The Climate Crisis and a Global Green New Deal

 

Two Interviews with Robert Pollin conducted by C.J. Polychroniou and first published at Truthout

·        An overview perspective on a global Green New Deal vs. degrowth perspectives as climate stabilization programs

·       Discussion of a specific Green New Deal program for California

This is the first part of an exchange between Robert Pollin and Don Fitz for ZNet.  The second portion will be a response by Don Fitz.  The third portion will be a short rejoinder by Pollin to that article.  The final portion will be a short closing statement by Fitz.

Robert Pollin is Distinguished University Professor of Economics and Co-Director of the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.  His recent work on this issue includes the books Greening the Global Economy and Climate Crisis and the Global Green New Deal (co-authored with Noam Chomsky), as well as green transformation programs for 9 U.S. states—New York, Washington, Colorado, Maine, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and California. 

He is currently also working with the national Green New Deal Network to develop and advance the national THRIVE Agenda—a program to “Transform, Heal, and Renew by Investing in a Vibrant Economy.”

Perspectives on the Green New Deal and Degrowth

(originally published in Truthout 7/3/21)

C.J. Polychroniou:  Since the idea of a Green New Deal entered into public consciousness, the debate about climate emergency is becoming increasingly polarized between those advocating "green growth" and those arguing in support of "degrowth." What exactly does "degrowth" mean, and is this at the end of the day an economic or an ideological debate?

Robert Pollin:  Let me first say that I don’t think that the debate on the climate emergency between advocates of degrowth versus the Green New Deal is becoming increasingly polarized, certainly not as a broad generalization.   Rather, as an advocate of the Green New Deal and critic of degrowth, I would still say that there are large areas of agreement along with some significant differences.  

For example, I agree that uncontrolled economic growth produces serious environmental damage along with increases in the supply of goods and services that households, businesses, and governments consume. I also agree that a significant share of what is produced and consumed in the current global capitalist economy is wasteful, especially much, if not most, of what high-income people throughout the world consume. It is also obvious that growth per se as an economic category makes no reference to the distribution of the costs and benefits of an expanding economy.  I think it is good to keep in mind both the areas of agreement as well as the differences.

But what about definitions:  what do we actually mean by the Green New Deal and degrowth?

Starting with the Green New Deal:  the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that for the global economy to move onto a viable climate stabilization path, global emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) will have to fall by about 45 percent as of 2030 and reach net zero emissions by 2050. As such, by my definition, the core of the global Green New Deal is to advance a global project to hit these IPCC targets, and to accomplish this in a way that also expands decent job opportunities and raises mass living standards for working people and the poor throughout the world.

The single most important project within the Green New Deal entails phasing out the consumption of oil, coal, and natural gas to produce energy, since burning fossil fuels is responsible for about 70 – 75 percent of all global CO2 emissions.   We then have to build an entirely new global energy infrastructure, whose centerpieces are high efficiency and clean renewable energy sources—primarily solar and wind power. 

The investments required to dramatically increase energy efficiency standards and to equally dramatically expand the global supply of clean energy sources will also be a huge source of new job creation, in all regions of the world.  These of the basics of the Green New Deal as I see it.  It is that simple in concept, while also providing specific pathways for achieving its overarching goals.  

Now on degrowth: since I am not a supporter, it would be unfair for me to be the one explaining what it means.  So here is how some of the leading degrowth proponents themselves describe the concept and movement.  For example, in a 2015 edited volume titled Degrowth: A Vocabulary for a New Era, the volume’s editors Giacomo D’Alisa, Frederico Demaria and Giorgos Kallis, Degrowth: A Vocabulary for a New Era write that “The foundational theses of degrowth are that growth is uneconomic and unjust, that it is ecologically unsustainable and that it will never be enough (2015, p. 6).” 

More recently, a 2021 paper by Riccardo Mastini, Giorgos Kallis and Jason Hickel titled “A Green New Deal without Growth?” write that “ecological economists have defined degrowth as an equitable downscaling of throughput, with a concomitant securing of wellbeing.” 

It is instructive here that, in this 2021 paper, Mastini, Kallis and Hickel do also acknowledge that degrowth has not advanced into developing a specific set of economic programs, writing that “degrowth is not a political platform, but rather an ‘umbrella concept’ that brings together a wide variety of ideas and social struggles.”  

This acknowledgement reflects, in my view, a major ongoing weakness with the degrowth literature, which is that, in concerning itself primarily with very broad themes, it actually gives almost no detailed attention to developing an effective climate stabilization project, or any other specific ecological project.  

Indeed, this deficiency was reflected in a 2017 interview with the leading ecological economist Herman Daly himself, without question a major intellectual progenitor of the degrowth movement.  Daly says in the interview that he is “favorably inclined” toward degrowth, but nevertheless demurs that he is “still waiting for them to get beyond the slogan and develop something a little more concrete,” (p. 102).

This lack of specificity among degrowth proponents leads to further problems.  For example, degrowth supporters, such as Mastini et al. in their 2021 paper, are clear that they support the transformation of the global energy system along the lines that I have described above, from our current fossil fuel-dominant system to one whose core features are high efficiency and clean renewable energy sources.  

Yet in fact, building out this new energy system will obviously entail massive growth of the global clean energy system, just as it will equally entail the phasing out—or degrowth, if you prefer—of the global fossil fuel energy system.  In my view, it is more useful to be specific about which sectors of the global economy will certainly need to grow—e.g. the clean energy system—while others, like fossil fuels, contract, as opposed to invoking sweeping generalities about degrowth. 

We can extend this point.   For example, I am sure degrowth proponents would favor major expansions in access to public education, universal health care, high-quality affordable housing, regenerative agriculture, and the share of the earth’s surface covered by forests.

In focusing on some critical specifics, I would also add that there is no way that a general project of degrowth can put the global economy onto a viable climate stabilization path.   With the COVID-19 recession, the global economy just went through a powerful natural experiment to demonstrate this point.  That is, during the pandemic in 2020, the global economy contracted by 3.5 percent, which the International Monetary Fund described as a “severe collapse . . . that has had acute adverse impacts on women, youth, the poor, the informally employed and those who work in contact-intensive sectors.” 

In other words, the pandemic produced an intense period of global ‘degrowth.’   This recession did also produce a decline in emissions, as entire sections of the global economy were forced into lockdown mode.  But the emissions decline amounted to only 6.4 percent over 2020.  Remember, the IPCC tells us that we need to cut emissions by 45 percent as of 2030 and be at zero emissions by 2050. 

If the COVID recession only yields a 6.4 percent emissions reduction despite the enormous levels of economic pain inflicted, clearly ‘degrowth’ cannot come close, on its own, to delivering a 45 percent emissions cut by 2030, much less a zero emissions global economy by 2050.  

