Net zero extremism is turning into a middle-class war against the poor
Irecently found myself in the perverse situation of defending the poor against the eco-rantings of a journalist from The Guardian. My opponent was George Monbiot, whose allegiances are probably best summed up by the headline on his latest article: “We’ve had almost 99 years of Tory rule in Totnes. Here’s how we plan to get rid of them.”
He is renowned for his Left-wing and environmental activism, so it was hardly a surprise to hear him defend Sadiq Khan’s Ultra Low Emission Zone (Ulez) as we appeared together on the BBC’s Politics Live programme earlier this month. Asked if he was worried the London mayor’s expansion of the £12.50-a-day scheme would adversely affect the poor, he replied: “There are some very generous incentives being offered to people to upgrade their vehicles ... Every month we’re now seeing new studies showing just how devastating to human health that pollution is. No one has a right to impose that on other people.”
When I pointed out that the air is going to get cleaner anyway, due to the proposed 2030 ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars, and that the policy only served to make the poor poorer when the air quality in London wasn’t that bad, compared with somewhere like Chiang Mai, I was treated to a thoroughly “progressive” ticking off.
He ended with pompous flourish: “You are completely wrong.” Naturally the clip was retweeted by all the tree huggers who appear to have ignored both the enormous black hole in London’s finances which has arguably prompted this money-spinning measure, and the fact that, according to a poll commissioned by the Greater London Authority Conservatives, a majority of Londoners oppose Ulez expansion. (Democracy: it’s wasted on the little people.)
Eight days later and the Uxbridge by-election result appeared to prove my concerns right, along with those of deputy Labour leader Angela Rayner, who raised the point that Ulez was being imposed “at the cost of working families who have basically had enough”.
Admitting that the scheme in its current form is unaffordable for many Londoners and blaming its expansion for Labour’s failure to overturn Boris Johnson’s Uxbridge majority of 7,210, she added: “The result in Uxbridge tells you that people want to do the right thing, but they don’t want to be penalised because they can’t afford to change their vehicles and there isn’t a scrappage scheme that complies with the legislation to help them do the right behaviours.” Of course she is right and Monbiot is wrong, regardless of this week’s High Court ruling that the Ulez can lawfully be extended to Greater London.
For what the result in Uxbridge showed us is that people are finally starting to wake up to the fact that many green policies are not a pragmatic response to particular problems, carefully designed to ensure that the greatest benefit is achieved at the smallest cost. They are a thinly veiled attack on particular lifestyles that punish those who aren’t signed up to the climate apocalypse hysteria.
As the debate has become increasingly irrational, and – as Michael Gove suggested last week – borderline religious, net zero risks turning into a disaster for the West – and more specifically Western consumers.
It is not often that I agree with Angela Rayner, or indeed Sir Tony Blair, but the former prime minister was right to point out this week that, while Britain can play its part in the fight against climate change, its efforts risk being dwarfed by the impact of countries such as China.
Pointing out that “one year’s rise in China’s emissions would outscore the whole of Britain’s emissions for a year”, he told The New Statesman: “Don’t ask us to do a huge amount when frankly whatever we do in Britain is not really going to impact climate change.
“The number one issue today – and this is where Britain could play a part – is how do you finance the energy transition?
“Because, basically, the developed world’s emissions are going down, but the developing world’s are going up. These countries have got to grow, so how do you finance the transition? Secondly, how do you accelerate the technology?”
China has emitted more carbon dioxide over the past eight years than the UK has since the start of the Industrial Revolution, according to figures published last year.
Most people want to do their best for the planet – they want less polluted air, cleaner rivers and as much waste as possible to be recycled. But most people will not put up with being made poorer to salve some eco-extremists’ conscience. Or indeed, to wage an ideological war on the Right.
The preposterous fanaticism of the likes of Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion has backfired dramatically. As they slow-march through London, stopping ordinary, working people in their tracks, they appear completely oblivious of the costs of what they are asking for. Such is the lack of humility among these comfortably off, middle class-zealots that there is no reflection whatsoever on the reality that it is the poorest who can least afford massively higher energy bills, Ulez charges and fines, or to replace their boilers and cars.
The extremist environmentalists simply don’t seem to care that, for the poor, the choice between heating and eating gets even more difficult once green levies are slapped on everything.
Nor are they interested in the actual facts. I’m as concerned about the extreme temperatures that we have just witnessed across Europe as the next statistically aware person, but can we please have a sense of perspective? This week, we had UN secretary-general António Guterres dramatically declaring that “the era of global warming has ended, the era of global boiling has arrived” and describing the air as “unbreathable” and the heat as “unbearable”. Get a grip, Guterres! Last time I checked, the temperature in his native Lisbon was a perfectly bearable 27C, and no one there appears to be struggling to inhale and exhale, except perhaps those in whom he has induced a panic attack with this sort of unhelpful hyperbole.
Rather than indulging in all this West bashing, wouldn’t it be more helpful to the planet to ditch the ridiculous rhetoric in favour of launching a global campaign to address the huge emissions being belched out by China?
Or, given all its protestations on modern slavery, the UN might be better off launching an investigation into the child exploitation under way in the African mines producing all the battery metals for electric cars. This insatiable hunger for lithium, nickel, cobalt and other precious metals is fuelling the use of some of the world’s dirtiest technologies, leaving a trail of environmental degradation and human rights violations in its wake.
But funnily enough, you never hear about that when Just Stop Oil is throwing orange powder around the Chelsea Flower Show or when Extinction Rebellion defaces priceless works of art. Like Monbiot’s continued support of Ulez in the face of working‑class dissent, climate activists are targeting the wrong people. DT.
The eco radicals seem less interested in saving the planet than in attacking the lifestyles of those less well-off than themselves