You are here: Home » Comment »

It’s time for real leadership on climate change

November 7, 2011 6:06 pm

Author:

Tags:

Share this Article

Next year marks the twentieth anniversary of the ‘Earth Summit’ in Rio de Janeiro, the United Nations (UN) international summit which put man-made climate change at the top of the global political agenda for the first time. The Earth Summit led to the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, which was signed by the then Labour government.

During the 13 years of Labour Government that followed, the urgent need to tackle climate change remained our priority.

In Government Labour led the way on the international stage. We were the first nation to put climate change at the heart of the G8 and to call a UN Security Council meeting on climate change.

And domestically, we passed the Climate Change Act – a world first, legally binding the UK government to reduce carbon emissions by a third by 2020 and by 80% by 2050.

We doubled renewable energy generation, established Britain as a world leader in offshore wind capacity and invested in R&D for wave and tidal.

Now, in opposition, we must centre on the mission to combat climate change, reaching out to activists, especially young people, and highlighting the failure of the Conservative-led government to capitalise on Labour’s green legacy.

Despite pledging to be the ‘greenest government ever’, David Cameron has left a trail of broken promises and his out of touch cabinet is deeply divided over climate change.

The lack of action has already seen Britain drop out of the global top ten for investment in low carbon technology and we are at risk of losing out on the industries that should be coming to this country are now going overseas because this govt has no plan for jobs and growth.

To win the public’s support on tackling climate change, they have to know there is fairness in the way energy is priced and sold. This Government has failed to stand up to vested interests in the energy market, and the public will pay the price this winter.

As well as taking action at home to create jobs and lower bills, we also need an international agreement on reducing carbon emissions to safeguard the future of our planet.

There are alarming signs that the effects of global warming are already underway. Storms, floods, and droughts are happening more often and are more extreme. Arctic summer sea ice is melting even faster than previously predicted.

On November 28th, countries from around the globe will join a United Nations meeting in Durban, South Africa, to work towards a new international deal to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

At the conference world leaders need to take bold steps to combat climate change, protect our planet and lift millions out of poverty.

We can only make progress on climate change if people call for action. The action we need won’t happen unless we demand it.

That’s why today, along with Shadow Secretary of State Caroline Flint, I’m launching Labour’s Climate Change Pledge campaign.

We are calling on David Cameron and his Government to start leading a government that is serious about tackling climate change, both at home and abroad.

Seizing the opportunity to build a low carbon economy; pushing for a second period of the Kyoto Protocol as a way of working towards a global deal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and delivering on climate finance to help the world’s poorer countries adapt to the effects of climate change.

For too long, successive international negotiations have failed to deliver the action needed to meet the size of this challenge. This needs to change and Britain must be at the forefront of the task.

You can help by calling for decisive action. Sign up to Labour’s climate change pledge at www.campaignengineroom.org/climatechange and publicise the campaign on twitter using the hashtag #climatepledge.

Related posts:

  1. Tackling climate change is about equality, fairness, and morality – we have to be amibitious at Copenhagen
  2. Climate change is not just an environmental issue – it’s a matter of social and economic justice too
  3. Gordon Brown has led on climate change – it’s time for Obama to do the same
  4. Technology solutions to climate change can be hugely effective – and do not need to be expensive
  5. More Griffin lies as he claims a majority think man-made climate change is a “complete scam”
  • GuyM

    Having a degree in this subject and having studied the first signs of climate change as an undergraduate 20 years ago, can I ask you the following questions:

    1 “storms, floods and droughts are happening more often and are more extreme”

    Can you provide empirical evidence please, the nature of increase and concensus scientific view as to why?

    2 “We must centre on the mission to combat climate change”

    Which mission would that be? Last I checked there wasn’t “a mission” but a competing myriad number of initiatives and vested interests all milling about together. Which ones in particular do you see as your “mission”?

    3 What do you think of the theory that climate change is caused by increasing water vapour in the upper atmosphere rather than CO2 in the middle? Or are you convinced (which science isn’t) that you have the correct scientific answers?

