Greta Thunberg said 18 months ago she wanted governments to panic.
Climate breakdown is now on Red Alert, as per the latest IPCC report.
There are no end of suggestions as to how we could still avert disaster, so why are detailed world-wide plans not already in place?
As long as growth remains the general expectation, the necessary measures are unthinkably unpleasant, because they involve economic contraction to what the Ecosphere can cope with.
For 12 years now I have been suggesting what I think is a catalyst to facilitate this necessary paradigm shift. an unconditional basic income supported by eco-footprint taxes. But what is obvious to me seems to be a blind spot to most others, and the few who quietly agree with me have not so far supported me publicly.
In 1940 Britain was faced with an enemy who was starving us into submission by sinking supplies at sea. For reasons I do not understand (a blind spot?) the current threat seems far worse. The supplies will not merely be prevented from reaching us. Climate breakdown will prevent them from being produced in the first place.
Greta Thunberg was only a kid. Why should any government take any notice? But the IPCC report will only have more effect if there is a catalyst of some kind.
The Green Party needs to take a step back. It was formed in 1972 to forestall exactly the threat finally recognized by the IPCC. GP policies may or may not cope with the test of the real world, but what is crucial now is that whole populations take up Greta’s ‘I want you to panic’ cry.
Neither Greta nor Extinction Rebellion seem to see political solutions as relevant To my continuing anger, this was brought forcibly home by the complete absence of any interest in what is now officially a Red Alert in the Batley & Spen election campaign.
I do not expect Greta to get into the political details. It is for governments to work out the extremely dicfficult answers. But where did the Green Party go wrong?
I have just found some old election results I thought I had lost in a removal. In the 1979 election (when Thatcher was first elected) the then unknown Ecology party fielded 54 candidates.
The 9 in labour held seats polled 1.0% on average, whilst the average in Con seats was 1.55%, The best numerical result was 1,829 votes, 2.55%. in Barkston Ash (Wetherby) – from a standing start, with no publicity, and minimal work on the ground. The highest percentage poll was Worcester South, 2.82%, 1,722 votes, again with no advantages.
Of the 54 candidates, 11 Ecology (Green)) candidates polled over 2%, all in Conservative held constituencies where voters were sure that their normal MP was safe.. This tendency was confirmed in the 1989 European elections,, which was the first time the Green Party contested the entire UK, polling 15%. The correlation with Conservative votes was consistent :The best Green Party result (Sussex) was also the Conservatives best result, and the lowest (Tyne & Wear) likewise..
This was despite the enthusiastic Green activists being overwhelmingly socialist supporters. Our speakers who were at last given a chance to speak revealed to several thousand voters that they had voted for an enemy party.The Green Party vote collapsed for several years in Parliamentary elections.
In 1940 Winston Churchill invited his bitter enemies, Labour, to share in government, and imposed taxes higher than 90% on his own supporters. There is no sign of any such co-operation now..
The mistake made by the Green party leadership was that socialism was the answer, when a better answer would have been co-operation between former enemies as in 1940.
What Churchill realized was what should have happened in 1989:, and is needed more than ever now: co-operation to overcome a formidable problem. Unfortunately normal minds may not have this vision. Conservatives will, as in 1940, have to settle for drastic reductions in differentials, but the have-nots must accept their former oppressors as allies. But unlike 1940, this threat will never be defeated, only kept permanently at bay by world-wide cooperation.
Is any such vision evident in leaders, or would-be leaders, even now?