CJP:  Those who see the Green New Deal not only as the most effective strategy to tackle global warming but also as an engine growth, such as yourself, rely on the concept of "decoupling."  However, "degrowth" advocates seem to be arguing that there is no empirical evidence for absolute "decoupling," and that it's highly unlikely that it will ever happen. How do you respond to such claims? 

RP:  Let’s recognize, to begin with, that people are still going to need to consume energy to light, heat, and cool buildings, to power cars, buses, trains, and airplanes, and to operate computers and industrial machinery, among other uses.  As one critical example here, in low-income economies, delivering adequate supplies of affordable electricity becomes transformative for people’s lives, enabling them, for example, to adequately light their homes at night rather than relying on kerosine lanterns.  As such, it should be our goal to greatly expand access to electricity to low-income communities throughout the world, while we are also driving down CO2 emissions to zero. 

The solution is for energy consumption and economic activity more generally to be absolutely decoupled from the generation of CO2 emissions.  That is, the consumption of fossil fuel energy will need to fall steadily and dramatically in absolute terms, even while people will still be able to consume energy resources to meet their various demands.  

The more modest goal of relative decoupling—through which fossil fuel energy consumption and CO2 emissions continue to increase, but at a slower rate than overall economic activity—is therefore not  a solution.  Economies can still continue to grow while still advancing a viable climate stabilization project as long as the growth process is absolutely decoupled from fossil fuel consumption. 

Is absolute decoupling impossible to accomplish within the context of economic growth?  To date, we have seen some modest evidence—and I do stress the evidence is modest—of absolute decoupling taking place.  For example, between 2000 and 2014, 21 countries, including the U.S., Germany, the U.K., Spain and Sweden, all managed to absolutely decouple GDP growth from CO2 emissions – i.e. GDP in these countries expanded over this 14-year period while CO2 emissions fell.  This is a positive development, but only a small step in the right direction. 

The way to deliver a much more rapid pattern of absolute decoupling is, of course, to build out the global clean energy economy, and to do so quickly.  This is a feasible project.  By my own estimates, it requires that the global economy spend approximately 2.5 percent of global GDP per year on investments in energy efficiency and clean renewable energy supplies, while the global economy grows at an average rate of about 3 percent per year between now and 2050.  The International Renewable Energy Agency and International Energy Agency recently published studies that reached similar results for the global economy.  Focused on the U.S. economy, the energy economists Jim Williams and Ryan Jones also reached a similar result, as part of the Zero Carbon Action Plan (ZCAP) project.

From this and related evidence, I conclude that absolute decoupling is certainly a feasible, though also obviously a hugely challenging, project.  But we can’t just talk about it, pro or con.  We have to make the investments, at 2.5 percent of global GDP per year or thereabouts, every year until 2050, to build the global clean energy economy.   If we do that, absolute decoupling will happen.  If we don’t make those investments, then of course, absolute decoupling becomes an impossibility.   

CJP:  Various ecologically-minded activists are also arguing that the Green New Deal relies on the use of massive energy resources, including extensive use of the steel industry, in order to make the transition to a clean, renewable, and net- zero emissions economy, and that what is really needed instead is a green revolution of the mind whereby zero energy living is the ultimate goal. My question is this: can the Green New Deal deliver 100 percent clean energy?

RP:  There are several industries in which energy is consumed intensively.   They include steel, cement, and paper, along with, obviously, all forms of transportation.  But note that these industries are energy intensive.   They are not necessarily fossil fuel energy intensive.  If we succeed, through the Green New Deal, in increasing the efficiency at which these industries consume energy and we also deliver abundant supplies of clean renewable energy, then the problems of dealing with energy-intensive industries can be solved. 

It’s true that there will be some specific areas which will present more difficult challenges.   For example, some parts of steel production rely on furnaces that are operating at very high temperatures.  Reaching these high temperatures are, to date, difficult to achieve through electricity as opposed to burning coal in a furnace.  This problem will need to be solved over time.   One likely solution could be to rely on laser technology through which the required high temperatures can be reached with electricity, with the electricity, in turn, being produced through renewable energy. 

Another more difficult area is long-distance aviation.  To date, we cannot rely on electric batteries to fly planes across the Atlantic Ocean, for example, as we can to drive cars from New York to California.   One likely solution here will be to fuel the planes’ engines with low-emissions liquid bioenergy, such as ethanol produced from agricultural wastes as the raw material.  Battery storage capacities are also likely to be improving significantly with more people focusing on solving exactly this problem. 

Let’s remember that the costs of producing electricity from solar photovoltaic panels have fallen by over 80 percent within the past nine years, and the U.S. Energy Department itself projects further major declines in just the next five years.  Moreover, the International Renewable Agency reported just a week ago that, for the first time, 62 percent of all renewable energy sources produced energy at lower costs than the cheapest sources of fossil fuel energy.

All of this tells me that achieving absolute decoupling is a feasible project within the framework of a global Green New Deal.  The Green New Deal, in turn, is, in my view, the only way through which climate stabilization can become fully consistent with expanding decent work opportunities, raising mass living standards, and fighting poverty in all regions of the world. 

A Green New Deal Program for California

(originally published in Truthout 6/10/21) 

CJP:  California has been at the forefront of the climate fight for years now, but the truth of the matter is that its efforts have been falling short.  Now, you and some colleagues of yours at the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst have just completed a commissioned climate stabilization project for California that can also serve as an engine for economic recovery as well as expanding economic opportunities across the state. In a nutshell, how does the project envision the clean energy transition to take place in a manner consistent with the emission targets set out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2018, and how will it be financed? 

RP:  This study presents a recovery program for California that will also build a durable foundation for an economically robust and ecologically sustainable longer-term growth trajectory. California has long been a national and global leader in implementing robust climate stabilization policies. This includes the 2018 Executive Order B-55-18 by then Governor Jerry Brown. This measure committed the state to cut CO2 emissions in the state by 50 percent as of 2030, to become carbon neutral no later than 2045 and to produce net negative emissions thereafter.  These goals are somewhat more ambitious than those set out by the IPCC in 2018.  Our study outlines a program through which the state can achieve its own established goals.

Our study shows how these 2030 and 2045 emissions reduction targets can be accomplished in California through phasing out the consumption of oil, coal, and natural gas to generate energy in the state, since burning fossil fuels to pro­duce energy is, by far, the primary source of CO2 emissions, and thereby, the single greatest factor causing climate change. The project we propose is to build a clean energy infrastruc­ture to replace the existing fossil fuel-dominant infrastructure. The clean energy infrastruc­ture will require large-scale investments to, first, dramatically raise energy efficiency standards in the state and, second, to equally dramatically expand the supply of clean renewable energy supplies, including solar and wind primarily, with supplemental supplies from low-emissions bioenergy, geothermal and small-scale hydro power. We show how this climate stabilization program for California can also serve as a major new engine of job creation and economic well-being throughout the state, both in the short- and longer run.