    4 how does lifting “millions out of poverty” sit with negating climate change? Surely increasing energy costs as the world sits on the edge of depression isn’t going to help the 3rd world?

    As a scientist and a “green” (in the non political sense) I am deeply suspicious of politicians jumping on the bandwagon of this problem to use it as political capital.

    For a start, drop the dumb “global warming” tag and stick with the more accurate “climate change” please, it makes the argument look idiotic otherwise.

    Secondly if you really really want to generate low cost, low emission power, why not mention nuclear?

    Thirdly if you want to avoid millions more in the UK falling into fuel poverty why fixate on high unit cost forms of green power over, say, development of nuclear and shale gas?

    When someone writes “there are alarming signs that the effects of global warming are already underway”, I want to slap the person around the face to wake them up and drag them back 20 years to show them the phenomenon is not new.

    The US military is convinced about climate change (which should tell any sceptics something), I’m convinced from a large number of metrics (most notably bleaching of sea coral), but when I get non scientists writing absolute claptrap about “global warming” I want to scream inside, whether they be Tory or Labour.

    You have no background in science at all Ms Berger, you have a degree in Commerce and Spanish and before being appointed Junior Shadow at the end of last year I imagine the science in this area was nothing more than a talking point for you over dinner parties.

    So why don’t you drop either the quack science routine and keep it political or drop the politics and brush up on your science, because either way it sure as hell isn’t impressive at the moment.

    Climate change needs serious research and serious actions, not stupid point scoring from some junior minister who can’t even get the scientific terms, theories and speculative causations correct.

    Or to put it another way, you’ve just been peer reviewed and you failed.

    • Anonymous

      So ok then what are the facts, it would be interesting if somebody  told us the facts, or at least tried to.

      I remember the 1950′s smog, because I use to have to go into hospital  because of breathing problems, I know where smog came from the coal mines and the steel works pumping out the smog and acid. You live close to a motor way and you can see the haze taste the fuel.

      I live under the bombing route of the RAF at Pembrey in Wales, when they have the bombing runs my eyes will run and you can taste the aviation fuel, on a warm day it hangs around for hours on a cloudy day it can be in the air for days and you can taste it and see it.

      This year with the extra training for Libya my grass in the lawns have been affected and the flowers died early, my cat has had burns to it’s face.

      we do have an affect on the air we breath and I’m not suprised  with the cars lorries and aircraft.

      But of course I’m open to this not being the case.

      • GuyM

        What you are mainly talking about is particulate matter in the lower atmosphere.

        Particulate matter causes smog, fog, cloud and rain as it acts as a point upon which water vapour can condense around to form water droplets which are the base for cloud and fog.

        Acid as you desribe it, was a huge problem for scandinavian countries due to acid rain in the 70s, 80s and early 90s. The UK caused a lot of this through production of H2SO4 amongst other things from power stations and factories. This has since been turned around to a large extent with less coal etc. been burned.

        You ask for “facts” but the problem is there are too many of them for you to take a decisive viewpoint on this that does not involve some degree of guessing or “faith”.

        Is there evidence that global average temperature of the earth has increased? Yes and the change seems to have accelerated slightly over the last few decades.

        Is there concensus as to what has cause this? No not at all with some strong positions being adopted on either side.

        So when some politician, including our Junior Minister in question, adopt positions and make statements that she nkows nothing about (the civil service are at work I suggest), she makes herself look an idiot to the scientific community and raises the cynacism of a public who expect absolute truths….. which  climate change cannot provide at the moment.

