is as much about ideology and opinions as it is about
violence and repression. (I am thinking about the UK, although some of these
points apply more widely.)
Power, and
the wealth it represents, can live with a “climate movement” that does not
threaten its control of the economy and of society. Narratives that presume
that existing political structures and parties could and should “solve” the
global warming problem will be able to echo through the mainstream. Power has
an interest in convincing people it is listening to them – and, since it knows
people are not stupid, part of its technique is actually to do so.
The last 20
minutes of Climate Change: The Facts told the standard mainstream tale of how
governments are dealing with global warming. It highlighted the 2015 Paris
agreement – but not the fact that it simply continued a quarter of a century of
negotiations, during which global fossil fuel use rose by half. It acknowledged
that oil and coal companies resist change – but did not mention how governments
support them with hundreds of billions of dollars of subsidies.
A real
conversation about tackling global warming will start not with the
international climate talks but with a recognition of their disastrous failure.
I am not a
crazy conspiracy theorist who thinks David Attenborough is an instrument of
some shadowy controllers. But clearly he is a suitable figurehead to bring
“solutions” to global warming, that have been discussed for years among small
groups of diplomats, politicians and NGOs at the climate talks, to a wider
public. Because, as the Daily
Telegraph put it, “we all trust Attenborough”.
The
mainstream media discussion, of which Climate Change: The Facts is part,
assumes that not only existing political structures, but also economic and social
structures, can deal with the problem.
The
possibility of bigger social transformations directed at overturning
relationships of power and wealth – and the thought that these may be the most
effective way, or even the only way, that the fossil fuel juggernaut can be
stopped – is given little or no air-time. The idea that, in the rich world,
people could live more happily outside the corporate-controlled fuel-guzzling
technological systems in which they are currently trapped, is almost completely
absent. So are suggestions that the global south is not doomed to follow this
so-called “path of development”.
Admittedly George
Monbiot’s call to “overthrow this system that is eating the planet” made it
on to Frankie Boyle’s late-night comedy show. The media knows how to
marginalise and patronise us, too.
I hope that
the new climate movements will become open forums where ideas about radical
social, political and technological change will be discussed. Let’s resist the
pressure to corall the conversation within the mainstream’s ideological fences.
Take XR’s main political demand in the UK – that the country’s economy should be carbon neutral by 2025. Easy to say, hard to achieve.
One of the
first questions XR will have to answer is the one posed in France: what about
attacks on working people’s living standards packaged and presented as measures
to deal with climate change? Such as the proposed diesel tax that triggered the
“yellow vests” revolt in December last year.
Working-class
people in France saw the tax as a neo-liberal austerity measure, dressed in
“environmentalist” clothes, and revolted against it accordingly. “The elites
talk about the end of the world, while we talk about the end of the month”, was
(reportedly) a recurring
theme.
A “climate
movement” in the global north, divorced from the justified anger against
neo-liberalism displayed by many “yellow vests”, is doomed to fail on a social
level, and fatally flawed politically.
The whole
point of neo-liberal “austerity” policies, practiced by president Emmanuel
Macron in France today and by successive UK governments since the 1980s, is to
protect and support the constantly-expanding capitalist economy, and the way it
is structured to benefit the 1% – which, in turn, is the main cause of global
warming.
The “yellow
vests”, other anti-austerity movements, the school strikers and XR “rebels” are
all up against the same machine. We all need common language and common
politics (for practical suggestions, see the links at the end).
The issues we
should focus on, I think, are “how can we unite these movements?” and “how can
we develop real democracy, independent of the state, through which to work out
measures adequate to prevent dangerous climate change?”. Rather than, “what
advice can we give existing political structures – who have known for years how
climate change could be avoided and have refused to act?”
If you think
I am exaggerating about the danger of climate protest being co-opted and
controlled, think about the fight against racism.
In the early
1980s, as the post-war social consensus was breaking down and Margaret Thatcher
became UK prime minister, that fight centred on the 1981 riots. Black Britons, and
others in their communities, turned the “inner cities” upside down and demanded
better.
In the 1990s, when Tony Blair’s “New Labour” took over from the Tories, anti-racist narratives were increasingly co-opted and controlled. The 1999 Macpherson report into the killing of Stephen Lawrence, a black teenager, was a turning point: it found that the notoriously botched murder investigation showed that the police force was “institutionally racist”.
The
establishment’s embrace of anti-racism produced many positive outcomes. Victims
less often faced the wall of hostility the Lawrence family had faced. In
schools, on the streets and in football grounds, open expressions of racism
were challenged. The popular press changed, veering between subtle and
subliminal forms of racism to competing for hypocritical “moral” high ground in
denouncing racist individuals.
But the social and economic structures that multiply and encourage racism went untouched. The Blair government pressed ahead with sanctions against, and the 2003 invasion of, Iraq – resulting in the fundamentally racist mass murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians. Inherently racist immigration policies were tightened.
But the social and economic structures that multiply and encourage racism went untouched. The Blair government pressed ahead with sanctions against, and the 2003 invasion of, Iraq – resulting in the fundamentally racist mass murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians. Inherently racist immigration policies were tightened.
The end of
this process is the current resurgence of racism. The structural underpinnings
are UK support for new wars in the Middle East, in the first place the
genocidal Saudi onslaught on Yemen, and the vicious “hostile environment” for
migrants. The ideological outcomes are vicious Islamophobia throughout society
and the recent upsurge of racist street actions.
Climate
change, like racism, is a big, multi-faceted problem that defies simple
“solutions”. Dealing with it means dealing with the social and economic system
that has produced it. Don’t let the political elite and its media set the terms
of our discussions about how to do so.
Some People & Nature articles on measures needed to combat global warming:
Some People & Nature articles on measures needed to combat global warming:
■ And there’s
plenty more via the site contents
No comments:
Post a Comment