,
11 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
This is maddening, and not just for the blindingly obvious reasons... theguardian.com/politics/2019/…
There was some criticism last week of those who noted the sparse attendance for the first Commons debate on climate change in two years from those who noted, not unreasonably, that attendance is a poor metric for MPs' level of concern and engagement businessgreen.com/bg/blog-post/3…
As Lisa Nandy completely rightly pointed out many MPs care massively about climate change and would have been conducting important constituency or committee work. This is true and attendance levels for a debate is a poor indicator of parliamentary concern.
But the accusation is not that MPs were shirking (some would have been busy with their second or third jobs, but many/most would have been doing important work elsewhere). The accusation is that the attendance was indicative of a failure to prioritise climate action.
And with that accusation attendance needs to be seen within its context. That context is this was the first debate in two years. There was no debate when the IPCC published its report, no debate when the govt proposed a decarb strategy that was not in line with UK's own targets.
That context was the PM refusing to mention climate change in her set piece conference speeches and overseeing a torching of climate policies that are still yet to be replaced. That context is the on-going confusion of Green Brexit policy.
And that context is when the government does find £1.6bn down the back of the sofa for a stimulus package literally no one in govt thinks 'why not tie this to something more positive than a bung, why not position it as a fund to stimulate the low carbon investment we need'.
It could have been a two birds, one stone, down payment on a green stimulus, helping the towns that drove the first fossil fuelled industrial revolution a stake in the next green industrial revolution. There could have been a positive, forward-looking, 21st century narrative.
Instead there is a vague promise of vague help for 'left behind towns', with the people using that phrase often not even having the decency to put it in speech marks.
It's bad politics, bad economics, and bad for the environment. And all because the government can't walk and chew gum at the same time, and, regardless of what it says, is not prioritising climate action.
We know it is not a priority more through what is not said, done, and attended, than through what is. And that is why it is fair to highlight, as @CarolineLucas has done, that there were only 40 MPs at last week's debate. theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