    • Robin Thorpe

      GuyM, whilst I agree with you that it is important to get the semantics right (I too am a pedant; I think it goes with the logical nature of scientists and engineers), I think you are being a little harsh on the author.
      Point 1 is a valid concern, albeit the empirical evidence for this has not been presented. A bi-product of the recent floods in Thailand was that there was a critical shortage of products for the computer industry (in particular hard-drives – only 2 types are made outside Thailand apparently, and these are in Taiwan and Korea). This illustrates the inter-connected nature of global business and I believe most scientists agree that more frequent and more extreme weather events are predicted as a consequence of climate change (therefore it matters to you no matter what you do or who you are – climate change will effect our lives).
      Point 3;as an engineer and not a scientist I am not aware of the water vapour theory, however there is a proven correlation between Co2 levels and global temperature. It is also a fact that Co2 levels have increased dramatically since the industrial revolution. This is why global attention has been centred on CO2 emissions, because this can be controlled and measured. I think you muddying the waters by saying that science isn’t convinced about the CO2 case is unhelpful to say the least. The overwhelming consensus is that increased emissions of greenhouse gases have led to increased temperatures at the poles. The further debate is about the extent of the effect of gases and to what extent reduced emissions will have. Yes it is not as simple as is often presented in the lay media but information has to be accessible to have any impact.
      Point 4; the poverty issue is relevant to the wider remit of the Earth Summit, which is how the piece began. Although it perhaps wasn’t linked very well in this piece the issue of poverty is every bit as important as climate change, because it is part of the much bigger umbrella of sustainable development.

      To all the other doubters, if we as a global village do nothing then in 90 years (not 10,000) the mean temperature of the planet could have risen by 6 degrees. This will have a significant effect on health and well-being as water scarcity causes disease and open war-fare, malaria and other equatorial diseases spread to temperate areas, respiratory disease increases in populous areas and extreme weather events cause death and destruction on an increasingly frequent basis. We might all be dead by then but our grandchildren will hopefully still be around; but for how much longer.
      This is a political problem, not a scientific research area. For this disaster to be mitigated more inter-governmental consensus is required and crucially for us all more governmental intervention is required.  

      • GuyM

        Actually you’ll find that the CO2 belief is based upon strong model causality and also a regression linkage between human activity, CO2 production via increased industrialisation and the global surface temperature changes over recent decades.

        If pushed I’d side with the CO2 problem needing to be sorted out (and have done for 20 years), but how do you do that?

        That was my point, not that CO2 doesn’t need addressing but that there are a myriad of potential actions competing for limited resources whilst the world still needs to feed, clothe and heat itself.

        Ms Berger makes silly political point scoring statements without any real understanding of the science nor a clear policy on how to act…. just a simple “we say do A and you won’t sooo your not green… nah nahn naaaah”.

        That might get some traction with a scientific illiterate voting public but to me it’s just one more reason to detest politicians

        P.S. you really really can not assign a weather “event” i.e. the Thai floods to climate change. Floods have occured throughout history, as have droughts, snow storms, hurrincaes etc. So unless you can show pattern and severity chaging linked with climatic inputs you fall into exactly the trap of all “global warming” disciples and also oddly of all sceptics who think a bit of snow disproves everything.

        Weather is NOT climate, and weather events DO NOT in isolation support anything one way or the other.

        • Robin Thorpe

          OK, I accept your point; especially about politicians using science without understanding basic concepts. I don’t think that politicians represent a broad enough spectrum of our society and science and engineering are definitely under-represented. My defence of the post was more about defending the premise of sustainable development. It would appear from the other comments that Ms Berger’s writing was not well received and I thought it important to support her message. It appears that you are very passionate and well-informed on this topic; perhaps you could write an open letter on this forum outlining your opinions on how governments can deal with climate change using an evidence based approach. Politics is not just for politicians and these web-sites are a useful tool for ordinary members of the public to voice their concerns. If Labour-List won’t publish it Labour-Uncut might. They have a grass-roots section for anyone to contribute.   

          • GuyM

            A fair reply, thank you.

            To be honest I don’t think Ms Berger really believes all that she wrote, it was a political attack masquerading as serious science. It will convince a lot of the population becaues they don’t know any better.

            The UK as a whole doesn’t do science very well, it has an “elite” that does world class science but the general population is shockingly ignorant of the people who bring them most if not all of the improvements in health, quality of life, technology and life expectancy and the like they take for granted.

            I am better informed than most and worse informed than those still working in scientific research, I merely follow some of the issues now as a sort of gifted amateur who once was involved in that part of the academic/scientific world.

