Truss’s government is tearing up environmental legislation, especially around the natural environment, and by the look of it will also be doing some damage to our international commitments to climate change. The environment bill, set to replace much of EU legislation around the common agricultural policy, did say we would pay farmers if they did environmental good, now we’re back to just paying farmers for owning land. They are even going as far to say that we should be permitted to build on national parks!
The indication of Truss asking King Charles not to attend COP, and the whispers that she will not be attending, also confirm this government’s intentions over climate change. It could be likely that they actually remove climate commitments in a wholesale dumping of regulations so the ‘market’ can help the economy.
We know it’s bollocks. The indications from the market say as much. And as far as I understand it business, less the hedge funds who are betting on our pound collapsing, also find it bloddy disconcerting when the next government (likely Labour) will change the whole landscape again. And we think this flip flop politics will inspire inward investment into the UK… It’s a joke.
What this really is, is the right perpetuating their anti-climate policies, in a desperate attempt to prove they’re correct. All they’re going to prove is that their position previously (denying position on climate change) and currently (climate change is a left issue), is whack.
I sort of feel we’ve got to go through it to prove a point. Everyone’s got to get behind consistent policies to tackle climate change & biodiversity loss. We can’t just appeal to our section of politics. The left for too long has been attaching climate change policies to the action of equality and the right has responded by saying they’re not going to suck up this wholesale of pronoun changes and children picking their sex at school, and will fight back by taking away fundamental action on climate change.
We’ve got to be more balanced and prioritize. Politics is dividing worldwide so that we can have these big conversations to re-position the centre, so the proportion of the population can get behind things we all agree on. I think we all agree on action on climate change, I think we all agree on restoring biodiversity, and I think we all want to have an investment that reflects that.
What is seems we’re really fighting over is what that means for society - does it mean a big government or a free market approach? - does it mean liberal policies overtake traditional values?
I think action on climate change and biodiversity loss can be done in numerous ways, and could be done in a free market or with a big government, and it doesn’t matter about pronouns and equality frankly. If we tie action to these things we’re likely to tear up the plan of action as we fight fiercely against one another through these more radical governments - I mean look what’s happened in Brazil with Bolsonaro where he’s permitted the cutting down of shit load of the Amazon and now it looks like he’s going to be kicked out.
I say let’s dampen the rhetoric, let’s pull people into areas of agreement on action and let’s make this less political - we all agree action needs to be taken.
Agree? Do let me know your thoughts.
