Tony Staunton is a member of the Campaign against Climate Change steering group and one of the founding members of the Resist G7 coalition, initiated by grassroots activists in Cornwall and the South West. Here he sets out how climate justice is not on the table at the G7 and the need to resist.
The G7 is a meeting of the world's most powerful political leaders, scheduled for 11th-13th June 2021 in the UK. These leaders govern the richest countries in the world in their own interests, and the G7 exists to keep it that way.
These government ministers will sit behind military security to meet at a luxury hotel complex in one the most picturesque but poorest regions of Europe - Cornwall. Resetting the global economy after the Pandemic will be the key discussion throughout, with the Climate Emergency centre-fold and used to dominate the media with messages of new economic growth through questionable "Green Technologies", promoted by billionaire Bill Gates and his ilk.
Global capitalism - the neoliberal free-market domination of the transnational corporations for agrochemicals, industrial agriculture, biofuels, together with the so-called Negative Emissions Technology (NET) of Carbon-Capture-and-Storage, mini-nuclear power plants and carbon trading - is the default setting.
The G7 wealthiest nations, hosted by UK Prime Minister Johnson, has invited India's Prime Minister Modi, currently assaulting millions of small farmers to enforce corporate dominance of food markets, and Australia's Morrison, the coal and uranium enthusiast.
The headlines from the G7 will be a prelude to what can be expected from the COP26 deliberations in November, once again led by the UK.
The Campaign against Climate Change is supporting the Resist G7 Coalition established soon after the venue was announced. Based in Cornwall, England, the Coalition has issued the call for action in every community, town and city with a day of action for Climate on Friday 11th June and an international manifestation of opposition to G7 neoliberalism on Saturday12th.
Local protests will take place in Cornwall, with convergence centres and counter-conferences in Penzance and Falmouth. The continuing risk from COVID variants makes the long journey to Cornwall by coach unsafe, and any physical protests called by the Coalition will seek to ensure ensure social distancing and personal protection.
UK trade union leaders have written to the Chancellor calling on him not to cut funding from the Green Homes Grants scheme. They say removing around Ā£1 billion from the scheme would jeopardise the UKās chances of a green recovery, and put jobs at risk. With severe administrative problems caused by mismanagement of the scheme by US firm ICF, they also call on the scheme to be brought under public sector control.
Gail Cartmail, Unite Assistant General Secretary said, "The UK has some of the poorest housing stock in western Europe and 'fuel poverty' is rampant ā so the need for a comprehensive housing renovation programme - with the 'green' agenda at its heart - is desperately required. The current failings in the Green Homes Grants scheme has been abetted by awarding the contract to a US firm, when, during the pandemic, it is the public sector that has more than proved its worth as the standard bearer of delivering services in a timely fashion. This contract should be brought back under public sector control immediately."
John Moloney, PCS Assistant General Secretary said, "The failure of Boris Johnson's Government to deliver on the Green Homes Grant ā already at best a drop in the ocean initiative to tackle the climate emergency ā exposes the truth about their world beating leadership on climate change and the large scale investment needed for a green recovery."
Suzanne Jeffery, Chair of CACCTU said "At a time of a jobs crisis and climate crisis and in the year UK hosts COP26, it's a dangerous and unnecessary failure. Cutting back this scheme threatens jobs and climate action."
It's not a good look for a country claiming to be a climate leader to be providing massive financial support for fossil fuel projects abroad. Last summer it was revealed that the UK governmentās foreign credit agency, UK Export Finance (UKEF) with a history of backing fossil fuel projects will underwrite oil company Total's exploitation of Mozambique's gas reserves with loans and guarantees worth over one billion dollars. As well as climate pollution, this fossil fuel megaproject has also caused forcible evictions of thousands already and threatens local ecosystems.
Hit by accusations of hypocrisy, Boris Johnson finally announced in December that the UK would stop funding fossil fuel projects overseas.
But it appears that UK Export Finance, the UK's biggest funder of overseas fossil fuels, is still considering applications from at least 17 projects, including the gigantic East Africa Crude Oil Pipeline, which it could try to fund before the ban comes into place.
Our friends at Global Justice Now have set up a simple online action to allow you to respond to the government consultation and call for the ban to be:
- Immediate
- Comprehensive, disallowing technical assistance for fossil fuel projects and indirect investments
- Not allowing exemptions for gas, carbon capture and storage (CCS) or for any hydrogen produced using fossil fuels.
And that UK institutions and institutions in receipt of UK ODA should divest from their fossil fuel investments on the earliest possible time frame.
The deadline for responding to the consultation is Monday 8th February
Campaign against Climate Change stands in solidarity with the HS2 protesters at Euston. On 27th January, the National Eviction Team began their eviction of protesters from Euston Square Gardens.