We have scaled the clean energy investment project at about $76 billion per year on average between 2021 – 2030.  This would equal roughly 2 percent of what we estimate will be the state’s average GDP between 2021 – 2030. In other words, California can hit its emissions reduction targets through maintaining clean energy investment spending levels at about 2 percent of overall economic activity in the state.   That means that roughly 98 percent of the state’s annual economic activity can still be focused on anything other than clean energy investments.  But the state must maintain this 2 percent of GDP investment level in clean energy for the program to work.

We estimate this level of investment will generate roughly 420,000 jobs throughout the state’s economy. New job opportunities will open for, among other occupations, carpenters, machinists, welders, electronic equipment assemblers, environmental scientists, administra­tive assistants, accountants, truck drivers, roofers and agricultural laborers. Investments in public transportation—a major component of the energy efficiency investment program— will produce public-sector jobs for drivers and managerial staff.

The quality of these jobs— including wages, benefits, and levels of unionization—vary by sector. In general, it will be critical to raise job quality standards as the number of jobs available expands. Raising union­ization rates, as well as expanding job training programs will all be crucial for raising overall job quality levels. Local hire provisions and related measures will also need to be implement­ed to ensure equitable access by race and gender to the expanding job opportunities.

While focusing on the clean energy investment to reduce California’s CO2 emissions by 50 percent as of 2030, our study does also examine how the state can achieve its longer-term goal of becoming a zero-emissions economy by 2045. The basic features of the invest­ment program between 2031 – 2045 can be extended from the 2021 – 2030 framework. But, in fact, the scale of the investment spending required to achieve the 2045 zero-emissions tar­get can be somewhat more modest, averaging about 1.3 percent of the state’s GDP between 2031 – 2045. 

Our study also examines a complementary investment project to upgrade California’s economy base through manufacturing, infrastructure, land restoration and agriculture investments.  We budgeted this program at about $62 billion per year, or 1.7 percent of the state’s GDP—in these areas. This investment program is based on the proposed national THRIVE Agenda, a bill introduced into the U.S. Congress in February 2021 by Sena­tor Edward Markey and Congresswoman Debbie Dingell to “Transform, Heal, and Renew by Investing in a Vibrant Economy.”

To date, the THRIVE Agenda has been endorsed by more than 100 members of Congress and hundreds of major union, racial justice and climate organizations. We estimate that these investments will generate about 626,000 jobs throughout the state, in a wide range of occupations.

When we bring together the combined investment programs in the areas of energy efficiency and renewable energy, along with public infrastructure/manufacturing and land restoration/agriculture, total spend­ing in California comes to an average of about $140 billion per year, equal to a bit less than 4 percent of California’s average annual GDP between 2021 – 2030. This level of job creation would generate about 1 million jobs within California.  This higher level of job creation will then be sustained through the full decade, as long as the budgetary levels for the range of investment programs are main­tained.

The expansion in job opportunities will equal more than 5 percent of California’s 2019 labor force. This means that, if California’s unemployment rate was, say, 7 percent without this combined investment program, these investments could drive unemployment to something in the range of 2 percent—i.e. to reach something close to full employment in the state. 

An absolute front-and-center feature of our proposal is the just transition program for the state’s fossil fuel-dependent workers and communities.  About 112,000 people are employed in California in fossil fuel-based industries, amounting to about 0.6 percent the state’s total workforce in 2019.

Workers in the state’s fossil fuel-based industries will, of course, experience job losses as the state dramatically reduces consumption of these CO2-generating energy sources. We estimate that about 3,200 workers per year will be displaced in these industries in California between 2021 – 2030 while another roughly 2,500 will voluntarily retire each year. It is critical that all of these workers receive pension guarantees, health care coverage, re-employment guarantees along with wage subsidies to insure they will not experience income losses, along with retraining and relocation support, as needed.

Enacting a generous just transition program for the displaced fossil fuel-based industry workers is especially important. We estimate that the costs of a generous just transition package for all fossil fuel industry-based workers experiencing layoffs would come to about $470 million per year. This is equal to about 0.02 percent (two one-hundredths of one percent) of the state’s average GDP between 2021 – 2030.  

Three counties in California—Kern, Contra Costa, and Los Angeles—account for roughly half of all employment in the state’s fossil fuel-based industries. Kern County, in particular, will face the most significant proportional impacts from the phase-down of the state’s fossil fuel industries. We therefore present a focused discussion on providing com­munity transition support for Kern County.

In fact, we found that some initial-stage activities are already underway in Kern to move the area away from its current level of fossil fuel-based industry dependency and to build there a clean energy production infrastructure.

How do you pay for the whole thing?  It’s actually straightforward, especially as we keep in mind that, overall, we are talking about devoting less than 4 percent of the state’s overall economic activity to these investment projects, and the most critical purpose of these projects is, after all, is just to achieve the state’s own CO2 emissions reduction targets. 

Of the roughly $140 billion per year in combined invest­ments and the just transition program, we assume that roughly half of total spending, about $70 billion per year, will be provided by private investors, while the other half is supplied by public spending. Private investments in the clean energy areas in particu­lar will be incentivized by the federal and statewide regulatory environment.

A significant share, if not the majority of the approximately $70 billion per year in public spending is likely to come from a version of the Biden Administration’s proposed American Jobs Plan, which is focused on infrastructure and clean energy investments. The State of California could then provide the additional funding, as needed.  The fact that the state can borrow at very low interest rates now is critical.  As an example, we show that if the state government issues $30 billion in bonds in the current low-interest rate environment, the debt servicing burden will also be low, i.e. in the range of 0.3 percent of the state’s annual general revenues.

It follows that even if the federal government’s funding through the final version of the Biden American Jobs Plan comes in at a relatively low figure, the State of California could still provide the additional financing through issuing bonds in the current low-interest rate environment without imposing a major burden on the state’s overall budget. 

CJP: The project has already been endorsed by 19 unions across the state of California, and more are expected to join. This is undoubtedly a highly significant development, but, given that only around 16 percent of the total workforce is unionized, isn’t there a need to reach out to the rest of the population for support? 

RP:  For decades now, wide majorities of people in California have already been strong measures to protect the environment and combat climate change.   Increasingly also, the state is suffering disproportionately from the effects of climate change and, more generally, from burning fossil fuels to produce energy, including wildfires, droughts, floods, heat waves, and air pollution that are all becoming more severe over time.  The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration estimates that, just since 2013, California has experienced roughly 16 “billion-dollar disaster events,” generating over economic losses of over $100 billion in total.

Beyond these climate-specific considerations, it also the case that the clean energy investment program will deliver lower energy costs to all consumers in California.   This is, first, because raising energy efficiency standards will enable consumers to spend less money for a given amount of energy services—e.g. to heat, cool, and light homes, or to drive from Riverside to LA.  In addition, the costs of wind, solar, and geothermal power are all roughly equal to or lower than those for fossil fuels and nuclear energy, and are falling significantly.  

As such, the average California household should be able to save nearly 40 percent on their overall annual energy bill relative to what they spend now in the current fossil-fuel dominant system.  In short, everyone in the state has a personal stake in solving the climate crisis, even those who aren’t particularly concerned with the most fundamental matter of saving the planet.

CJP:  Can you also speak about the national implications set by the union support in California for the climate stabilization project you and your colleagues have designed?

RP:  The union movement has increasingly embraced a major leadership role in advancing green transition programs.   I have worked with the leadership of the AFL-CIO on these issues in multiple states.   The level at which California unions have supported our study is one major step forward, and I am, of course, extremely pleased by this support. 

But it is also part of a growing trend that has been advancing due to the work of outstanding, committed organizers throughout the country.  When I first started working on these issues 14 years ago, the prevailing view in mainstream circles—not the labor movement, but in the circles of high-powered policymakers, academia and the mainstream press—was that there is an huge and unavoidable tradeoff between jobs and the environment.  

You could have one or the other—more jobs or a cleaner environment.   But you can’t have both, so choose one.   Over the last decade, lots of very effective labor movement activists—from the grassroots levels to many top officials—have pounded home the reality that this is a false trade-off.   Due to their efforts, this message has now penetrated all the way up to the Biden Administration.   Note that Biden is calling his clean energy program an “American Jobs Plan.” 

CJP:  This is really highly encouraging news in the battle to tame global warming, so I must ask: What’s next in line in terms of your climate stabilization projects? 

RP:  My co-workers and I at PERI are continuing to work with different groups to advance robust climate programs at the national, state as well as county and community levels.  Separately, I am working on green transition studies for other countries, Greece being one of them.   In the case of Greece, I am looking forward to working more on the issue of land-use requirements in building a green energy infrastructure, building from the outstanding work on this question by the Harvard physicist Mara Prentiss. 

The issues here is:  do we really have to locate wind turbines on top of the most beautiful pristine mountain cites in Greece in order to build a green economy?  This is another one of the false trade-offs that lots of people in power want us to believe.  I am also working on issues of financing the global Green New Deal in developing and middle-income countries, especially in Asia, in conjunction with the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD).  That, in addition to trying to maintain the solar panels at my house and office reasonably well. 

"Copyright, Truthout.org. Reprinted with permission."

Green Party Leadership Election –Exclusive Interview with Shahrar Ali

 

Candidate for Leadership of the Green Party of England and Wales, Shahrar Ali talks to London Green Left Blog’s editor Mike Shaughnessy about why he is running for the leadership of the party.

Tell me a little about your background and why you are standing for the leadership of the Green Party? 

I became active in Green politics at the turn of the century around the threat from GM crops. I was part of the successful campaign to stop GM entering the agricultural system in the UK and my work took me to the heart of the European Parliament as a researcher on environmental risk assessment. It was gratifying to be part of the unit which provided parliamentarians with briefing documents which helped inform the votes for successive moratoria on GM crop regulation across the UK. That’s when I got my first taste of Green parliamentarians shaping our future for the collective good. 

I trained as a biochemical engineer before turning to philosophy and taught widely across the educational sector, with a particular interest in offering lifelong education at affordable rates. My educational background is perhaps significant to what I think I can bring to the Party at this time. Both biotechnology and philosophy have at their heart a commitment to scientific truth and rational persuasion. We need more of this in politics right now, and in the Green Party, too. I see my role as leader both to demonstrate rational argument in political debate and to do us proud on broadcast media on big, live platforms and on social media. Here’s an example of my debating with Sadiq Khan and Priti Patel on the BBC [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOHe_LsR5Pg] during the 2015 general election, where we polled over a million votes. 

As former deputy leader 2014-16 I was the first BME leader of a UK parliamentary party and this added real credibility to our presentation. That’s not the best reason to vote for me, but it is a significant one, as we are sadly lacking in visible ethnic representation at all levels of the party. I helped launch Greens of Colour and whilst it has been great to see people from more diverse ethnic backgrounds coming into the party we still have much, much more to do. 

If you are elected as leader of the party, what will be your priorities? 

I will boldly make that case for immediate action on the climate and ecological emergency. It’s hard for us to get our heads round the scale of transformation required to overcome the worst of climate degradation, much of which has already been set in train. The prize for humanity is great: our continued existence. The threat of species extinction is too grave to contemplate. The emergency response to Covid-19 has shown that, with political will, much adaptation is possible. We need to harness more of that spirit in pursuit of massive reduction in our carbon consumption. We need to get on a war footing for the sake of the climate emergency. Greens have long advocated a Green new deal, which would require overhaul of the economic system and investment in renewable energy, with Green jobs to match. I say more about what this transformation might look like in my final answer. 

Secondly, we must reach out to new constituencies of voters, especially those who are feeling politically homeless due to leaders promoting, or facilitating, a hostile environment for them. I’m thinking especially of women and ex-Labour members and voters. 

Many women I have spoken to, including in our own party, have felt prevented from organising around campaigns to preserve or protect their sex-based rights. Many brilliant campaigners have in fact resigned. In any arena of equalities, if you’ve got a group of people who feel that they are affected by the claims of another group of people, that requires negotiation not imposition. In addition, in order to negotiate you need to debate, and uncover people’s assumptions, if only to work out that there’s no misunderstanding. That kind of debate and negotiating culture is in increasingly short supply, in society and in political parties. 

A further example is the conflation of legitimate criticism of Israel’s heinous policies with fake allegations of antisemitism – often fuelled by the bogus, politicised IHRA definition. It is monstrous that a lifelong antiracist of the pedigree of Corbyn was hounded out in the way he was. I, too, have had to face down antisemitism smear campaigns and recently won an IPSO ruling against the Jewish Chronicle on five counts. I am now pushing not just for rejection of the IHRA definition by our Party but adoption of the Jerusalem Declaration instead – a well-crafted statement that would help identify and tackle genuine antisemitic incidents. Greens fight racism in all its forms, including anti-Jewish racism, and this is all the more reason to advocate for definitions which are fit for purpose, not counterproductive on their own terms. 

The common thread running through these conflicts, which often become internalised in parties, is the failure to insist on mature, rational debate. Groupthink and cancel culture thrive in such conditions, often reinforced by social media bubbles. Leaders must collaborate to overcome the threat to free speech – by demonstrating it themselves and confronting Orwellian abuse of language. 

Shahrar visiting Calais Jungle camp as Deputy Leader

The COP26 conference is taking place in November, in Glasgow, what are your expectations of anything significant being agreed by participant governments? 

