"PRESIDENT Trump is pulling out of the Paris climate change agreement. How will the panellists deal with that?” Coming in the closing stages of the election campaign’s final UK-wide televised leaders’ debate on Wednesday evening, this question was followed by the presenter asking for it to be answered “briefly”.
To be positive for a moment, it was a rare example of climate change getting any kind of attention in these election debates. Despite general agreement that it represents one of the most profound challenges for our society, our economy and indeed for the future of our civilisation, it’s very seldom treated as the political issue it is. Indeed during Trump’s own election campaign, I don’t recall any serious scrutiny of his delusional theory that climate change is a conspiracy invented by the Chinese.
Of course, Trump’s rhetoric is such a continuous stream of inane bombast that it can be hard to focus in on any single specific claim; but of course that’s the point, and it’s how he gets away with it day after day.
Last night, however, he confirmed that he is taking the US out of the Paris Agreement. He said moves will begin to negotiate a new deal that he said would not “disadvantage” the US. His administration had been heavily trailing the fact that he intended to withdraw, and in some ways, his position won’t alter much.
We know that, in terms of domestic policy, his administration is relentlessly hostile to environmental concerns, and to the scientists who inform us about those concerns. But we also know that there is some climate leadership in the US; it’s coming from state and city governments which see both the urgency of the problem and the opportunities that acting quickly can create.
There are voices in the private sector also calling for government action, however they tend to be the businesses with the least to lose. The big polluters in the fossil fuel industry and its biggest customers are still happily throwing money at any politician willing to deny reality.
In addition, both China and the EU are now committed to the Paris Agreement regardless of the US stance, and this is likely to be the position of most countries. It may take time (and perhaps a different president) for the US to rejoin the rational world, but that should not stop most of the planet’s governments from taking action.
When the UK leaves the EU (and regardless of whether the UK itself holds together in the years that follow) it will be essential that it maintains climate cooperation with our European neighbours.
Of course, Paris itself is little more than a statement of intent, and we’re yet to see a widespread acceptance of the course of action which will be needed to make it a reality.
In the short debate which followed the climate question on Wednesday night, only one person made clear the scale of the challenge. Caroline Lucas, co-leader of the Green Party of England and Wales, was the sole political leader who was willing to say what others avoid – that the bulk of our fossil fuels must remain in the ground, unburned.
The world has vastly more than we can afford to use, yet our economies continue to lock in high patterns of energy use, remain overinvested in the “carbon bubble”, and regard production of oil, gas and coal as having positive value instead of accepting that it’s a source of deep vulnerability.
Sadly, Scotland is little different. The Scottish Greens have developed proposals showing that, with the right investment, far more jobs can be created in new sustainable industries than will be lost in oil and gas. More to the point, those unsustainable jobs are being lost already, and nothing will keep the fossil fuel industry running forever. Its end is coming fast, whether or not we choose to invest in an alternative.
Yet every other party still calls for ever bigger subsidies and tax breaks to keep extracting the stuff, and to go looking for more. And every other party continues the delusion that oil-hungry industries such as aviation can keep growing forever.
Indeed, I can’t for a moment see why residents in constituencies such as Glasgow North,where I live and am standing for election, should be sending MPs to Westminster to advocate for an extra runway at Heathrow, while public transport here remains unreliable and overpriced. Such business-as-usual actions will make our climate ambition utterly worthless, and would amount to something even worse than Trump’s delusional thinking – a conscious and fully informed refusal to act despite knowing the facts.
That’s why I’m standing with Caroline, and why we need more Green voices at Westminster.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel