The Balancing Act in Green Politics

Every policy added onto the weighing scales must be balanced. Despite major public reconciliation of human activity being solely responsible for environmental and climactic disturbances, detrimental and fatalistic to us, the backward shift in electoral politics is of grave concern. The marketisation of climate change mitigation policies being costly and unfair for the poorest in society is a half-truth. The prospective reality of poorly insulated homes, a disrupted transition to heat pumps, and government disregard of cheapening renewable energy (all of which are essential to protect working people financially) is dug into the soil of a grave with an ivy-ridden tombstone that bears the names of countries skewing away from consensus. Shamefully, it includes mine, of which helped pioneer the climate agenda in 2008 with the Climate Change Act that passed Westminster to set into law the legal obligation to reduce greenhouse emissions.

In Panama, protests have caused the government to consider banning future mining projects, which will affect the transition to green materials on a global level. It is paradoxical to say the least. The voice of the people, deeply concerned about deforestation and biodiversity diminishment, was heard after the government passed legislation, later ruled unconstitutional, to aquire the Cobre Panamá mine a concession until 2041. Despite the Canadian firm First Quantum Minerals accounting for 3.5% of Panama’s GDP, where 8,000 people are employed directly, and considerably many more indirectly, by the mine, the environmental damage is evidently still striking a chord. The company insists that through the mine’s operations, the copper extracted from Panama’s mineral-rich land in 2022 will be enough to manufacture 6 million electric cars.

As a Londoner, I am aware that with the onset of ULEZ (ultra low emission zone), the demand for electric vehicles has sped up; 1/3 of all public chargers in the UK are in the capital. The messaging from local authroities (driving towards air pollution measures) with investment into charging infrastructure; combined with a fall in battery production costs; electric cars are becoming more affordable and thus attractive to the ordinary person. It certainly feels like you’re being a good citizen.

In order to avoid burdening developing countries that are economically growing due to deforestation (no matter how unsustainably), the European Union has delayed stricter rules on imports from being implemented. The postponement of the criteria that was due to be in place by December intends to allow countries to adapt to the bloc’s deforestation regulation rules to curb environmental damages in risk-prone regions. Once switched-on, food companies operating in the bloc must ensure to provide EU authorities with information regarding the geoposition of the land in which their commodities were produced. Then the number of checks will correlate with the risk rating stamped across the country. As a result, in the name of ethical consumerism, increased environmental regulation will divert the traffic of commodities away from the bloc to countries with lax requirements, thus the potential of causing a significant, wholescale reduction in deforestation is debated.

Those in the industry believe that farmers must be consolidated – the efforts of civil society and local government is vital for a just transition. As an example, the major coffee company JDE Peet’s has teamed-up with coffee producers in Ethiopia, Papua New Guinea, Tanzania and Uganda to ensure its supply chain complies with the upcoming rules through utilising satellite imagery, artificial inteligence, along with on-the-ground checks co-ordinated by Enveritas. The proactiveness of the company may be propelled by firms facing fines up to 4% of annual turnovers from non-compliance, but the greater financial damage would be from EU-based coffee companies having to lock out some of their producers. It is no surprise that 1/3 of all coffee produced globally is imported by the EU, but the bloc’s clarity on compliance criteria is key to maintaining swift trade without negatively impacting producers. If there is opaqueness, such zealous measures will fall short and also affect our pockets in the countries that import. In a cost-of-living crisis, a potential increase in the price of food commodities will be unprecented.

The need for delibrative democracy

The blows to the environment must be managed. However, although banning unethical imports could incentivise sustainable economic activity, knock-on effects could impact the worse-off on both sides of the world. Policies pertaining to the environment receive pushback and animosty (as European farmers have demonstrated over the past few months) when introduced regulations are not consultive with those they will effect most, but brought on from a top-down approach by those who are not wearing the same heavy manure-stained boots of a French farmer. A just and fair transition is key as those who provide us the food to live will otherwise struggle to feed themselves. By no means do I understand farming as a life-long urbanite, but I can read and analyse the numbers which speak for themselves. A shift towards agroecological thinking (balancing both the environmental and social needs) is disparate to continuing farming in its current unsustainable intensive manner (34% of greenhouse gases from ‘food systems’). The more barriers farmers face, the more barriers are erected unto a green transition, as argued by ActionAid. Without proper reassurance and support for alternative ways of farming, it is seen as a futile tokenistic venture by governments.

It must be made clear that farms are falling victim to climate change due to a lack of resilience, perpetuating economic constraints. The erosion of soil health, or biodiversity decline, in fact negatively affects farming and weakens the ability of crops to withstand climate shocks such as severe wet weather or droughts. Therefore, enviromental damages can be mitigated if policies are broadcasted in a defensive tone.

From a personal point of view, I believe that on a social level, fact-driven consultation and dialogue is key to understanding and appreciating the ecological situation we are in and viewing the matter ‘simply’ from a local sense is important to then strecth outward towards a universalist view. I have stumbled upon the concept of cosmolocalism, the conviction that communities must be resourced and empowered to make decisions in a sustainable fashion that benefits them and thereby other communities, nationally, but with effects that reverberate across the globe. Sounds quite utopian, I love it though – let me dream!

The advent of ULEZ, despite about 95% of vehicles being compliant, has been viewed as an ‘attack’ on motorists with dispersed but frequent protests being reported against the policy. It is a benefit to reduce air pollution, linked to 9,400 premature deaths annually in the city. It is staggering that around 1/3 of schools have are close to busy roads with unsafe, illegal levels of NO₂. It is only right that policymakers are acting – the introduction of a scrappage scheme to help struggling businesses and families to aquire compliant vehicles is better late than never. So far, the policy has been successful at significantly decreasing levels of NO₂ in our air.

On the other hand, LTNs (low traffic neighbourhoods) have been placed randomly and without much local public approval to residents’ dismay. Accidentally entering a street situated within an LTN with parked cars (belonging to residents) can fine you up to £130 – totalling £56 million garnered by the capital’s councils last year. The feeling of unfairness can work against green policies.

Moreover, the physical obstruction of roads with bollards has diverted traffic from short cuts, potentially making it take longer to get to some destinations with implications for paramedics and repair workers, and decreasing footfall, affecting some small local businesses. Metaphroically, they have been knocked over by conspiracy theorists utilising ambiguity with an opaque policy to spread the idea of 15-minute cities being an authoritarian ploy. Introductions of new exemptions for people with disabilities (blue badge holders) relying on transport via car, who pass through some LTNs is welcome, but initial short-sightedness has resulted in corrective configurations of the impracticalities. Nonetheless, the majority of the public are generally supportive of LTNs (ammounting to about 58% though it could vary), but my point is that there could easily be caveats with policies intended for the environmental good. The reality is that public support dramatically falls when a bit of context is given regarding how it will change behaviours with financial costs, and suddenly LTNs become highly contentious with support as low as 18% in another poll, now with the consideration that one will ‘not be able to drive in certain areas unless you lived or worked there’ and longer journeys. The same is applicable with almost every green polciy – not because people are apathetic to them, but because they need to make ends meet in the short-term. The state must play a role in alleviating the potential socioeconomic shortfalls of green policies, it is a contour of the solution, but might it make the transition costlier and amidst a hollowed-out Treasury electorally unappetitsing?

In this manner, such controversies derive from the fears of changing habits because of unaffordability and arguements disfavouring important green policies could be smoothed out if councils seek community input and even allow our direction in how streets can be redesigned to be environmentally-friendly. Others convincingly claim that opening the floor to vocal minorities can cause dithering, and delay urgent green policies from ever being implemented.