I have low expectations for yet another conference on the international circuit. The climate and ecological emergency is my priority: I was a founding signatory of Extinction Rebellion in 2018 and a founder member of GreensCAN. We can be absolutely clear about the twin aims of getting Greens elected and campaigning beyond the ballot box to galvanise the scale of social and political transformation required. As Greens we will continue to push for results at COP26 and also to raise awareness outside and beyond COP. 

A review of the party’s Instruments of Governance was called for and approved by Conference some 6 years ago. The "Holistic Review Commission" was set up in 2018 which aimed to deliver radical constitutional reforms. In your opinion, what are the reasons why after all this time and effort, it seems almost impossible for the party to adopt a new constitution?

A Governance Review, which was set 8 years ago in 2013, failed to deliver a new constitution by the Autumn of 2018, the end of its remit. The Holistic Review Commission which followed failed to deliver on its promises of “radical reforms” and the Spring 2021 online Special Constitutional conference ended in chaos. 

In my opinion, all attempts to modernise our constitution since 2013 have failed because they lacked any bottom-up approach in the first instance. Our members have simply not felt concerned about such internal matters nor been involved in any of those processes. Yes, conference participants approved all those initiatives, but conference is made up of self-appointed members who may not have read the conference agenda before taking part and are under no obligation to represent their local party or designated group members. Normally, that member right is an asset but sometimes it can land us in a false sense of security about genuine engagement and I think that’s what happened here. I don't think it should come as any surprise really that it has indeed proved almost impossible to draft and implement a new constitution. 

Shahrar addressing Association of Green Councillors

Identity issues, especially around gender recognition, has been hugely controversial in the party recently. What will be your approach to healing the division which has opened up in the party? 

In basing my campaign on the three crucial issues of climate emergency, women's rights, and free speech, I am confident that all of us in the Green Party are united in caring about these issues. In expressing my support for women's rights, I am in no way intending to minimise the importance of LGBTQI+ rights. I am convinced that the way forward within the Green Party – and indeed in wider society – lies in mutually respectful dialogue to ensure that everyone's concerns are heard and taken into account. 

It's unfortunately the case that there have been communication problems within the Green Party that have resulted in many people feeling that their concerns are not being taken seriously. I want to encourage a culture of openness and mutual respect so that these matters, which naturally elicit strong feelings in people, can be debated in a compassionate manner. Kindness is sometimes overlooked in the heat of the moment, especially in the heat of exchanges on social media.  I hope that, if I am elected, I can help to facilitate our all working together in the Green Party to find our way forward with these complex issues. 

By tackling these communication problems we can move forward together in our united determination to face the environmental crisis that threatens us all.  The Green Party has a great contribution to make: we have to find the way to resolve our differences and pull together. 

Shahrar launching environmental leadership programme for BAME youth

What is your vision for Green party over the next few years?

We must overcome political cowardice. Outside the global Green parties few politicians have been willing to shout, “Fire!” But as Greta says, the building is on fire. Of course, shouting fire isn't enough. To avoid catastrophe we have to transform our energy, transport and farming systems. That's going to be hard and even with a just transition to a more sustainable way of life it will be uncomfortable for some. But we have to do it. 

The first climate priority for a Green government would be 'stop digging'. We have to stop making the climate problem worse so:

·       No airport expansion

·       No new roads

·       End fossil fuel subsidies

·       No gas boilers in new homes

·       All meetings between government and industry or Trade Unions (other than security matters) to be announced and minuted. 

Second - begin to build the low-carbon alternative - this is at least a ten-year programme:

·       Introduce carbon tax

·       In parallel, supplement taxation with Personal Carbon Allowances (the latter is a policy proposal coming from me to Autumn conference)

·       Expand wind power and energy development and the grid

·       Announce dates from which fossil-fuelled vehicles can't be used on UK roads (probably different dates for cars, vans, buses, HGVs, tractors, etc.)

·       Start major training programme for retrofit workers

·       Start national housing retrofit programme

·       Make Passivhaus the default standard for new buildings

·       Accelerate the development of active travel infrastructure (e.g. cycle lanes, Low Traffic Neighbourhoods, after full consultation on design with disability user groups)

·       Set target for making company accounts comply with Sustainable Cost Accounting - largest first

·       Expand R&D on low-carbon technologies 

Third - start national and regional discussion of Just Transition measures with local authorities, employers’ organisations, trade unions and community groups. Develop a Just Transition support budget. 

Fourth – start a phased programme of industrial decarbonisation – probably start by expanding steel recycling and closing blast furnaces. 

The bottom line is that every sector will have to change.  There are 50 – maybe 500 – actions needed in a comprehensive, co-ordinated systemic approach.  This is just a sketch for a vast change across government, politics, economics and society.  I would be advocating for and asking Greens to set up citizens' assemblies to help to support the sea-change in thinking and behaviour required.  We need to change what is politically possible if we are do what is scientifically necessary. We need a reality check. 

Voting opens on 2 September 10am and closes 23 September 10pm.

Green Party Leadership Election –Exclusive Interview with Tina Rothery and Martin Hemingway

Candidates for Co-Leadership of the Green Party of England and Wales, Tina Rothery and Martin Hemingway, talk to London Green Left Blog’s editor Mike Shaughnessy about why they are running for the leadership of the party. 

Tell me a little about your backgrounds and why you are standing for the leadership of the Green Party?

TR Lancashire is ‘home’ right now and has been for a large chunk of the past two decades, but I was born in London and at four-years-old, my family chose to migrate to Australia as part of the Assisted Passage Programme (at the time, commonly referred to as ‘£10 Poms’) before moving to Hong Kong when I was 12. I returned to the UK in my early 20s but went on to live in Luxembourg, Belgium and Spain before returning and settling in Blackpool where my sister and her family are.

My first job was as a reporter at the Hong Kong Standard newspaper and my career from then onwards, was mostly in communications. I’ve found it has always been more difficult to ‘get ahead’ in the UK and as a single-mother, worked as a waitress, hotel cleaner, barmaid, staff trainer and a multitude of other things to get food on the table and money in the meter.

The past decade, however, has been the most life-changing of all episodes in my varied life. Becoming an activist changed more than my income bracket (bare minimum), it enhanced me, broadened my views, nourished my heart and rewarded my life with a genuine purpose that isn’t about earning more, buying more, competing or focusing on interests of self. And activism ensures I’m in the best company of all.

I recently returned to education after a 40-year break (it wasn’t my strong point when I was younger) but am struggling to justify any time given to anything that isn’t dealing with the climate crisis: what point will a university degree be on an uninhabitable planet? Much will depend on what happens next. 

