Back in April 2019, on the eve of the launch of the Environmental Justice Commission, one of its co-chairs could be found on the Today Programme passionately stating his case. It matters that we should look back on this exchange, because the same gentleman ultimately became the UK’s current Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. Yes, we are talking of none other than the Rt Hon Edward Miliband.
With much animated flailing of arms and bulging of eyes, Ed ran through the full range of arguments for plunging the UK headlong down the road to Net Zero: it will improve our lives; we must show ‘moral authority’ to China; we must not go down in history as the generation that failed, etc. When challenged upon the need to mobilise support for his crusade, he replied with this:
“No, but that’s the point about the emergency. Look, if this was genuinely a war, and we were on a war footing — and it is a war against climate change…”
Miliband was interrupted mid-flow at that point by an interviewer who was not coy at calling out his Churchillian tone. But Miliband didn’t seem to care. He had got his message out there: this is a war against climate change.
This is not the first or indeed last time that someone has invoked the metaphor of war to justify actions to be taken on climate change. For example, we had it at COP26 from King Charles. Then there is the proselytising of The Guardian’s George Monbiot. Way back in 2008, UN Deputy Secretary-General Asha-Rose Migiroa claimed that achieving the Millennium Development Goals would require a ‘war footing’ to tackle climate change. Like Miliband, they all talk about a war footing, and like Miliband they do so even though they know perfectly well that we are not genuinely at war. Ah, but if we were…
Should that matter? Is it a problem that prominent people are proposing measures that are only appropriate in times of actual war, simply because they feel justified in using the term ‘war’ metaphorically? Should we really accept poetic analogy as a legitimate substitute for facts?
One might also ask how Miliband can talk of a war footing (and the imposed hardships implied) at the same time as claiming that the actions required will be inherently beneficial to us all. If it were so obvious that Net Zero measures really did promise an improvement in everyone’s lives, and if it were the only way of saving our moral souls, then surely it should be easy for him to win the support he desires. There would be no need to wave an arm or bulge an eye. People would be rushing to the barricades, because the war on climate is such good fun and it shows moral authority. One certainly shouldn’t require the undemocratic instigation of a war economy, nor any imposed sacrifice. Because, mark my words, that’s what these folk are deeming necessary; that’s what a war footing is – a restructuring of society designed to mobilise resources and create the ‘right decision architecture’ without the need to worry about punishment at the ballot box. That is ultimately what these people are asking for: more power to protect us from ourselves.
We use the term ‘war’ very loosely when we talk of war on crime or war on drugs. Even ‘war on terrorism’ is incorrect because war is a state of conflict between two or more states. It is declared (though not so much for recent conflicts) in order that international laws such as the Geneva Convention may be applied. The declaration of a war also matters because a wartime government can then invoke additional domestic powers. For example, in the UK the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 can be used to declare a state of emergency, with a concomitant curtailment of civil liberties. But, of course, with climate change there is no real war, so there cannot be a wartime state of emergency. But that’s not a problem if you can declare a phony war and use it as a pretext to invoke a phoney state of emergency. And boy, have we seen plenty of those! As far as local councils are concerned, not declaring a state of emergency over climate change has become a badge of dishonour akin to wartime treason or cowardice in the face of the enemy.
According to Miliband, tackling climate change is a war in the very real sense of it not being a genuine war. But this mental gymnastics doesn’t really seem to be holding him back. The war may be metaphorical but the pain of his war footing is most certainly real. Nor, it has to be said, have previous governments been terribly troubled by the double-speak required to justify their political ‘war’ mongering. As I commented here recently, the Climate Change Committee was set up to establish a legally founded cross-party consensus on climate change, in response to a report that leant heavily on the war metaphor for its justification. In the All Party Parliamentary Climate Change Group report that led to the instigation of the Climate Change Act 2008, it was stated that “One need not necessarily invoke a wartime metaphor to appreciate the advantages of a joined up approach to climate change policy across government.” Nevertheless, the use of that metaphor featured prominently. For example:
We have noted above the way a number of contributors referred to World War II, when there was a coalition government. Comments in this area, some of which are reproduced in Box 5 below, extended to the immediate post-war period. The country “pulled together” and people accepted rationing “for the public good”. The seriousness of the threat posed by climate change would, many argued, justify a wartime-like approach to tackling it, although not everyone felt that people would easily accept the austerity associated with rationing.
Amongst the comments in Box 5 was this gem from the Carbon Disclosure Project:
The global deaths from climate change over the next decades will quite completely dwarf the 50 million killed in World War II. The sooner an all-party cabinet committee is formed, the more chance we will have to stem this hideous projected loss of life.
Meanwhile, in the real world, we currently find Russia on a real war footing in preparation for a real war. They are doing this because Putin sees a military expansion towards the West as the only means of tackling an existential threat to Russia. Over 7% of its GDP is dedicated to building up the military strength to prosecute that war, and NATO countries must now respond with their own war footing. How the UK intends doing its bit whilst being fully invested in the austerities and economic shock demanded by Ed Miliband’s ‘war’ against climate change is anyone’s guess.
The war metaphor can only get you so far. Try as they may to persuade the British people that severe weather events are akin to Hitler’s bombing campaign during World War II, the advocates for a war footing will always struggle. World War II was a real war with real bombs, and the tribulations accepted by the public were endured in the context of a formal declaration of war. Miliband and Monbiot et al can wax lyrically about war as much as they like, but the poetry isn’t going to create a reality. Not that it matters all that much. If we continue with Miliband’s grand plans we will all be suffering the hardships of war soon enough
Climate Scepticism 
Miliband, n. A quantity of incoherent verbiage; a thousandth of a band (S.I. unit). Kiloband, etc.
==
This post suggests a question: if carbon dioxide has declared war on the UK, in what form have its attacks come? A hot week in 2022 hardly justifies retaliation. It has brought as many good things as bad, as far as I can see, and all have so far been minor.
LikeLiked by 3 people
In his 1982 book (2nd ed. reprinted in 1997) “Climate, History and the Modern World”, H.H. Lamb observed several times that a warmer climate is a genial climate. So perhaps viewing the current climate on a war footing is a matter of perspective …
Recent visits to The Conversation website have suggested to me that many academics view the current climate situation as part of a polycrisis and hence a war footing is, in their view and that of other climate warriors, an appropriate turn of phrase. For myself, I am reminded (IIRC) of the Spanish Inquisition episode from “Monty Python …” in which various characters were ‘tortured’ with cosy cushions.
In both current hysterical discourse and classic TV comedy, a lack of proper perspective may lead to an entirely inappropriate policy response. As Lamb wrote at pages 5 and 6, “… we observe cycles of confidence in business activity … Over longer periods, ranging from one generation to several centuries in length, we observe swings from strong or dictatorial rule to democracy, too often gradually degenerating into muddle and chaos …” Perhaps Lamb would have understood our current situation better than we do ourselves. Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you John,
Miliband scares the hell out of me, but I was unaware that he has in the past used such language.
I have in the past cautioned about the use of declarations of climate emergency as a means of by-passing democracy:
https://cliscep.com/2022/07/30/the-power-of-emergency/
However, comparing the climate crisis (sic) with a situation that requires us to adopt a war footing is taking it to a whole new (deeply worrying) level. It’s also nonsense. As Jit and John C point out, in the UK at least, the effects of climate change, such as it is, are at least as beneficial as they are damaging. Why curtail civil liberties and wreck our way of life for such a non-threat, especially given that we can’t unilaterally wage a successful war against it in any event?
Your reference to the war footing in Russia under Putin, and the ever-present Chinese threat (becoming obvious, surely, even to our politicians, given the shenanigans over “British” Steel in Scunthorpe) is apposite. Everything to do with the UK’s “war” against climate change weakens us as a nation, whatever the politicians and the paid lobbyists claim to the contrary. If a real war comes, then we will be found sadly lacking. Worrying times.
LikeLiked by 3 people
“The sooner an all-party cabinet committee is formed” (quote from Carbon Disclosure Project)
Australia, with its’ Federal/State constitutional structure, tried a “National Cabinet” setup in the Covid years, wherein the Prime Minister (Federal) and Premiers (State) convened and made decisions. As is usual, the Federal and State govts were of adversial parties. Alternate representatives were occasionally substituted.
This National Cabinet notion is not constitutional (In fact, it directly contravenes the constitutionally embedded Federal/State frame) but nonetheless the High Court then obligingly declared that the minutes from these constitutionally illegal meetings were subject to traditional Cabinet confidentiality anyway, so yah boo etc …
The purpose of forming a National Cabinet was twofold:
In the event(s), the most common result was that the National Cabinet was reported as having made some undetailed “decisions” or other (and agreed to by claimed consensus vote therein) but the State Premiers were on their phones in the meeting room as the meeting broke countermanding the very decisions they claimed they had just then voted for.
