AltEnergyShift

Environmental News, Environment, Nature, Green living, Oceans, Animals, Universe, Green Network, Weird, Wonderful... all that we care about.

The state of Green politics post Copenhagen

green politics copenhagen 300x200 The state of Green politics post Copenhagen

New Zealand election campaign buttons – photo by wonderferret (source: Flickr Creative Commons)

Economic recession, ‘Climategate’ and other ensuing scandals may have shaken both the  public’s faith in – and concern about – the realities of man made climate change. Yet a fickle media or confused citizenry have not been enough for most political establishments to break from some kind of platform that takes climate change and other environmental issues into account. Contemporary politics are still strongly influenced by what has become the zeitgeist of the day – and the parties of the future will no doubt be judged in part on how they are now reacting to environmental concerns.

For the moment, however – politics being what it is – both populist and vote chasing politicos as well as ideological and practical leaders are taking heightened risks no matter what their stand on the environment. By playing on public doubts and fears, they chance alienating and spurning voters. In fact it may be the Right, which is lacking a clear identity in both the United States and the UK, who hope to benefit by being less cohesive on the issue of climate change than the Left and center, who are at least in theory the far greener side of the political spectrum.

Case in point: according to a piece in The Economist, the British Conservative Party’s chief strategist voted for the Green Party in the last UK elections. And on issues such as energy independence and more vague areas like rural conservation, the Conservatives definitely have their environmental interests. Yet most greens still know on which side their bread is buttered.

Another of the green lobby’s fears is a change of government. Many Conservative activists and MPs are sceptical about climate change. Many more, including some in the shadow cabinet, think the matter should be given low priority. And even true believers worry about the divisive potential of the issue. The grim example of Australia’s centre-right Liberal Party, which deposed its leader in December after he backed an emissions-trading scheme, has not gone unnoticed.

–The Economist

This state of affairs is of course different depending on what country or region we are discussing. Germany and Scandinavia are decidedly greener across all parties than the United States is, for example. Still, it is probably safe to say that a relative comparison can be made from Left to Right within all nations. The character of local green parties must also be taken into consideration. Furthermore, international and cross-national organizations like the UN and the European Union have proven to be greener than the individual governments of many of their members.

But ineffectual or wishy-washy centrist politicians and the influence of politicized media blitzes against the validity of global warming may be underscoring cleavages between not only the Left and Right in terms of environmental issues, but further radicalizing activists on both sides. A failure at Copenhagen for any commitment or binding international treaty for action on climate change may have buoyed climate change ‘skeptics’ or ‘deniers’ as have the ensuing overstated scandals. But these same events may also be galvanizing some climate activists, as an article in the Guardian explains:

In many cases the focus is shifting from global action to local issues, such as fossil-fuel power plants or mines. Rising Tide North America’s document calls for “an asymmetrical assault on the fossil fuel industry” while in the UK and in Europe campaigners are also planning to focus more on local grassroots campaigns, “to start from the bottom” as the Rising Tide spokesman put it.

If Copenhagen forged anything, it was a network of cooperation between local, regional and global environmental movements. After all, many hardcore eco-activists were already against carbon trading policies or a global deal that they believed might shunt the developing countries and world’s poor. How they continue to act on a global level or involve themselves in the political processes of the establishment remains to be seen.

by Graham Land

Additional resources:

Rising Tide North America: The Climate Movement is Dead: Long Live the Climate Movement

The European Union and climate change: Is globalization actually good for the environment?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

