It has come to my attention that not everyone has the time or inclination to read 5,000 word think pieces on theories of change and why #schoolstrike4climate and what it heralds could be of epoch-shaping importance, so THREAD... businessgreen.com/bg/blog-post/3…
First up #schoolstrike4climate has to be seen in the context of genuinely remarkable resurgence of the climate movement in the last few months driven by everything from @AOC and #greennewdeal through to @GreggsOfficial vegan sausage rolls and, of course, @GretaThunberg...
Expectation was climate campaigns and green business action would steadily build up through to late 2020 and crucial crunch dates of US election and Paris Agreement coming into full effect. But the kids are in a hurry. And who can blame them.
You can see they have touched a nerve because they are angering all the right people. The palpable confusion and anger in the response of frothing right wing commentators is something to behold. #snowflakes the lot of them.
And somewhere buried deep in their angry attacks on schoolchildren(!) is a sneaking fear that if the kids are right, if climate change is an emergency and the coming generation understands that then the jig is up. The threat to the carbon intensive status quo is absolute.
BTW it should surprise no one that after hymning the suffragettes our tone deaf PM sides with the angry old men and against the idealistic children fearful for their futures (and she doesn't even have the excuse of climate scepticism to justify her condemnation).
How hard is it to say 'I applaud the school strikers vision and engagement. That is why my govt is cutting emissions fast and exploring how to build a bet zero emission economy for these young children...
... However, a valuable lesson is that protest requires sacrifice, so I hope every protesting student accepts their detentions stoically and makes up any work they've missed'.
Anyways, back to why #schoolstrike4climate and the wider moment is so important. First up, watch the business response. Climate is being thrown into the culture war. Who do business + political leaders want to align with? Angry old men or the future? It's not much of a decision.
Then there's the challenge to the dominant green theory of change, which has been largely technocratic. That has sparked a clean tech revolution and the Paris Agreement, but not delivered emissions reduction...
What the last few months ask is 'what could be achieved with real, powerful, sweeping public demands for action driven by a justifiable sense of burning injustice?' The answer is a hell of a lot.
What makes this different to previous climate protests? Three things: 1. The weather, or rather the fact all weather now endures the bootprint of climate change. Everyone can see the impacts. Its 16C in Feb. Read @dwallacewells kids.
2. The demand are increasingly feasible. That technocratic theory of change delivered seriously cheap renewables and clean tech. A wave of thrilling R&D is underway. @MLiebreich@MichaelGrubb9 and many others are showing how system change could be possible.
As anyone who reads @BusinessGreen serious corporate muscle is signed up to this transition and is committed to driving it as fast as possible.
3. We have 20 years of climate policy experimentation to draw on. We increasingly know what works and how. We may not be doing enough, even of the time easy stuff, but there are templates to follow.
Everything points to a thrilling 20 years as clean energy, EVs, and technologies you've never even dreamed of yet reshape the global economy far faster than anyone expects and at massive net benefit to everyone.
Reasons for pessimism? I've got those too: 1. It's all 20 years too late isn't it? It should have been my generation that was on the streets in the 90s but we were busy having too much fun. I'm still scared for my darling boys. Still this: businessgreen.com/bg/blog-post/3…
2. You think the backlash has been bad so far? You think smearing school kids is all the reactionary right has got? Can you think of anything the Trump admin won't do to win next year? Me neither.
3. Climate Hawks are more than capable of squandering this opportunity. The reaction to the GND has taken the narcissism of small differences to a whole new level.
Serious state intervention to avert a global emergency is not Venezuela.
Business investment and innovation is not inherently evil greenwash.
Both approaches will likely be needed. Enough with the ideological purity tests. There's work to do.
Despite these risks there's no doubt change is in the (unnervingly mild) air. There are reason to think after 20 years the public, politics, and business could finally be ready move in unison in pursuit of a net zero, clean, healthy economy. It may be too late,but it could happen
This piece is every bit as dense as you’d expect of a London Review of Books article on the work of a Nobel-winning economist, but it’s also absolute 🔥🔥🔥☄️.
I particularly like this bit. The problem is not economic modelling, it’s the certainty with which it is deployed.
And yes, you could say the same of climate models, but modelling based on physical laws is gonna be more confident than economic modelling, plus it tends to be better about talking about ranges and scenarios.
Almost the ur-text for the new climate sceptics from Andrew Neil here:
- suggest there’s a simple solution to the gas price crisis ✅
- blame ‘green blob’ and ‘mad’ politicians ✅
- quote highly questionable projections for fracking production and jobs ✅ dailymail.co.uk/debate/article…
- make no mention of negligible impact UK gas production would have on domestic prices without export bans or nationalisation ✅
- big up nuclear but make no mention of cost implications ✅
- make no mention of energy efficiency ✅
- and most of all, in no way address what to do about the increased carbon emissions, climate risks, and exposure to volatile prices associated with increased gas reliance ✅
Quick thread to go with this blog. One of the defining features of the recent attacks on net zero is the failure to provide much in the way of detail on what they'd do instead. businessgreen.com/blog/4044475/s…
In that regard it's very similar to the attacks on red tape, which once you dig into the detail ends up with PM's waffling on about newts (Johnson) or voles (Cameron) and Ministers failing to find any regs that can be axed without significant economic damage or political blowback
The idea we should 'go slow on net zero' has the same lack of detail. The only tangible proposals I've seen are: 1) get fracking 2) axe green levies 3) scrap 2030 new petrol and diesel car phase out date
What does he mean by a ‘more proportionate’ approach to net zero? What exact policies would he scrap? How much higher would he want emissions to be? Which clean tech sector would he like to slow the development of? How much more would have to be spent on climate resilience?
There’s an entire strain of modern Conservatism that is defined by nothing so much as whining about things it doesn’t like and denying objective reality. It has literally nothing constructive to offer beyond wishful thinking and the abdication of responsibility.
BTW there is an obvious policy agenda that could fit with Frost and co’s ‘proportionate’ response to net zero and I don’t doubt eventually they’ll land on it to give them some cover. It’ll be ‘let’s sit here and wait for technology to save us’.
This exchange is really important. Sam’s argument is that if we’d gone faster on renewables and energy efficiency then we’d currently be having to buy less gas and bills would be lower. This is objectively and demonstrably true.
Andy from the IEA’s response is that if we’d invested more in domestic gas supplies and been less ‘dogmatically’ focused on net zero we’d have to import less gas and bills would be lower. This is entirely hypothetical and based on at least three questionable assumptions:
1. That you could build a large shale gas industry in the UK in defiance of massive local opposition and planning constraints.
The Net Zero ‘Scrutiny’ Group’s proposals for dealing with the gas price crisis are so absurdly partial their inadequacy becomes clear within the first five paragraphs of a story they themselves have briefed. A hopefully shortish thread…
Let’s leave aside the question of whether pressure can be ‘piled on’ by ‘backbenchers’ when those backbenchers number just 19 of the usual suspects while a far larger number of backbenchers are thinking much more seriously about this challenge, and instead look at their proposal.
The main idea is to ‘scrap green taxes’ that make up a quarter of electricity - but not gas - bills and axe the 5% VAT rate on energy bills.