Since August 2020, protesters have occupied the space in order to disrupt HS2ās work to build a taxi rank where 53 trees and a public green space used to be. Protesters have spent the past few months building treehouses and a 30-metre tunnel to make their eviction more difficult.
Reports from the site say that protestors have been denied food and water, and the NET are using torture tactics like depriving the activists of sleep. In the tunnel, there is a shortage of oxygen, five internal tunnel collapses and an influx of liquid mud. There have been reports that the NET are preventing the tunnellers from clearing soil and water from the tunnel. HS2 have also been breaching regulations that state that no machinery can be operated within 100 metres of the tunnel ā they have been continuing construction and riding cherry pickers over the tunnel. These actions are completely inhumane.
HS2 is the most expensive infrastructure project in the UK, costing the taxpayer more than Ā£100 billion. And yet its carbon benefits are highly questionable. Its construction will cause an estimated 8 to 14 million tonnes of CO2, with the first phase expected to be completed around 2030 and the full network by 2040. To set against this, over the first 60 years of operation HS2 Ltd estimated that it would save only 11-12 million tonnes of CO2. Therefore there is no strong evidence that the project will be carbon neutral even by the end of this century.
Considering the carbon reductions and job creation which could have been achieved with Ā£100 billion invested in cutting car dependency through spending on buses, improving local rail services, cycling and walking, HS2 is a massive waste of money.
HS2 will destroy or irreparably damage 108 ancient woodlands, 693 wildlife sites (five of which are of international importance and protected by UK law) and 33 Sites of Special Scientific Interest as well as 1740 houses and businesses. HS2 has been made even more illegitimate by continuing work during the current pandemic, regardless of the dangers of the virus to the construction workers employed on the site and the communities they are part of.
All eviction efforts should be halted. We support HS2 protesters at Euston and every HS2 protester to date for their courage and bravery in the face of this destructive vanity project.
We've had the big announcement: Boris Johnsonās ten point plan for a āGreen Industrial Revolutionā. But following initial positive headlines, the details start trickling out. Ā£12 billion was announced, but just Ā£3 billion, it emerges, is new money. This is paltry. Other countries have already made much larger commitments, including Germany's green stimulus of over ā¬40bn and France around ā¬35bn.
Most importantly, how does it stack up compared to the scale of the task facing us? Two years on from the IPCCās ground-breaking report calling for an urgent transformation of the global economy to stay within 1.5C above pre-industrial levels, global emissions are still (excluding the limited impact of the pandemic) on an upward trend. As temperatures continue to rise, sea level rise is accelerating as polar ice melts. And in the background a steady stream of records broken for ānaturalā disasters like hurricanes and wildfires, hitting the poorest hardest.
The UKās carbon budgets reflect out of date targets, an 80% cut in emissions by 2050. Previous policy failure means we are nowhere near on track to even stay within these deficient targets. This latest set of announcements is therefore doubly inadequate. It leaves a major hole in meeting even these out of date commitments. However we donāt just need to close that gap. Last year the government set a new climate commitment of ānet-zeroā carbon by 2050. In relation to this new target, the gap is even greater. But unfortunately even ānet zero by 2050ā doesnāt cut it. We need to act even faster than 2050 to be compatible with the Paris Climate Agreement.
Meanwhile, we also face a devastating pandemic leaving in its wake widespread unemployment. Now is the time for a real climate jobs programme to tackle the climate and jobs crises.
What would a real 10 point plan to tackle the climate crisis look like?
1. A comprehensive approach
Climate change cannot be tackled as an add-on, or a piecemeal approach that takes us one step forward, two steps back. We need a commitment that every economic policy, every spending commitment, every piece of legislation, will put us on track for a safer future, not jeopardise it by locking us in to business as usual.
If the government had really taken on board the scale of the crisis, it would be rethinking the policies of unconditional corporate bailouts, planning deregulation, aviation expansion, road building, stifling onshore wind. It would not be giving a Ā£16.5 billion windfall to military spending.
2. Meeting the needs of both people and planet
Austerity has left us, more than ever, with a grossly unequal society with continued deep inequalities in race, gender and for disabled people. Underfunded public services are struggling. The move towards a zero carbon society must also ensure access to food, healthcare, education, income, job security, good, affordable, housing, clean and affordable energy and heat, public transport, clean air and green spaces for everyone.
There is huge public support to ābuild back betterā as part of recovery from the pandemic, investing in public services and frontline workers. Instead, a public sector pay freeze is being mooted. These are the wrong priorities: we need huge investment and expansion in the public sector and the people who work in it.
3. āNew Dealā levels of spending
Boris Johnson has tried to compare his plans to Franklin Rooseveltās New Deal. In todayās money, Rooseveltās spending programme amounted to about Ā£4,300 ā for every American living through the turmoil of the Great Depression. In contrast Ā£12 billion is about Ā£180 each.