            I honestly don’t believe anyone would pay much attention to anything I write here Robin, not least as I am a “blue-green”, something most on the left believe to be an impossibility.

  • jaime taurosangastre candelas

    I’m not convinced about climate change as being an existential threat.  I do believe that I have a personal capacity to understand the arguments if they are not completely esoteric and into specialist realms, but I have yet to hear one.

    I’m certainly prepared to consider that climate change is happening, but it has over multiple cycles in human existence and many more multiples of human existence that modern science can distinguish.  Possibly, the current cycle is slightly boosted by mankind.  The world’s population is now about 7 billion.  Who among us could possibly care if the population reduces to a billion in 10,000 years?  I know I can’t.

    In the day to day life, I do know that I care about fuel poverty and affordability for people paying regular bills, among which is the 12% tariff imposed by government policy on energy costs.

    • GuyM

      Then you are largely adopting the position a lot of scientists hold.

      * climate change IS occuring at a slightly increasing rate
      * it seems to mirror changes in human development
      * the changes seem to vary from place to place
      * it is not clear what is causing it
      * it is not clear whether it is a threat

      Bleaching corals, earth surface temperature changes, increased salination of oceans, water vapour in the upper atmoshere. CO2 levels, deforestation, decreased biodiversity, decreased ice pack coverage… there is a welter of peer reviewed research out there to indicate something is going on.

      But causation and solution are heavily debated and disagreement is widespread.

      What we get is badly briefed politicians seeking exestential truths transfered into simplified sound bites that their non scientific brains can understand, so they can brief scientifically illiterate populations.

      The populations in turn mix weather with climate up and see every snow fall as evidence of a cover up and manipulation from the political classes in order to force change and costs upon them.

      Ms Berger is just another example of someone who knows little, with no scientific background, trying to use this area to score political points.

  • Anonymous

    I ma afraid at a time of economic uncertainty an article like this makes as much appeal to me as Ed  Balls does.

    • Anonymous

      There’s no pleasing some people I guess…

  • Mark5000910

    George Carlin (RIP) called it right:-
    George Carlin (RIP) called it right:-

    “We’re so self-important. So self-important. Everybody’s going to save something now. “Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails.” And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. What? Are these fecking people kidding me? Save the planet, we don’t even know how to take care of ourselves yet. We haven’t learned how to care for one another, and we’re going to save the fecking planet?

    I’m getting tired of that shit. Tired of that shit. I’m tired of fecking Earth Day; I’m tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is there aren’t enough bicycle paths. People trying to make the world save for their Volvos. Besides, environmentalists don’t give a shit about the planet. They don’t care about the planet. Not in the abstract they don’t. Not in the abstract they don’t. You know what they’re interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. They’re worried that some day in the future, they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn’t impress me.

    Besides, there is nothing wrong with the planet. Nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The PEOPLE are fecked. Difference. Difference. The planet is fine. Compared to the people, the planet is doing great. Been here four and a half billion years. Did you ever think about the arithmetic? The planet has been here four and a half billion years. We’ve been here, what, a hundred thousand? Maybe two hundred thousand? And we’ve only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over two hundred years. Two hundred years versus four and a half billion. And we have the CONCEIT to think that somehow we’re a threat? That somehow we’re going to put in jeopardy this beautiful little blue-green ball that’s just a-floating’ around the sun?

    The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through all kinds of things worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles…hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worlwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages … And we think some plastic bags, and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet…the planet…the planet isn’t going anywhere. WE ARE!

    We’re going away. Pack your stuff, folks. We’re going away. And we won’t leave much of a trace, either. Thank God for that. Maybe a little Styrofoam. Maybe. A little Styrofoam. The plant will be here and we’ll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet will shake us off like a bad case of fleas. A surface nuisance.

    You want to know how the planet’s doing? Ask those people at Pompeii, who are frozen into position from volcanic ash, how the planet’s doing. You want to know if the planet’s all right, ask those people in Mexico City or Armenia or a hundred other places buried under thousands of tons of earthquake rubble, if they feel like a threat to the planet this week. Or how about those people in Kilowaia, Hawaii, who built their homes right next to an active volcano, and then wonder why they have lava in the living room.