An all-party cabinet committee in the UK on handling the “climate war” would be even worse, much worse, I expect.
LikeLike
Jit,
Carbon dioxide did not declare this ‘war’ — Miliband did. And, despite what he says, he has not declared it against climate change. Instead, he is waging a war against this generation in defence of future generations. Telling this generation he is on their side is part of the propaganda of war.
LikeLiked by 1 person
John C,
Yes, perhaps Lamb would understand our current situation very well. Muddle and chaos certainly seems an apt description.
Mark,
We’re toast.
LikeLike
Ianl,
I’ve never believed that past coalitions have been established for the greater good. They’ve always struck me as political power plays designed purely to benefit the politicians.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, even if it didn’t declare war, CO2 must have been responsible for the casus belli that allowed M. Miliband to declare war on it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve had to make a small correction to my article. At the start I referred to the flaying of Miliband’s arms, when of course I had meant to say ‘flailing’. Much as I disagree with his policies, I am not yet at the stage of suggesting any form of medieval torture.
LikeLiked by 1 person
John – your slip of the tongue had me thinking –
An example of flaying of corn by some enthusiastic women. Wonder if that’s what we all may need to relearn to do as NZ bites?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ted Nordhaus’s essay on the Council on Foreign Relations’ suggestion that they might like to impose emissions reductions on other countries, by force. [Via Kip Hansen at WUWT.]
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jit: the Council on Foreign Relations paper is titled We Need a Fresh Approach to Climate Policy. It’s Time for Climate Realism and can be found HERE. It’s well argued and, as Nordhaus notes, makes some valid points about how and why there seems to be little the US can do to change the trajectory of global GHG emissions. The author, Varun Sivaram (a former aide to John Kerry), argues that therefore, as climate change is such a huge threat to the US, a completely new approach, even one that’s unfair to ’emerging economies’, is necessary. The key extract:
An interesting if scary read.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jit & Robin – thanks for the links, as Robin says “scary read”.
Just had to quote these snippets –
“2. Reducing U.S. domestic greenhouse gas emissions can make a meaningful difference. U.S. domestic emissions will be largely irrelevant to global climate change. The trajectory of climate change in the twenty-first century will depend on future global cumulative emissions between 2025 and 2100. By that measure, the United States is on track to account for around 5 percent of global future cumulative emissions. China—as well as emerging and non-advanced economies including India, Indonesia, Brazil, and South Africa—will account for more than 85 percent of that total. Slowing climate change principally depends on reducing emissions outside of U.S. borders.”
“The most plausible route to averting the worst impacts of climate change is geoengineering. That such an approach—highly speculative and untested—is the current most feasible option speaks to how implausible a global net-zero transition currently is. Geoengineering includes radical ideas such as spewing aerosols into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight back into outer space and cool the planet. The United States should urgently develop and test such approaches at ever greater scales to prepare for a “break glass” emergency when these techniques may need to be deployed. The United States should also carefully evaluate the risks of these technologies and prepare to deter other countries from unilaterally deploying them, or cooperate internationally to do so.”
“Granted, this approach is fundamentally unfair. Emerging economies often reasonably argue that they should have every right to the fossil fuel-led economic development that Western economies enjoyed. Nevertheless, the fact is that foreign emissions are endangering the American homeland. As greenhouse gas emissions exacerbate hurricanes and wildfires that level whole U.S. communities spanning North Carolina down to southern California, the effects resemble those if China or Indonesia were to launch missiles at the United States. Every tool of the U.S. and allies’ arsenals, spanning diplomatic and economic coercion to military might, should be on the table.”
What a mad world we now live in – Dr Strangelove – Official Trailer [1964] Bing Videos
LikeLike
The BBC’ summary of the headline in the i newspaper this morning:
The i Paper leads their coverage with a former MI6 chief calling Energy Secretary Ed Miliband’s net zero carbon target “completely mad”. The paper’s exclusive interview highlights the former chief’s warning of the “national security threat” of “using Chinese technology in UK wind farms, solar panels and electric cars”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Test message following “security” up-date.! John C.
LikeLike
I cannot “like” comments because each attempt so to do results in the ‘Leave A Comment’ window opening. Anyway, I had tried to like your last comment Mark Hodgson. Regards, John C.
LikeLike