Our own āOne Million Climate Jobsā report or Green New Deal plans give more of a sense of the levels of investment and ambition needed if the government is taking this seriously. Other recent analyses include an IPPR report which estimates that Ā£33 billion a year in additional annual investment is needed to meet the governmentās net zero target, creating 1.6 million jobs, including Ā£8 billion on homes and buildings and Ā£10.3 billion on transport.
The pandemic has shown that money can be found. It has been found for other spending, including billions to private companies for medical supply and services in contracts awarded with no oversight, regulation or transparency. These are the sums of money that now need to be directed into tackling the climate crisis, sums that can actually make an impact in reducing emissions and would truly justify the term New Deal.
We've had the big announcement: Boris Johnsonās ten point plan for a āGreen Industrial Revolutionā. But following initial positive headlines, the details start trickling out. Ā£12 billion was announced, but just Ā£3 billion, it emerges, is new money. This is paltry. Other countries have already made much larger commitments, including Germany's green stimulus of over ā¬40bn and France around ā¬35bn.
Most importantly, how does it stack up compared to the scale of the task facing us? Two years on from the IPCCās ground-breaking report calling for an urgent transformation of the global economy to stay within 1.5C above pre-industrial levels, global emissions are still (excluding the limited impact of the pandemic) on an upward trend. As temperatures continue to rise, sea level rise is accelerating as polar ice melts. And in the background a steady stream of records broken for ānaturalā disasters like hurricanes and wildfires, hitting the poorest hardest.
The UKās carbon budgets reflect out of date targets, an 80% cut in emissions by 2050. Previous policy failure means we are nowhere near on track to even stay within these deficient targets. This latest set of announcements is therefore doubly inadequate. It leaves a major hole in meeting even these out of date commitments. However we donāt just need to close that gap. Last year the government set a new climate commitment of ānet-zeroā carbon by 2050. In relation to this new target, the gap is even greater. But unfortunately even ānet zero by 2050ā doesnāt cut it. We need to act even faster than 2050 to be compatible with the Paris Climate Agreement.
Meanwhile, we also face a devastating pandemic leaving in its wake widespread unemployment. Now is the time for a real climate jobs programme to tackle the climate and jobs crises.
What would a real 10 point plan to tackle the climate crisis look like?
1. A comprehensive approach
Climate change cannot be tackled as an add-on, or a piecemeal approach that takes us one step forward, two steps back. We need a commitment that every economic policy, every spending commitment, every piece of legislation, will put us on track for a safer future, not jeopardise it by locking us in to business as usual.
If the government had really taken on board the scale of the crisis, it would be rethinking the policies of unconditional corporate bailouts, planning deregulation, aviation expansion, road building, stifling onshore wind. It would not be giving a Ā£16.5 billion windfall to military spending.
2. Meeting the needs of both people and planet
Austerity has left us, more than ever, with a grossly unequal society with continued deep inequalities in race, gender and for disabled people. Underfunded public services are struggling. The move towards a zero carbon society must also ensure access to food, healthcare, education, income, job security, good, affordable, housing, clean and affordable energy and heat, public transport, clean air and green spaces for everyone.
There is huge public support to ābuild back betterā as part of recovery from the pandemic, investing in public services and frontline workers. Instead, a public sector pay freeze is being mooted. These are the wrong priorities: we need huge investment and expansion in the public sector and the people who work in it.
3. āNew Dealā levels of spending
Boris Johnson has tried to compare his plans to Franklin Rooseveltās New Deal. In todayās money, Rooseveltās spending programme amounted to about Ā£4,300 ā for every American living through the turmoil of the Great Depression. In contrast Ā£12 billion is about Ā£180 each.
Our own āOne Million Climate Jobsā report or Green New Deal plans give more of a sense of the levels of investment and ambition needed if the government is taking this seriously. Other recent analyses include an IPPR report which estimates that Ā£33 billion a year in additional annual investment is needed to meet the governmentās net zero target, creating 1.6 million jobs, including Ā£8 billion on homes and buildings and Ā£10.3 billion on transport.
The pandemic has shown that money can be found. It has been found for other spending, including billions to private companies for medical supply and services in contracts awarded with no oversight, regulation or transparency. These are the sums of money that now need to be directed into tackling the climate crisis, sums that can actually make an impact in reducing emissions and would truly justify the term New Deal.
Climate breakdown cannot be a niche issue - it has to be a priority for us all. So we should welcome the Net Zero Festival, run by BusinessGreen, as an attempt to wake up mainstream businesses to the necessity of rapid transition to net zero carbon. As exemplified by sponsorsā¦
...Heathrow, Drax, Shell?
Hang on. Finding these names among the sponsors, one can hardly fail to notice that they are hardly companies usually held up as examples of climate leaders. What is going on? Is Shell switching from oil and gas to renewables and we somehow missed the announcement?
