Climate camp reloaded

At a press conference in May 2010, Cameron flanked by his then minister for climate change, Chris Huhne, announced to great media fanfare that the incoming coalition would be the “greenest government ever”. The adoption of a green agenda had been one of the ways Cameron would detoxify the Conservative “brand” in the run up to the 2010 election. This involved a number of media stunts, including being photographed with husky dogs in the Arctic, and cycling to work in parliament (never mind the fact that a motorised escort following closely behind). The stunts aside, the government had committed to opposing airport expansion in the south east. In particular, they had promised to oppose the outgoing  Labour government’s support for a third runway at Heathrow.  The coalition had also committed Whitehall to participating in the 10:10 campaign aiming a 10% reduction in carbon emissions from participating businesses. Cameron also stated that the coalition would be committed to a new green economy in the UK.

Yet only two years later Cameron would commit one of the most abrupt political U-turns. 2012 marks the year when government policy on the environment in general, and climate change in particular, changed radically.  Following the reshuffle key ministers opposing airport expansion at the Department for Transport were replaced; John Hayes a vocal critic of wind farms was made energy minister; Owen Patterson, an opponent of wind farms and supporter of fracking is made an environment minister; and the former Thatcherite minister and climate denialist, Peter Lilley, was appointed to the parliamentary select committee on energy and climate change.  In November it is revealed that Osbourne’s “dash for gas” will quadruple the amount of “unabated” gas generating capacity, a commitment copper-fastened with tax subsidies, as well as major tax concessions to fracking industry. Also in November, it  is revealed that Cameron takes the highly unusual step of blocking the appointment of a key civil servant at DECC (Department of Energy and Climate Change) who is seen as being too committed to tackling climate change. And again in November the government announces a commission headed by the disgraced former director of the LSE, Howard Davies, a one time  policy advisor to ex Chancellor, Nigel Lawson (who now runs the climate denialist lobby group the Global Warming Policy foundation). Although the recommendation will not be delivered until after the next election, there can be little doubt  it will favour continued airport expansion at Heathrow. Then to top it all, the government gives the green light to over fourty “zombie” road schemes, which had been  successfully resisted by the direct action movement of the nineties and by local campaigns, such as the Combe Valley, Hasting bypass.

The austerity unleashed by the Coalition has failed to restore growth rates as numerous critical economic commentators had argued. Robert Skidelsky has pointed out that the 2010 forecast of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) was projected at 2.6% growth in 2011 and at 2.8% growth in 2012; in fact, the UK economy grew by 0.9% in 2011 and flat-lined in 2012. The  abrupt U-turn on the environment, far from representing a break from austerity, represents an intensification of plan A, that is, continuing with more austerity; it is a response mediated by the Coalition’s neoliberal ideology, which subordinates all other concerns to the economic interests of the 1%.  It needs to be understood in the context of the failure of Osborne's austerity policies to restore growth rates in the UK economy. This has left the government scrambling around for short-term fixes to restore growth. One of the quickest, cheapest, and needless to say, dirtiest, ways of doing this is by “externalising”, as economists put it,  more of the costs of production. Industry achieves this by loading the cost of economic growth on the environment and society, such as reducing workers’ health and safety, or relaxing pollution regulations, creating for example, an increased workload for the NHS. So the government's new planning laws will make it easier for business to concrete over swathes the countryside; and Vince Cable's “bonfire of red tape” will worsen working conditions by removing strict liability on employers who breach health and safety regulations. Whether these policies will actually restore growth rates, or is even desirable is a moot point. David Harvey has pointed out that while neoliberalism has failed to restore growth rates it has created new forms of dispossession and has always increased inequality

There is also the question of the political power of the fossil fuel industry to consider. There is a huge amount of capital tied up in the existing fossil fuel economy whether it be gas pipelines, power stations or oil refineries. And as Bill McKibben has noted, the stock valuations of oil and gas companies is tied to the exploitable reserves of fossil fuel in their asset portfolios. This concentration of fossil fuel capital creates its own centre of political power. This power is manifested in many different ways, in the media via public public relations, through the “revolving door” between Whitehall and the industry and directly in Parliament itself through lobbying. Other branches of industry have their own centres of power and their own political lobbies to represent their interests, whether it be the  airline industry lobbying for airport expansion, or the food industry lobbying to water down food labeling laws. George Osborne is one of the most influential defenders of the fossil fuel lobby in government. And other branches of industry have their own centres of power and their own political lobby’s to represent their interests. The renewable energy industry, because it is newer and smaller, does not enjoy the same political influence as the fossil fuel lobby. So for instance, the hostility of many backbench Tory MPs to wind farms should not be understood as concerns due to their aesthetic impact on the English countryside but the playing out of the interest of the fossil fuel lobby. Their concerns for the English countryside seem to evaporate when the question is new roads schemes in their constituency. It will be interesting to observe how many of those MPs opposing wind schemes on “aesthetic” grounds will also oppose fracking rigs in their constituencies.

The government’s new “growth” agenda threatens to undo every progressive gain made by environmental movements and campaigns over the last thirty years. For instance, it was one of the gains of the direct action anti-road movement of the 90s to make the government accept that it could not solve the country's transport problems by building more roads. It is clear the Osborne would like to tear up the Climate Act as he seeks to undermine it with major gas expansion. Insufficient as it is, the Climate Act is still a major gain, which would not have got into the statute book without the mobilisation of the climate campaigns of the last decade.

This assault on the environment can and must be resisted. The mass direct action movement unleashed by groups such as Reclaims the Streets in the 90s was an essential element which blocked the Major government’s road building plans. Likewise, Climate Camp and Plane Stupid derailed the last government’s expansion plans for new coal at Kingsnorth and forced the then opposition to oppose new runways in the South East - at least for this term. Sadly until we fundamentally change our political and economic system these victories will always be partial and limited.

But that does not mean we should give up. In 2013 we should renew our commitment to rebuild a movement focussed on social and environmental justice. The emergence of the global Occupy movement following the movements in Spain and Greece and the revolts in the Middle East  gives us an opportunity to build a deeper, broader and more interconnected movement. We need to point there are alternatives to the neoliberal lunacy being imposed in this country and throughout Europe.

George Osborne's dash for gas will not only undermine the Climate Act but lock the UK either into expensive gas imports, or highly polluting fracked gas, or most likely, both. It will mean less renewable energy. As the Committee on Climate Change has noted, relying on gas could add £600 onto domestic energy bills. At a time the number of households in the UK in fuel poverty is rising, we need to point out that there are alternatives. And it is building more roads and while announcing rail fare rises at twice the rate of inflation. We can afford to heat our homes, protect the climate and create sustainable jobs which cut carbon emissions. In the summer of 2012 the One Million Climate Jobs Now! campaign launched a caravan tour which brought this message up and down the country. Groups such as Fuel Poverty Action are pointing out that rising energy prices are not caused by renewable energy but the rising price of gas. On October 20th, the Climate Block was formed linking the issue of climate justice and austerity on the TUC March in London. And on 29th October, No Dash for Gas occupied a new build gas plant at West Burton for over a week.


These are all small and laudable initiatives. In 2013 we need to continue to build these links, but also launch a new mass movement which embraces mass direct action. The potential is there to build something on a greater scale than before, which is better rooted in our society, with links to workers, the unemployed, students and pensioners. What we now need is courage, imagination, and above all determination to build this movement.