YOUR AD HERE? CHECK OUT OUR SPONSORING OPTIONS

4 Comments

  1. Graham_Land says:

    Russ –
    While it’s true that English is the principal lingua franca for most of the world, Al Gore is not the world’s principal source for information about the environment. And I can’t accept that being a native English speaker or of a certain political persuasion makes one inherently less likely to be duped. Yes, the homes of the typical liberal democracy model are mainly English speaking countries, but they are linked by a common past.
    And differing environmental policies in Europe and the US go back many years and have factors more based on economics, stages of industrialization and the state of each country’s natural resources than how well they speak English or how readily they might accept central authority. California (an oil state with a Governor who is anything but a leftist) has far lower CO2 emission levels per GDP than Germany and gets far more power from renewable sources. New Zealand, has a very strong and effective Green movement. Again, different economies and natural resources. Besides, there may also be legitimate reasons for participating in a democracy and having a higher level of trust in the political system. (Incidentally – or not – the Czech president is a climate skeptic.)
    Most factors are practical rather than ideological, as the roots of environmentalism or an ability to look rationally at scientific evidence are not embedded in the traditional right of left. Al Gore is well within the general neo-liberal mold, a capitalist, non-authoritarian and not radically different from a Republican, even in the narrow US-centric context.

    It’s difficult to argue about who is out of touch with reality as any opinionated ideologue thinks him or herself to have the answers and that other side is lying or being duped. I would just advise everyone to apply the same level of skepticism and critical thinking to all sources – while trying not to be too cynical. Yes there are political agendas and interested groups will attempt to take advantage of any situation, but if we take all possible motivations into account and look at the STATED risks (economic, political and environmental) with open minds, maybe we can get a bit more realistic view.

    BTW is predicting a collapse of civilization less alarmist than predicting ecological catastrophe? Where is the evidence? Maybe one precipitates the other…

  2. Russ Walsh says:

    I suspect the reason Europe is ‘greener’ than some jurisidictions is language, and the broader proliferation of the Internet and alternate media in the US, the UK, and Canada. Climategate has generally unfolded in English. When Gore speaks, he speaks in English, and so those fluent in English are much better positioned to catch his lies and fabrications, based on linguistic nuances. In my view, Gore registered on my meter as a snake oil salesman from day one. Another possible reason for Scandinavia and Germany’s ‘green-ness” is that culturally and historically they tend to be less skeptical and more accepting of central authority. They are more accustomed to accepting central thinking without creating too much fuss. Culturally, English speaking countries, particularly the US, tend to scrutinize central authority more. Hence, when everyone says Global Warming, we check first before jumping on the bandwagon. Not many, but certainly more than people in Europe did. And finally, I think we’re witnessing that particular point in their cycle that all civilizations go through – their collapse. All civilizations collapsed, most for internal reasons. Civilizations rise, plateau, people in the plateau era forget how damned hard it was to reach the plateau, and so down the civilization goes. Environmentalists are very much made up of people who use ‘science’ to advance a leftist agenda. Since there’s nothing like the left for being completely out of touch with reality, civiliation goes down. Because when it comes to reality versus fantasy, like it or not, reality wins.

  3. Graham_Land says:

    Thanks for your comment Mike. Please spare a thought for the babies and animals – its not too late to change!

    Seriously though, it’s interesting to me how the issue of climate change has brought science (or certain fields of science) into the public debate. I don’t think science has ever been this politicized or mediated. Nor has it ever been scrutinized so much by non scientists. This was bound to result in unprecedented hype, misrepresentation and misunderstanding on both sides of the debate – and ultimately a somewhat ironic public loss of faith in science. Ironic because “faith” has no fundamental relation to science, though some basic level of trust in science and government is inherent in a legitimate democracy.

  4. Mike Haseler says:

    I’m a sceptic, but this is a good article and very thoughtful. I’ll be interested to see whether other issues receive a bit more attention now that the heat has come off global warming.

    So good luck in the (UK) elections, the country is going to need people with a conscience when the tories get in. And with that, I will go back to putting babies in gas-ovens and tortoring small animals or whatever it is we sceptics are supposed to do.

You can also log in to post a comment.

Copyright (c) 2009-2011 Greenfudge.org

Register your Account

Your password will be mailed to your account.

A password will be e-mailed to you.