It would appear that Boris Johnston does not share the sense of emergency regarding climate change as  felt by the youthfully inspired Extinction Rebellion, who he shrugged off early this week as “Uncooperative crusties!”     His father Stanley, by contrast, has come out in support of the insurgents: he’s obviously spending time with the grandchildren.  

Politics Live on Tuesday  [7Oct2019]  referred to the Boris insult, by way of an introduction to a discussion of the protests with a panel which included Rupert Read of Extinction Rebellion. Rupert was quick to draw attention to his uncrusty appearance – a smart jacket and tie, constrasting strikingly with the tieless Nigel Evans MP, who frankly, struck me as rather disheveled; too many late Brexit nights perhaps.  

It wasn’t long though till Rupert put his sartorial status at risk, rolling up his  sleeve and baring his forearm to show us, not tattoos, but the names of his nieces, hand written, rather roughly,    in marker pen. It was concern for their future which was the source of his campaigning energy, he told us with some emotion.  

 Other panelists  were journalist Madeline Grant and  Labour MP Jess Philips. In summary the discussion  was a tussle between the rather relaxed approach of the politicians and the passionate commitment of Rupert Read.  Madeline Grant just seemed uncomfortable to be seated so close to the slightly unhinged zeal of Rupert Read.  

None of the panelists denied the  threat of climate change: however, Nigel Evans was content with the Conservartive Party target of carbon zero by 2050,  Jess Phillips with the Labour target of 2030, whilst Rupert was adamant that we all need to be prepared for sacrifices to achieve the Extinction Rebellion Target of carbon zero by 2025.  Indeed he was insistent that in a mere 5 years time we must forsake air travel, private motor cars and instead commit to travelling by public transport, bicycles or walking. “What!” Madeline Grant screamed. “If this is what saving the planet means, then I’m out”….well actually she didn’t say that, but her rather expressive face suggested this may have been the thought which came first to her mind.

When challenged with Rupert’s 2025 plan, Nigel’s first instinct was continuing advocacy  for a third runway for Heathrow whilst Jess staunchly defended HS2.

Though a little unusual on Politics live, the media in general loves a debate to be livened by   theatrical behaviour and emotion, preferably tears. Personally I think that emotion, or passion as it is often styled,  in the context of debating important issues, is much overrated. But Rupert did indeed express himself with obvious passion as he advocated democracy and citizens assemblies, not really explaining how the two processes would interface in this case, without one compromising the other. I found it hard not to dismiss him as a bit too keen to be down with the kids, and to further dismiss the Extinction Rebellion target of carbon neutral by 2025, as a fantasy. 

Yet the truth is, for all my discomfort with his presentation of the arguments, I am with Rupert Read on this one. Accurately forecasting our unfolding climate crisis is a challenge, subject to the same vagaries as forecasting our weather.  The storm may arrive exactly as predicted, but it may just as likely arrive late, or on the other hand it may come early, and be more severe than anticipated: some of us can remember the Michael Fish forecast of 15th October 1987, which spectacularly underestimated the storm which was on its  way at the time. I note just one comment at the bottom of the YouTube video of his embarrassment: “The next morning, our summerhouse was in next door neighbours garden.”

With climate change, the stakes are a great deal higher; it’s just common sense; why take the risk? We should of course try to be carbon neutral by 2025, however improbable a target that may be.  The idea, as Madelaine Grant interjected at one point, that pursuing this objective will “send us back to the stone age” is foolishness.  Failure to act is more likely to take us there.

Ann Pettifor in her book The Case for the Green New Deal proposes a Keynsian methodology for getting to carbon neutral,  based on the use of all of our available resources. It offers an opportunity to spread prosperity that is not currently available  from our moribund economy. That does not sound like the stone age to me. Ann Pettifor does suggest that we may have to forgo some of our habits of consumption, but there is every reason to suppose that the outcome could ensure that we are well fed, clothed and housed,  have excellent health and social care, education, training, public transport and a well cared for public domain. So, a very modernised version of the stone age. 

When we do eventually arrive at carbon neutral, we may of course conclude that the 2050 target would have been just fine:  but really, will that be a problem? Once we are in the clear, we can relax and and start to enjoy ourselves, though my prediction is that at no point in this process need we stop enjoying ourselves. 

So yes, I stand with  Stanley Johnston and the grandkids (whatever their number) on this one:  I support Extinction Rebellion’s ambitious targets, even though I fear their members are too often  happy to lead with worst case scenarios and exaggerated claims and are careless of disrupting the lives of others.  The exhilaration of taking part in such activities is a dangerous intoxicant. Meanwhile the sober onlookers, are irritated or dismissive: “uncooperative crusties” is probably one more of the more repeatable descriptions of the protesters circulating.   

Later in the week, Zion Lights of Extinction Rebellion, was grilled on the Andrew Neill Show.  Neil reasonably enough demanded evidence supporting claims by some members of Extinction Rebellion,  that “billions of people will die.” Zion kept her nerve, stuck carefully to the science and made it clear that such extreme predictions were indeed supported by some credible scientists, but readily accepted that they did not represent a scientific consensus. 

Still, when one really starts to think about the possible impacts of climate change, with displacement of people and increasing competition for scarce resources, it is not hard to imagine the world sliding towards a Hobbsian nightmare.  I’m well into the second half of my lifetime but I’ll be happy to see out the rest of it in an economy governed by the values of Ann Pettifor’s Green New Deal.