The Political climate

Being a keen Geography student and therefore in a state of constant indecision between science and society, I am enthralled by the politics of climate change. In terms of greenhouse gas emissions, there can be little question that humans have influenced, and will further alter the climate on an enormous scale. The political use of this ‘science’ both fascinates and terrifies me. I fear the over-use of science in relation to climate change, because our automatic reaction is to believe anything citing empirical evidence. I do recognise that the only reason we even know anything about it is due to climate scientists, and that it is fantastic that the environmental movement has been able to use scientific evidence to bring climate change to the forefront of global debate. Inevitably this has forced acknowledgement from even the most conservative of powers, and installed it prominently in the forefront of the public imagination.

Nevertheless, I am afraid. Using the ‘science’ to construct a national consensus about the need to change our ways, without tarnishing it with the red brush of ‘radicalism’ will not lead to a just or desirable change, but merely an extension of the status quo. The temperature doesn’t strike us as particularly political. However, the climate is global and our national and personal interaction with it has colossal ramifications all around the world. This puts the issue of climate change up there with imperialism as a firm marker of political persuasion.

Using only ‘science’ to argue for the transformation in the way we use energy , even by the good guys, takes climate change out of its proper political and economic context and allows our imaginations to be influenced because of its unquestionable authority. Regrettably, those most able to influence us are not the well-meaning environmentalists who brought climate change to our attention. Thus, the concept of climate change has been swallowed whole by Neoliberals. It is in the realms of the ‘post-political’. Neoliberals are ideologically committed to a small role for the state and a big role for business, with little participation from us. At present this ideology is firmly gripped by not only the majority of Britain’s media, but also our three leading parties; hence it can safely claim ownership over the ‘middle ground.’ We can map this ‘middle’ ground onto the greedy end of the political axis of climate change, which, crudely put, can be considered as running between mitigation and adaption; us taking the hit for the benefit of others, or ignoring the vulnerable to preserve our present way of life. A further politicisation is the use of public money or private investment to facilitate any reform. Sadly, corporate-capitalism has no heart. Regardless of ‘consensus’ the sole motivation of profit will leave the poor destitute and the self-congratulatory rich moving forwards in ‘greener’ cars and planes.Corporations have heartily embraced the environmental movement and its over-use of science, because it means that we do not hold them accountable for our incessant increases in fossil fuel consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions. The ‘objectivity’ of science paints out the role of capitalism in climate change, so it can continue unthreatened.

Consequently, ‘Climate Change’ has been given its own a-political character as the baddie in our global fairytale. Carbon is the ghastly, oily beast looming menacingly over our nice, clean Arctic ice sheets. Warned of its imminent approach, in a fluster of environmentalism, we frantically chose our weapons from the modern day eco-warrior’s arsenal, ready to hurl at the monster; recycled toilet roll, jute bags-for-life, concentrated fabric softener, refillable coffee pouches, travel mugs, milk-in-jugs, washable nappies and this month’s ‘special eco-edition’ of Grand Designs magazine. Any self-proclaiming ‘green’ product will suffice. You might as well chuck our ‘greenest ever’ coalition government at it too, for all the good it will do.