By Stephen Le Quesne
Am I an eco-terrorist for wanting a greener and better future? Apparently so. But I refuse to accept and indulge the bogus reasons and excuses for not becoming climate neutral. Becoming carbon zero/neutral is for the benefit of everyone.
Eco-terrorist used to be the favourite phrase for an environmental activist, now it is the term eco-zealot. The phrase has been used by the UK Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, the Daily Mail, the Telegraph, the Spectator, the Sun, the list goes on, and we cannot forget that those of us who campaign and speak out about climate breakdown are also climate change fanatics.
I have even heard this hateful, angry and disruptive language being used by Jersey’s politicians. That is what it is – it is hateful language designed to create the impression that those who campaign for a safer, cleaner and more biodiverse society are somehow ‘crazy’, ‘unhinged’ and completely unreasonable.
A zealot, by definition, is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their ideals, blinded by our ‘religious environmentalism’. I hope this sounds utterly ridiculous. Most environmental campaigners, including myself, are wholeheartedly in the Intersectional Environmentalism corner, which advocates for the protection of people and the planet, an inclusive focus that identifies injustices to marginalised and vulnerable communities and how these communities are interconnected with the Earth. I write about a greener way of living because I want to help people and I want to live in a society that is healthier and happier for everyone. My ‘agenda’ is doing some good and wanting to leave society in a better place for everyone.
I am writing about this as I have read quite a few opinion pieces about environmentalists and most of it has been quite fanatical. How do you counter or deal with mistruths, or organisations and certain media outlets who pedal this environmental activist fear? Answers on a postcard, but we are in a turbulent period of human history where facts, science and balanced thinking seems to have gone out the window, replaced by tribalism and a form of entitlement where everyone who has an opinion feels that it must be listened to. And yes, there is an irony about me saying this within an opinion column.
I keep writing here, though, to hopefully bring some balance, some honesty and perhaps even some wonder when it comes to the natural world.
So, let’s talk honesty and the costs, reasons and arguments being shouted against carbon neutrality.
The first is, what are the benefits? There are too many benefits to write within here, but let’s try. A large benefit is cleaner air. Less particulate matter means fewer airborne ailments such as asthma leading to decreased pressure on the health service.
We also have reduced energy bills in the long term, greater societal wellbeing, increased physical health relating to an increase in cycling and walking opportunities owing to better green infrastructure.
We also have the main elephant in the room in that we will leave a planet to our children and grandchildren that is habitable. If we do not focus on this issue, large parts of the planet are going to become inhabitable, leading to mass migration, social upheaval and probably future conflicts over natural resources.
The second argument against is the cost and yes, it is going to cost a lot of money to change our infrastructure, to change how we live our lives, that has never been in doubt.
However, cost is no reason not to do something. What you do is find solutions, plan it out and provide the correct support to the poorest and most vulnerable, which we need more of.
The McKinsey report in 2022 estimated that $9.2tn is needed every year until 2050 to do what is needed. In comparison, in 2022 the oil, gas and coal industries benefited from $7tn in support, which breaks down to $13 million every minute. The money is there, it is just political decisions and ideological dogma that stops progress and puts the pain on communities with lower incomes. There is also the fact that because this issue has been kicked down the road for 30 years, it has become more expensive, and now we are in a critical situation. We have had time to create a more sustainable way to live and it is now more difficult and more expensive. Political inaction has been – and will continue to be – the reason for the increase in costs.
As Jersey is so small, should we be doing all of this? To counter this argument, I would ask is it ethically acceptable to wash your hands of an issue that will negatively impact millions? We need to focus on every increase of 0.1ºC, every 0.01ºC.
An economy and society that is not fossil-fuel dependent will be cleaner, healthier, more equitable, more efficient, more resilient and will ensure wellbeing and prosperity for future generations.
-
Stephen Le Quesne is a naturalist, conservationist, forest school leader and nature connection advocate.