Unfortunately not. What Shell actually produced earlier this year is a ānet zero carbon planā. This promises to cut a small part of the companyās own emissions (those unrelated to burning the oil and gas it extracts) to net zero by 2050 by offsetting. As for the majority of Shellās emissions which come from customers burning its product, there is no target to reduce total emissions, let alone reduce oil and gas production. Instead, Shell promises to reduce ācarbon intensityā by two thirds. This could be by increasing production of renewable energy and biofuels alongside oil and gas, and also offsetting. It further promises to work with customers who burn its product to ensure they capture the carbon or offset emissions.
Interesting. However, notable by their absence from Shell's plan are any proposals to stop exploring for new oil and gas; to halt new extraction; to phase out production in the short or long term; or to invest in a just transition for workers. Before the pandemic, Shell was planning more than 35 new oil and gas projects by 2025. Half of the 24 āmajor projectsā in its investment profile are deep water oil and gas projects, which it says have āsignificant growth potential.ā
The brutal and casual murder of George Floyd has sparked an uprising. Protests have spread across the US and in other countries, fuelled by centuries of structural oppression and racism and a culture of impunity among the police force. The roll call of sons, fathers, daughters, grandmothers killed without justice did not start with Trump's presidency, but he has consistently promoted racist violence in his statements and his policies.
We stand with the international protests. Black Lives Matter. And here in the UK we cannot merely see racism as a US issue. Black lives matter in police stations. Black lives matter in hospital wards and care homes, on trains and buses, in schools and colleges - the shocking disparity in BAME Covid deaths even more dramatic among health and social care staff and transport workers. Black lives matter in the 'hostile environment'. As individuals, we must listen and learn. As climate campaigners, we must speak out.
Climate breakdown has always been an issue of racism as well as social and economic injustice. How could it be otherwise, when the Global South suffers so disproportionately from something it has done so little to cause? Environmental racism also manifests in the toxic pollution from fossil fuel extraction burdening low-income communities in many countries. This has led to the concept of 'sacrifice zones'. But when we compromise on cutting emissions, when 'moderation' is prioritised over climate scientists' stark warnings and call to urgent action, we are accepting the idea that poorer countries and vulnerable communities should be a 'sacrifice zone' for the sake of short-term profit.
We must insist on climate policy that says Black Lives Matter. We must stand with those, particularly indigenous peoples, who are defending their land, water and rights against fossil fuel companies and other resource extraction.
Right now we are heading for a recession that, like the pandemic, exacerbates all existing inequalities. And governments are handing out billions to prop up high-carbon industries. Campaigning for a green recovery which is also a just transformation of society, shaped by the voices those on the streets, demanding an end to racism and injustice - this campaign has never been more urgent.
Rest in Power George Floyd. Solidarity with #BlackLivesMatter. There is no climate justice without an end to racism
(You need to register first, but there's no need to comment in great detail - one or two sentences are fine.)
Despite the aviation industry's current crisis, the climate-wrecking ambition of long-term expansion at regional airports across the UK has not gone away. The latest is Leeds Bradford Airport which wants to increase passenger numbers from 4 million per year now to 7.1 million by 2030 and up to 9 million by 2050.
Whether you live in the local area or not, you can object to their planning application (you will need to register first). Earlier this year, North Somerset Council faced a strong local campaign against Bristol Airport expansion, supported by over 8000 objections to the application and finally rejected the proposal.
This is in no way compatible with the government's commitment to achieve net zero carbon by 2050. Even less so with the more urgent reductions that we actually need to take in a climate emergency.
Leeds City Council themselves declared a Climate Emergency in March 2019, aiming to work towards making Leeds climate neutral by 2030. The contrast between this ambition and airport expansion plans is extraordinary.
In the middle of the ongoing Corona crisis, while the world struggles against the virus and countless workers are losing their incomes, the aviation industry is demanding huge and unconditional taxpayer-backed bailouts. Yet, in recent years, the industry strongly opposed any attempts to end its unfair tax exemptions and refused to contribute meaningfully to global emission reduction goals ā which would require measures to significantly reduce the scale of aviation.
Not only is aviation already responsible for 5-8% of global climate impact, mostly caused by a wealthy minority of frequent flyers, but the sector also assumes that it can continue growing. Enormous profits were made in the last decades, off the backs of low-paid workers and to the detriment of the climate.
Workers affected by the current crisis need support, but we shouldnāt let the aviation industry get away with privatising profit while the public pays for its losses. Without addressing the structural problems that have left our societies and economies so vulnerable to crises like this one, we will be even more vulnerable to the next ones as inequalities between and within countries continue to grow and the ecological and climate emergencies worsen.
Bailouts must not allow the aviation sector to return to business as usual after Covid-19 has been defeated: any public money has to ensure that workers and the climate are put first.