When Jonathan and Sian made their intentions to step-down known and it was clear we would be electing new Green Party leaders, I was disappointed to discover that those I hoped were going to stand, had decided not to. I am a little surprised myself that I decided to run for leadership, but I trust my instincts. I considered options on standing alone but I have enough self-awareness to know that I thrive best with balance and co-operation. Martin became the natural choice as a partner. Over the past seven years as a member, it was him that I would approach with questions because I knew I would always get an informed, honest answer from a man of integrity and experience. I’m truly honoured he agreed. 

MH I have 50 years of political experience gleaned as an agent in elections, as a candidate in many local elections, general elections and Euro elections – including as lead candidate, as an elected member of the ruling Labour group on Leeds City Council, the second largest local authority in the country, for 12 years. The time on Leeds City Council led to positive changes for local people, to regional roles, and a UK role as Chair of Nuclear Free Local Authorities. It is difficult to summarise all that I have done in a few words.

I left Labour for various reasons, but largely because I was not New Labour – I stayed where I was and the Party moved away from me.

In the Green Party I have almost 20 years of experience in local, regional and national parties. It is difficult to underestimate the importance of this experience, At local and regional levels I have filled most roles, written constitutions and strategies, supported local parties. Nationally I spent four years on the Green Party Regional Council (GPRC) and over five years on the Standing Orders Committee (SOC).

I have an understanding of the Party, good and bad, through this experience, and am very conscious of the need to have Leaders who will bring the Party together to tackle the climate emergency we are facing.

If you are elected as leaders of the party, what will be your priorities?

MH It is easy to say Climate, Climate, Climate, but we need to make clear the part that the Green Party and engaged Leadership has to play in achieving this, but also in addressing the social justice agenda of the Green Party.

Our priorities will be first of all COP26, the lead up to it, the message we need to put across, and the ongoing work to turn the word-shop into a workshop.

That will involve our regions and local parties pushing the message as part of our electoral strategy, and we are committed to working with the regional and local parties where the campaigning and electoral work is actually done.

Beyond that we need to be engaging with communities, particularly those that are estranged from the political processes, we need to be addressing the near absence of people of colour, of working class members, of those communities most affected by poverty, of those disabled by impairment.

That has to be our electoral strategy, and we are prepared to engage on that.

TR Clearly working to save all life on earth and preserving and enhancing the natural systems that will nurture it.

How we do this will be a priority job and that starts with unifying our Party. Processes, procedures, conference, dispute resolution, discipline and communications are areas that are not providing solutions and we need to work on that.

A really important part of the job for me and one that I’d thoroughly look forward to, would be visiting and working with the regions and local parties within them. I believe that strengthening and supporting regional offices so that they can provide professional help with media, campaigning and membership would make a huge difference and ensure our Party is stronger throughout England and Wales, rather than in small pockets.

Strong regional parties would broaden our perspectives and help us fine-tune our responses to local elections and campaigns. Access for local media too will be enhanced if we can develop relationships and be relied on to respond promptly and professionally.

Conference is where the most important decisions are made, yet only a miniscule percentage of members ever attend. Strong regional parties would be part of the solution to this; we could revisit the idea of reforming conference voting and looking at regional conferences with online voting facilities and greater regional input.

The groups within our Party too are struggling to build around the issues that they want to ensure are heard. The success story is the Young Greens and we need to look at that model and why it works well at getting issues raised and policies to conference. Auto-enrolment is a key differentiator: when joining the Party, members who fulfil the criteria (young/students) automatically become members of the Young Greens, receiving a welcome email and regular updates. None of the other groups benefit from this.

When I was Chair of Green Party Women, we couldn’t even get access to a mailing list of women within the Party in order to reach out. New members fill in details about themselves that could be used to auto-enrol (with an opt-out) them into Greens of Colour, Green Party Disability Group, Green Party Women, LGBTIQA+ Greens and Green Seniors. Not only would this enrich the groups but new members would very quickly feel that they are welcome, heard and seen.

And then there are allies outside the Party both locally and nationally that we could be building relationships with, in order to tackle shared concerns for specific actions, events or goals. During the 1000 days of protest by the anti-fracking movement at Preston New Road here in Lancashire, the Green Party, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, Reclaim the Power, the Unions, academics, celebrities, environmental and religious groups came to join residents and help get us through this gruelling but necessary action. The ability to stall progress, increase costs, impact reputation, and upset supply chains is what prevented progress on shale gas extraction long enough to cause share prices in the company operating to see its share price plummet from pounds to pennies and the earth shake enough to prove us right and bring a moratorium.

We need to keep gathering power behind our aims and along with a strong, united Party, we need to draw on the power of the Unions, environmental groups, NGOs and others to unite around what does unite us. The more we work alongside others both inside and outside of our Party, the more we are ‘being the change we wish to see.

Tina (left) campaigning against fracking with Emma Thompson (right).

Emma Thompson said: “Please read Tina’s manifesto - it explains so fully and clearly why Green politics are the only possible future and why they are central to all the system changes that we urgently need to make.  Women will be key in this movement towards a cleaner, juster planet and I am proud to support Tina who is one of the world’s greatest activists. She is not interested in power for its own sake and will serve you and the planet with stunning dedication and humility. I wish her and Martin Hemingway success as Co-Leaders of The Green Party.” 

The COP26 conference is taking place in November, in Glasgow. What are your expectations of anything significant being agreed by participant governments?

TR Absolutely no expectation at all. Too many talks, too many promises, too many treaties that amount to nothing more than a vague nod from the wealthiest countries, whilst those already experiencing the worsening impacts of climate change, and least responsible for it… are literally left out to dry, flood, endure flames, famine and flight.

There need to be penalties and polluters should pay – not with readily available money, but time-served. Agreeing the law of Ecocide would be a good start followed by a choice to act together to save all of us. Cooperation is going to have to become the way, rather than winners and losers.

The Green Party, as the only Party genuinely dedicated to the environment and life on earth, needs a powerful presence both at the talks in Glasgow and in towns and cities throughout the UK. This is a rare opportunity to truly unite not just as members but alongside Unions, environmentalists, NGOs and deeply concerned others to show we can work together to achieve a clear goal: to make COP26 face up to reality, move on from talking, include the voices of the affected and take action to stop any more tipping points becoming inevitable.

How do you think the Green party should position itself politically in the run up to the next general election?

MH We are the Party of reality. We have to address the reality of damaging climate change. We have to address the reality of environmental damage in other ways, water quality, air quality, land degradation.

We have to address the issues of inequality, and this means addressing the economic system that places emphasis on growth rather than fairness and justice.

There are issues in education, in health and social care, in community provision that have to be addressed – the Green party has to lead on this because the Conservatives do not care, and the Labour Party has given up – as Starmer says the ambition of Labour is to work more closely with business.

TR As the opposition! We are the ONLY Party that tells the truth on climate, that holds the government to account and doesn’t shy away from being honest for the sake of votes. There is no other Party like us.

