Rebellion, Revolution and Radical Change: We can save ourselves, but we have to demand it today, not tomorrow

The Extinction Rebellion protests that have now been ongoing in London since 15th April have been amazing to watch - heartening to those of us who are increasingly gripped by fear over how the world will look by the time we reach our parents' age (if we even get that chance) - but have also, through the opposition that they have received, helped to highlight exactly why the challenge of tackling the growing climate crisis may well be beyond us.

My posts up to this point have been proposing single, specific (albeit large-scale) policy changes in a particular policy area, but today's will go beyond that, and into the need not just for revolutionary policy, but for a revolution in the philosophy of what it means to be a citizen of an endangered world, and how the economic and political structures we currently exist within may well need to be the next major casualties of climate change. We face a world of hunger, hardship and destruction if we continue down this path, and we have an ever-shorter window in which to try to halt the march towards disaster.

It is this now-all-too-possible future that has led to groups like Extinction Rebellion taking direct action. Generations of politicians have kicked the climate change can down the road, making incremental efforts at low-level improvements in limiting the damage we are doing to the environment, but while always pursuing the fatally flawed idea of perpetual growth on a planet of finite resource. Disruption to commuters and businesses will surely be irritating for those affected, but in comparison to the disruption and damage that will be wrought by further inaction, and a true climate crisis, it is infinitesimally small, and a price worth paying. We cannot continue sleepwalking towards disaster.

In an article this week Roger Harrabin, while struggling at some points with a needless tone of low-level snark (such as seeking ways to "quell" the enthusiasm of the Extinction Rebels), presented a number of apparently "radical" ideas for politicians to meet the demands for rapid de-carbonisation and to take the Climate Emergency as seriously as is now required. These ranged from the relatively simple and straightforward (cancelling the expansion of Heathrow; government funding to better insulate homes; stopping tax breaks for fossil fuel companies and banning fracking) to the sensible and overdue (bringing back onshore windfarms; providing an extensive EV charging network) to the, admittedly, more outlandish, such as ending consumer capitalism. At the end of the article, however, my response was not to see how these things were impossible or radical, but rather "yes, all of those, and more - what else have you got?" The problem is not a lack of ideas, or even in many cases a lack of feasibility - it is a lack of political will.

Extinction Rebellion are demanding full decarbonisation by 2025, as existing targets will not be soon enough to save us from a disastrous future. As I have mentioned previously, we would need to completely electrify travel, change how we eat to eliminate the damaging effects of agriculture involved in beef production, as well as switching to renewable energy sources on a massive scale. And these things are possible. Former member of the Climate Change Committee in parliament, Lord Turner, confirmed as such (emphasis added):

"Yes, you could decarbonise Britain by 2025 but the cost of implementing such vast changes at that speed would be massive and hugely unpopular. 2050 is do-able and desirable and would have an insignificant overall cost to the economy."

This quote sums up the problem: governments are concerned about cost, and popularity, even when facing Armageddon. There is an acknowledgment of the problem, and commitments to de-carbonise, but despite the dire IPCC report that helped mainstream the idea of radical action back in October of 2018, leading officials continue to plan for de-carbonisation that would, quite simply, be too late. Meanwhile, the rebuilding of Notre Dame cathedral has raised approaching €1 billion from companies and billionaires, and money continues to be wasted on infrastructure projects such as HS2, which will do huge environmental damage in its construction for very limited benefit, while costing a conservative estimate of £56 billion. Imagine what could be achieved if this money was put towards rapid and radical action on climate change.

And imagine the possibilities for innovation that radical climate action would present - while the investment needed would be enormous, the economic benefits of creating whole new industries to firstly to get us to zero, and then following on with a cleaner, smarter and more efficient zero-emission economy, ensuring prosperity and wellbeing for current and future generations. Such changes would be extremely popular, and have the potential to create widespread prosperity in the future.

The problem, then, is politics, and need to win an election in 12 months, not 12 years. The money exists, as does the technology, but people need to demand radical action now. The electorate have yet to make tackling climate change their priority at the ballot box, and so, with popularity in mind, politicians are able to dissemble, or delay action, or talk of the need for consensus, and procrastinate on taking action, further wasting time that is increasingly of the essence. They are able to appreciate the concerns of climate activists without ever having to take any decisions that may jeopardise their short-term political careers, even if this double-dealing and inaction comes at the expense of the long-term viability of the planet.

This does not have to be the case. For example, moving to a system of proportional representation would give a greater voice to Green parties which are largely disadvantaged by our current winner-take-all, first-past-the post voting system, and create the need for parties to come together to govern in the national interest. Young people are becoming increasingly engaged in the issue of climate change, as typified by the wave of Climate Strikes taking place around the globe, to demand that politicians take drastic steps to safeguard a future that they themselves will likely not have to cope with. Votes at 16 would be a must, and radical proposals like weighted voting and a maximum voting age, while needing to be discussed sensitively, should also be promoted as - with an aging population - the ability for young people to take the lead on issues that will overwhelmingly affect them compared to older generations is being diminished, and allowing for short-sighted, short-termist policy to be implemented through combined forces of unrepresentative electoral systems, and the conservative monopoly on older voters. The results of this monopoly are plain to see.

I've covered a lot of ground in a short time here, so I'll leave it there after one final point. Some of the dismissive responses to the Climate Strikes from leading politicians have reinforced feelings among young people that politicians do not care about their concerns, partly because this is indeed the case. When your voice is being drowned out by an aging electorate who will not have to deal with the crisis they have enabled, or when you are considered old enough to pay tax but not to vote for those taxing you, your only solution is rebellion - we need radical change, and until we can get it at the ballot box, we must demand it in the streets.