Watching Rishi Sunak’s net zero announcement this week, I was reminded of Naomi Klein’s latest book, Doppelganger: A Trip Into the Mirror World. She describes a sophisticated and dangerous approach to communications that presents a warped version of reality. ‘They get the feelings right, but the facts wrong’. There is just enough truth, muddled with lies and omissions, to distort, confuse and divide. That is what we saw in this announcement, with dangerous and life-threatening consequences. We witnessed the biggest threat and collective challenge that humanity has ever faced exploited as a short-term political wedge issue, all the while and with no hint of irony, standing in front of a sign that read ‘longer term decisions for a brighter future’.
Sunak hit the nail on the head when he spoke of a need for honesty, clarity, democratic and properly informed debate, bravery to speak hard truths, transparency and a reckoning with reality. He then did precisely the opposite. Let’s take three examples.
1. Leadership or counter-productive accounting tricks? He described the UK as a world climate leader, claiming emissions reductions of 50% since 1990, faster than any other G7 country. He failed to mention (and not a single journalist in the room challenged him on this!) the long list of exclusions from those reported emissions. According to an independent review of the UK’s net zero plans, led by Zero Hour and endorsed by dozens of scientists, 40% of the UK’s total carbon emissions are simply not counted. Moreover, by excluding emissions from imports, this creates a real-world net increase in emissions, encouraging the offshoring of manufacturing, destroying local livelihoods and exacerbating dissent and poverty in communities around the UK.
2. Running in the wrong direction. He said he is ‘unequivocal’ that we will meet international agreements to limit warming to 1.5 degrees and that his is a ‘credible’ plan. He failed to mention that the UK’s Net Zero Strategy falls woefully short of the 1.5 degree limit in its ambition and implementation, and for this reason was ruled as unlawful by the High Court in 2022. Does he realise how ludicrous he sounds when we have already burned through >90% of the global carbon budget for 1.5 degrees (depicted visually here) and in the face of repeated and ever more urgent pleas from the scientific community that we must act with bold, ambitious actions on all fronts now? You don’t need to be a physicist to understand that the real world impact of these policy roll-backs is five more years of carbon and other toxic emissions, into an already polluted atmosphere that exceeds WTO air quality limits. How can he label such blatant can-kicking tactics as ‘in the country’s best long term interests’? Does he really think we can win this race by running in the wrong direction?
3. Reducing dependence by increasing demand (really?). He pointed to a real fear and risk around fluctuations in oil and gas prices fuelling inflation across sectors, and a dependence on other countries for energy. But how exactly does extending our demand for fossil fuels help us to end our dependence? The only true path to energy security for the UK lies in reducing demand and in harnessing our island’s huge potential for wind, wave and solar power, which would tackle the cost of living crisis and the climate crisis at once, promoting local pride, prosperity and health, described powerfully here.
Now let’s consider what was missing.
1. Ecological breakdown, planetary boundaries and unprecedented risk. He failed to acknowledge that we are in the midst of global ecological breakdown. That we have surpassed six of nine planetary boundaries that define the safe limits within which a stable, life-supporting climate is possible. That this puts us in a place of unprecedented risk to life, to food and water security, peace and economic security. Is this really the moment to expand nuclear energy into a warming and increasingly instable world? Many scientists warn that it is not.
2. Fairness. He spoke of fairness, but where was the acknowledgement of billions in unprecedented, windfall profits, as a direct result of Putin’s illegal war, being pocketed by fossil fuel companies and their shareholders? Who decided that it is the working men and women of the UK, those who have contributed least to the UK’s emissions, that should pay for this transition in the midst of a brutal cost of living crisis? This was asserted as a matter of fact, rather than a political choice. What happened to the ‘polluter pays’ principle? What about wealth taxes, carbon taxes and the myriad range of alternative funding options?
3. Dark money and corruption. He spoke of ‘influence from special interests’, but he failed to acknowledge the opaque channels funnelling billions to perpetuate vested fossil fuel and other elite interests? In the Q&A, it was evident that the Sun’s (or Rupert Murdoch’s?) ‘Give us a Brake Campaign’ should take much credit for these changes. He failed to acknowledge millions in tax payer money required to subsidise fossil fuels when the prices inevitably spike. Let us consider, who benefits, really, from these changes? Is it the common man and woman in the UK with drafty homes, polluted air and unpredictable, rising bills or the fossil fuel companies who profit from these hardships? He spoke of consent and consumer choice, but tell me, where is the choice for people who are increasingly squeezed and facing impossible choices between economic security and clean air?
At worst, this appears as a cynical and ill-judged attempt to exploit the very real fears and hardships facing too many people in the UK today for political gain, as an insult to the efforts of millions of people dedicating themselves to tackling the climate crisis. It undermines and punishes the responsible businesses mobilising people, resources and money, on the understanding of stable, long-term cross-party commitments. If these changes comes to pass, it will wreak further harm to the lives and livelihoods of the people of the UK and the 3.6 billion people (almost half of the world) who are living in contexts that are highly vulnerable to extreme weather events, food and water insecurity caused by climate change.
I wonder though whether Mr Sunak is deluding himself? Does he understand these realities or is he himself trapped within the mirror world, receiving disparate fragments, false projections and poor advice? What would it take for him to open his mind, to see the bigger picture and acknowledge this catastrophic mistake? Will he, in his moments of self-reflection, be honest with himself and be open to changing his mind? Stranger things have happened.
So what do we need from here?
Ironically, we need to start with precisely what Sunak described. We need honest leaders who face reality. We need leaders to put the long term interests of the country, and the world, ahead of short term gains. The Tory Peer, Lord Deben, speaking to Chris Packham in a documentary aired on the same day, called for wartime leadership that is commensurate with the unprecedented scale of loss.
We need leadership that empowers, unites and creates the conditions for change at an unprecedented pace. That change must enable us to rapidly reduce our energy and materials consumption, transforming our systems for food, energy, transport, and restoring nature. To do so, we will need imagination and the full power of everyone, everywhere all at once. We must come together, not break apart.
While this kind of leadership is lacking in Westminster, there is hope in the growing waves of change at a local level, within national assemblies, cities and communities, in businesses and non-profits. From the Welsh Assembly’s Wellbeing of Future Generations Act (signed into law in 2015), to Amsterdam’s adoption of doughnut economics to the growing transition town movement, real leadership does exist. These are powerful, positive and inclusive movements that create resilient, healthy economies, ensuring human needs are met while protecting nature. While we wait for Westminster to catch up, we will carry on, knowing that every choice and every bit of warming matters and the movement is growing every day.
Originally published in September, 2023
Photo by Zaid Ahmad on Unsplash