I doubt any of the other Parties would have a fraction of their policies on climate if it weren’t for Caroline Lucas bringing it to parliament, our Councillors working to declare climate emergencies or our members relentlessly informing their MPs.

Other Parties pander to what will win voters, which may sound like the right thing to do, until you realise the consequences of all that they left out.

A review of the party's Instruments of Governance was called for and approved by Conference some 6 years ago. The " Holistic Review Commission" was set up in 2018 which aimed to deliver radical constitutional reforms. In your opinion, what are the reasons why after all this time and effort, it seems almost impossible for the party to adopt a new constitution?

MH I have been closely involved in the process which has been held up by the failure of those addressing the process to recognise that they had to operate within the terms set by the ballot. I have proposed various constitutional documents that would have done what the ballot said was wanted, but those involved wanted to go further than the ballot permitted.

My perception is that the process involved centralisation of power within the Party, and this process is something about which we have serious concerns.

We are a membership led party, not a leader led party, and this is important to both of us.

Conference is the Supreme Body of the party. Given that its participants are self-appointed. What constitutional changes will you propose to address the widely acknowledged democratic deficit created by this anomaly?

MH This is an issue for the Party to discuss. Only a minority of the Party are engaged with Party issues. Many see their Green Party membership as an add on to active campaigning in other areas.

We need to address the make up of the Conference audience. When we hit 20,000 members we should have moved to delegate conferences, but as membership has grown that threshold has been kicked down the road.

We have probably reached the point where that decision has to be made so that those voting at Conference represent the breadth of membership rather than those that can attend, or that can ‘pack’ conference. We will be supporting the party in moves to reform of conference, both in terms of simplifying and opening up the policy proposal process, and in the reform of participation.

Martin marching at Kirby Misperton fracking site

Identity issues, especially around gender recognition, has been hugely controversial in the party recently. What will be your approach to healing the division which has opened up in the party?

TR Not just controversial, but the cause of deeply damaging division, huge upset and anger within our membership. It’s a matter of urgency that we put a plan in place and enact it, before more harm is done to individuals and Party reputation. How can we expect people to vote us into government, if we can’t even address our own internal disputes? Why would the voters trust us?

We’ve lost valued members which is such a failure really; some because they disputed another’s views/policies and many more because they felt the Party had begun to shift the focus and priority away from the impending climate catastrophe. I think we also need to be aware that for many members – the cause of these disputes is not clear, the terminology unfamiliar and the subject matter and implications, not well known.

I recall when Sian wrote her letter referring to the problems surrounding trans and women’s rights – some members asked what problems this was even referring to. Such a tiny percentage of members are engaged with the internal politics, the making of policy, conference etc – most are out campaigning or getting involved with local environmental groups and just trusting that as The Green Party, we’re getting on with the politics of being green.

We have procedures to handle disputes and clearly these are not adequately resourced, supported or working. There is a process issue, and it’s with process and professionalism that we’ll address it. Martin’s suggestion of a ‘Members’ Assembly’ is an excellent one. We cannot stifle the discussions - they just spill out onto social media and that’s no place to solve anything so we must make space, time and support for them.

MH We will be asking GPRC under its party well-being power to constitute a members assembly. Not one that requires particular groups have representatives, but in the best tradition of such assemblies that selects participants at random from the entire membership; that checks on current views on a set of questions, that seeks expert informants from different positions on the spectrum of the debate, and concerned with different aspects of the debate, and that seeks to produce a document that agrees what that policy means in detail.

Members can choose to accept the outcome or not, but we need to find a position that the majority can be happy with, and seek to give the issue a rest.

What is your vision for Green party over the next few years?

MH We need to position the Green Party in two ways, and this has long been our difficulty.

We need to be the leading party on acting on the environmental issues that people identify as part of our ‘Unique Selling Point’. One of our problems has been getting away from this identification of the Green Party as a single issue party.

What we need to be building at the same time is our identity as the party of social justice and fairness. The Party that represents the excluded and the left behind as well as those parts of the middle class that identify with this agenda, as well as with the overarching climate concern.

TR Government. Hear me out…

The reality of climate change is finally too blatant to ignore and as the impacts grow, people are realising what the other Parties have done, and it’s going to be unforgiveable. Supporting industries that are breaking our life-support system, subsidising them with our money, inflicting the same on other countries like some sort of climate-colonialism, subjecting us and our children to a life of hardship as resources dwindle, weather becomes unpredictable and tipping points take us to a future we can’t begin to conceive; all our governments that were aware of what scientists were proving, failed to act and this is criminal.

It’s also ever-more apparent that the Greens are the only Party sounding the alarm for decades and acting in all the ways possible (under a FPTP voting system) to at least act on the impending crisis. The others are liars.

One MP, more than 400 councillors, thousands of activists and tens of thousands of members are not in this for popularity, we’re in it to face reality and reality is dawning.

Voting opens on 2 September 10am and closes 23 September 10pm. 

Why I resigned from the Green Party

 Written by Andrea Carey-Fuller

It was with great sadness that I resigned my position on the Green Party Regional Council and left the Green Party of England and Wales (GPEW), having been a member for 8 years, in May 2021. I come from a human rights background acting as an advocate standing up for the rights of vulnerable groups of people. I had quite a high profile in Lewisham - having worked collaboratively with other groups of people on the Stop TTIP campaign and the Save Tidemill campaign. I stood in Lewisham local elections 3 times, and in the General Election 2019 (Lewisham Deptford). I was the London Federation AGM Coordinator for about 5 years, and worked on education policy for a year. 

Until I stood in the General Election in 2019, I had no idea of the toxicity bubbling underneath the Green Party regarding Trans Rights Activists (TRA's) viewing anyone who stands up for women's rights as being 'Transphobic'. When I pledged my support for A Woman's Place manifesto (among a host of other pledges such as support for the Future Generations Bill etc) in the last General Election I was shocked that people in my own party piled on me on Twitter calling me a bigot and transphobic!  

This harassment and bullying from within then continued and reached epic proportions when I stood for Deputy Leader on a platform of increasing engagement in the party, the need for a Women's Rights policy, and encouraging members to vote in more Greens of Colour. 

When I put myself forward as a candidate for GPRC London Rep, the online abuse started again and the Elections Coordinator for the London Regional Green Party (Stephan Liberadzki, complicit with Colin Boyle the Coordinator)) tried to avoid counting the vote (as I had won by a slim margin) and attempted to re-run the election again to get a different result!  

They both ignored my complaints about lack of due process and had allowed Danny Keeling who identified as a man in the 2019 General Election to put his name forward for the female rep role. I found out shortly after this that Stephan himself had called me transphobic on Twitter during the GPEX Elections 2020 as well! Colin’s view of the abuse and harassment was that it was “fair comment”! 

