Why 10:10 turns me red

A guest post by Richard B

Recovering on New Year’s Day, I was delighted when, amid the hash browns and beans, the Guardian was set on the table. Even more so when I saw the headline of the G2 (the comment-artsy supplement bit), declaring that in Copenhagen our leaders had failed us – and now it’s up to all of us to take action on climate change.

Wow. Having spent much of December talking about, getting to and being in Copenhagen, I liked what I read. Finally, liberal Britain is waking up to the meaninglessness of climate ‘leadership’, the sham that was the Copenhagen climate summit, and the fact that there are thousands of voices around the world that have been calling the Emperor’s New Clothes on this all for over a decade.

Wrong. What I actually read was a long ream of the most smug, politically blind greenwash this side of NPower’s energy saving light bulb mail out. Page upon page of the 10 bloody 10 campaign.

First, the inevitable disclaimer: I think it’s good the people want to do their bit for climate change. I also have a big soft spot for eating less meat and dairy, switching off plug switches, cycling instead of driving, and shopping locally. These are all good things, and chances are they make many people – including myself – happier, and can strengthen communities, build autonomy and prove to ourselves, at least, that there are other ways of living.

However, none of these things has an effect on climate change. Worse still, actively evangelising that these actions will help halt climate catastrophe is actively dangerous. Arms companies like MBDA, energy giants like E.ON, obviously shouldn’t be able to cast off their tarnished reputations by claiming 10:10 credentials for recycling the paper they plan coal fired power stations on. And let’s remember that most of their ‘commitments’ are actually to do with taking measuring how much energy is being used, or employing consultants to look into looking at this.

My favourite 10:10 signatory must be the Cambridge University Conservative Association. What exactly are they going to decrease? Asking Baroness Warsi to cycle to Trinity College before supporting the deportation of immigrants? Or choosing organic gin to get sloshed on at the Pitt club?

The 10:10 campaign can only end up dividing individuals along class lines. Buying solar panels seems to be a popular intervention, as does loft insulation – even though, as far as I recall, most people in this country don’t have the money for solar panels, nor lofts. Similarly, the more you polluted in the past, the easier it will be to cut your emissions, particularly for businesses. So, just as with carbon trading, the more you pollute, the more credit you get.

But what really disturbs me is the total lack of political vision in the whole project. Page 3 of the New Year Guardian Franny-Fest declares that public buildings are some of the worst carbon offenders, including hospitals. I’m sorry, what? the reason I target actual climate criminals like E.ON, BAM Nuttal and the Canadian government is because places like hospitals NEED to keep the lights on.

We can do better than this. Climate change reveals something really fundamental about our world system – we have a major distribution problem. We produce too much bad stuff, and distribute the good stuff badly.

Andrew Simms, an otherwise sane man and policy director of the NEF, wrote one of the most abysmal comment pieces known to the pages of the Guardian, incoherently oscillating between praise for individuals one moment, leaders the next, then concluding that normal people are leaders and that other normal people will follow.

The only political group that had their fingers crossed for Copenhagen was big business. In Copenhagen, leaders didn’t fail us, they failed business interests like Monsanto, E.ON and Shell. Let’s not make a grass-roots movement to give them back green kudos, when what we should to be doing is shutting the bastards down from the inside out.