    The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we’re gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, ’cause that’s what it does. It’s a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed, and if it’s true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new paradigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn’t share our prejudice towards plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn’t know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, “Why are we here?” Plastic … @sshole.
    So, the plastic is here, our job is done, we can be phased out now. And I think that’s begun. Don’t you think that’s already started? I think, to be fair, the planet sees us as a mild threat. Something to be dealt with. And the planet can defend itself in an organized, collective way, the way a beehive or an ant colony can. A collective defence mechanism. The planet will think of something. What would you do if you were the planet? How would you defend yourself against this troublesome, pesky species?

    Let’s see …  Viruses. Viruses might be good. They seem vulnerable to viruses. And, uh …v iruses are tricky, always mutating and forming new strains whenever a vaccine is developed. Perhaps, this first virus could be one that compromises the immune system of these creatures. Perhaps a human immunodeficiency virus, making them vulnerable to all sorts of other diseases and infections that might come along. And maybe it could be spread sexually, making them a little reluctant to engage in the act of reproduction.

    Well, that’s a poetic note. And it’s a start. And I can dream, can’t I? See I don’t worry about the little things: bees, trees, whales, snails. I think we’re part of a greater wisdom than we will ever understand. A higher order. Call it what you want.

  • Pingback: Labour’s Climate Change Pledge | Luciana Berger

Latest

  • Featured Why we love Woolwich

    Why we love Woolwich

    By Jon Wilson

    Woolwich is an amazing place. It’s where the Labour party was founded as a mass membership organization. The Woolwich Provident was one of Britain’s first building societies. The Royal Arsenal Coop one of our first cooperative societies. Woolwich had the second Polytechnic in the country, created with the aim of providing education for working adults. Woolwich is my nearest big town centre, where I shop and go to meet friends. In the last few days, for many people, its name [...]

    Read more →
  • Featured Technology isn’t just something for geeks to worry about

    Technology isn’t just something for geeks to worry about

    By Jim Knight

    If you Google ‘Ed Miliband,’ you quickly get the old stuff about him being a bit of geek. His appearance at Google’s big Tent on Wednesday almost begged the headline “Geek Goes Home”. But that assumes technology is just something for geeks to worry about, and that Ed is a techie. Neither are true. What we saw on Wednesday was a leader with the courage to tell Google straight that it should live up to its founding principles on the [...]

    Read more →
  • Featured Woolwich: The British people – and our politicians – have risen to the occasion

    Woolwich: The British people – and our politicians – have risen to the occasion

    By Mark Ferguson

    “We want to start a war” – Woolwich attacker “right now it is only you versus many people, you are going to lose” - Ingrid Loyau-Kennett Only 24 hours ago, news began to trickle through about a barbarous crime, committed on the streets of our capital city, in broad daylight. It seems that the murderers who attacked and brutally murdered a soldier felt they were acting in a way endorsed by their religious beliefs and their god. But to try and [...]

    Read more →
  • News Labour NEC Report – 21st May 2013

    Labour NEC Report – 21st May 2013

    By Johanna Baxter

    Party Organisation The General Secretary (GS) noted the party’s good performance in the recent Local, Mayoral and South Shields elections and thanked all members, activists and staff for their contribution to that success. The committee discussed the work of Blue State Digital who have been brought in to revolutionise the party’s use of new and social media as part of our suite of campaign tools. It was noted that Matthew McGregor, Head of Blue State Digital’s London Office and former [...]

    Read more →
  • News Labour’s London Assembly Leader responds to Woolwich attack

    Labour’s London Assembly Leader responds to Woolwich attack

    Following yesterday’s attack in Woolwich, Leader of the Labour Group on the London Assembly Len Duvall AM said: “The attack in Woolwich was horrific, the actions of local people in response and the head-teacher and staff at the school are a reflection of the values and strength of our community. “At this afternoon’s London Assembly Police and Crime Committee questions will be asked about yesterday’s attack and the response, and at a future assembly meeting we will come together to [...]

    Read more →