As a GPRC rep I saw how the complaints system was being abused to continually suspend 'Gender Critical members.' This view that Women's rights is 'Transphobic' is being continually touted by the current leadership of Sian/Jonathan/Ameila/Liz Reason (Green Party Executive Chair) and the CEO Mary Clegg. It was Sian Berry and Caroline Russell who spoke against my motion at Conference to have a women's rights section (supported by Baroness Jenny Jones) put under the Green Party's Rights and Responsibilities, declaring the motion to be "transphobic and trans-exclusionary."   

Following Conference, our Co-Leader Sian Berry, was crowing on Twitter that she had defeated the Women's Rights motion as if this was a good thing! This action on Sian's part was both undignified, and irresponsible. I have known both Sian and Caroline Russell (both of whom I used to have high regard for), for a number of years as I have worked alongside them in London on various campaigns. 

By wrongly repeating 'Trans Activist' rhetoric and mantras about women's rights being transphobic they continue to fuel division, and incite toxicity within our party - making it an unhealthy place for any member who dares to support women's rights as set out in the UN Convention against the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women.  (Ratified by the UK Government in 1986 - see: https://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/cedaw.htm) 

It states that parties agree to take all appropriate measures, including legislation and temporary special measures, so that women can enjoy all their human rights and fundamental freedoms.

The Convention is the only human rights treaty which affirms the reproductive rights of women and targets culture and tradition as influential forces shaping gender roles and family relations. It affirms women's rights to acquire, change or retain their nationality and the nationality of their children. It also states parties also agree to take appropriate measures against all forms of traffic in women and the exploitation of women." 

I had already raised the issue of increasing levels of harassment and toxicity towards women and anyone who supports women's rights within the Green Party at the GPRC meeting in March saying that we need to have  "a full, frank and open discussion about the ever-increasing levels of intolerance towards Green Party members who speak up for women's rights.” 

This conversation about the divisions and toxicity within our party is long overdue as it is currently tearing the party apart. GPRC, GPEX and the CEO have a shared responsibility to ensure that the Green Party of England and Wales is adhering to UK law - both the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) as well as the Equality Act 2010 - which sets out protection for sex-based discrimination. 

In these laws, women are defined and are supposed to be protected by their biological sex - hence the term sex-based rights. There is no discrimination against Trans Women - because they have their own protection set out in the Equality Act under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.  

Prior to Conference I alerted members to the LGBTIQA+ group claiming that the Women's Rights motions were against Green Party values - this was untrue, and used as a propaganda tool to create yet more hatred against women's rights whilst gathering support for the E03 Self-ID motion which impedes upon women's rights to single-sex services, and also the E05 Recognise Trans Parents Motion which ignores Article 12 of the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child which again the UK ratified in 1990. 

Under our Rights and Responsibilities policy RR201 - GPEW states "Accepting interconnectedness means that individuals and groups share rights to equitable status, treatment and freedoms. The Phiilosophical Basis of the party (PB303/304) states that the “legitimate interests of all people are of equal value.” The Green Party rejects all forms of discrimination whether based on race, colour, sex, religion, national origin, social origin or any other prejudice. The Green Party promotes the implementation of policies which protect human rights and rejects all forms of exploitation for any purpose whatsoever.' CEDAW is one of 9 UN Conventions that make up Universal Human Rights. 

Under the Equality Act 2010 there are 9 Protected characteristics and the Green Party only has policies for 8 of them: age; disability; gender reassignment; marriage and civil partnership; sexual orientation; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief (limited to Traveller's rights), but, nothing on sex (based rights for women linked to CEDAW/or the UN Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against women). 

We all know that women continue to be discriminated against based upon their sex - only 26% of women in the House of Lords & 34% of female MP's (hence the 50:50 campaign to aim to have 50% of female MP's in Parliament: https://5050parliament.co.uk/) which I was the GPEW representative for (and resigned from after the Conference motion fell); 3-4 women are killed by men in the UK every week; 1 in 4 women will experience domestic abuse in her lifetime; 1 in 5 women will experience sexual assault during her lifetime; in 2018 6,500 women and girls reported FGM; women and girls are subjected to trafficking for sexual exploitation, and there are only 5% of female CEO's in the top 100 UK companies.  

GPRC need to do something about this before more and more women (and men) feel they can no longer in all conscience stay in the party - one of the latest resignations is of Cllr Dom Armstrong who has made this statement on Facebook here: 

https://www.facebook.com/Cllr-Dom-Armstrong-404663170083504/

If you have been sitting on the fence on this issue, or if you have been put under the spell of the Trans Rights Movement (which make no mistake about it is being funded by Big Pharma who have a vested interest in the drugs used as part of the Transition process) then I would urge you to listen to evidence given this week by:

Graham Linehan at the Communications and Digital Committee Tuesday 9 March 2021: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBDcsAzm88s 

I look forward to supporting a kind and open discussion about these issues to try to find some resolve for the party going forward. 

The final straw for me was a report to GPEX by the CEO in May 2021 - stating that "women's rights infringe upon Trans rights." I spoke with a couple of colleagues before the GPEX meeting to bring this to their attention - because even as a GPRC colleague I would have been barred from raising this issue in a GPEX meeting! I emailed Martha James one of the Co-Chairs asking her to question this report which was wrong in law (Equality Act/CEDAW/HRA) and this would have been a valid and objective reason for the intervention given that GPRC have a duty of care to ensure that the `Party is in line with UK Law!  

A couple of GPEX members made representations regarding the invalidity of the statement the CEO had made but Liz Reason allowed it to go to a vote and the majority of people on GPEX voted in favour - against both the law, but primarily as they saw it, against Gender Critical members and in particular women in the Green Party/Green Party Women. 

I left the Green Party because I could not bear to be part of this unjust, punitive system a minute longer! When I didn't agree with the continuation of suspensions and voted against most of these suspensions bar two - one related to harassment and one related to a member using sexually explicit materials at some meeting (both of these in my view are the real kinds of cases which justify suspension), a complaint was put in about me and efforts to get me removed from GPRC.   

I complained to GPRC and the CEO, but nothing much was done and no action has been taken to support Women Rights under the Equality Act either - in fact by letting GPEX hold this 'vote' in support of Mary Clegg's statement GPEX has cemented the Trans Rights focus of the GPEW. 

The Automatic suspension system is not fit for purpose, there is no right to reply, if you make any representations against your suspension your rep can choose whether to speak for you or not!; it is a system that supports injustice and allows prejudice to be supported.  

I will still keep campaigning on the Environment, Climate Change, social justice and women's/children's rights issues which are close to my heart, and I wanted to thank everyone who supported me when I was in the party trying to bring about positive change. 

I can only hope that the new leadership will bring equality and unity to all members in the party. 

Andrea Carey-Fuller is a former member of the Green Party of England and Wales and Green Left.