Articles at The Conversation seem to be a never-ending source of loony ideas pushed by academic idealogues. The latest in this procession of the damned is a particularly strange offering from climate scientist Professor Chris Rapley of the UCL. As far as I can see, his argument goes as follows:

Firstly, opinions on long-term climate actions such as Net Zero are increasingly embroiled in what Rapley refers to as a ‘culture war’, dominated by divisive political partisanship. The danger of this is that if the right wing of the political spectrum ever seizes power through the ballot box, then decisions might then be taken that are disapproved of by the likes of Professor Rapley. This would, of course, be undemocratic, because culture wars don’t appear to have anything to do with democracy as far as the good professor is concerned.

Secondly, this sort of thing is already happening in America. Fortunately, however, in the UK we have structures in place that can prevent it. Prime amongst these is the Climate Change Committee (CCC), and the legal enshrining of Net Zero commitments in the form of the Climate Change Act (CCA). Also, here in the UK there is overwhelming support for Net Zero amongst the public — or so says Professor Rapley.

So, protection of the CCC as an “essential democratic structure” is an essentially democratic thing to do, if only because Net Zero enjoys the support of the great British public. This is contrasted with the prospect of treating such infrastructure “as party-political tools”. Put succinctly: protecting Net Zero through the unelected CCC is the democratic thing to do, but wanting to get rid of the CCC and CCA as a result of a ballot box count is just culture war politicking.

It seems to me extraordinary that anyone could refer to the CCC and CCA as part of essential democratic infrastructure when they were created as part of a governance restructuring specifically intended to avoid a so-called “governance trap” in which (to quote the Research Excellence Framework) “the UK government was failing to act decisively because it feared punishment at the ballot box if bold but unpopular long-term climate measures were adopted”.

It should not require pointing out that democratic governance starts at the ballot box, not with unelected bureaucrats paid to spank politicians’ bottoms. Furthermore, it seems odd that Professor Rapley should see fit to emphasise how popular the “long-term climate measures” are with the electorate, whilst at the same time claiming how important it is to retain structures (the CCC and the CCA) that only exist because proponents of such measures did not feel confident that ballot box support could be relied upon. The CCC is the antithesis of democratic infrastructure and only in the world of climate action apologism can something created specifically to circumvent ballot box democracy be lauded as a democratic necessity.

I’m not going to waste any more time on this one.

9 Comments

  1. I see Robin’s commented there.

    As John says, it is a strange kind of popular policy that needs protecting from the ballot box. The author says:

    Polling analysed by the Institute for Public Policy Research and YouGov shows that belief in the reality of climate change, and support for achieving net-zero emissions by 2050, remains remarkably resilient. Around six in ten voters continue to support the target.

    Well then, a party promising to dismantle Net Zero is not going to get elected, is it? More likely is that the author can see that the game is up. It’s going to be a while before this nonsense can be got rid of. But it is inevitable that it will go in the end.

    As to that “remarkably resilient” support itself, the author really did not accurately portray the public’s mood. Support is for the abstract, not the specific:

    In practice, there is much more limited public appetite for the kinds of policies that would help the UK attain net zero. When asked whether they would support a selection of policies aimed at reducing carbon emissions, for almost all of them fewer than half of those net zero supporters are willing to back them – and among the wider public, support was below 50% in each case.

    The policy net zero supporters are most likely to support is making air travellers pay more in taxes the further they fly, at 57% compared to 33% opposed, while the least supported is a new tax on gas bill to encourage people to switch to electricity, at 15%.

    Link to the polling.

    This is akin to the old polls that gave people a list of options for “tackling climate change” and they predominantly picked “plant more trees” rather than all the measures that might affect them personally.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Thank you, John, for drawing our attention to a truly bizarre article. I thinkThe Conversation is in danger of out-Guardianing the Guardian.

    A couple of snippets from the Conversation piece:

    …For more than a decade, political scientists have documented the rise of what is known as affective polarisation…[my emphasis].

    It’s good to find an admission that scientists are as political as the electorate. Perhaps the mask has slipped – no longer do the scientists claim to reveal scientific truth while leaving politicians (elected by the people) to decide on the appropriate policy response. Now scientists seem to believe they have the right to move beyond “the science” and dictate the policy, insulating it from those pesky voters.

    The idea that researchers and scientists know best how to spend our money is finely exemplified here:

    …More importantly, Britain has built institutions designed to insulate climate policy and research from short-term political turbulence. The Climate Change Act, the official advisory status of the Climate Change Committee, legally binding carbon budgets, and the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 together form a framework that can survive changes of government. The latter constrains ministerial intervention in the selection of research grants under the principle that researchers should decide for themselves which projects are funded….

    Then there’s the author’s idea of “building cross-party spaces where moderate voices can cooperate.“

    They are the moderates, the sensible people. It’s those who disagree with them who are the extremists. The problem with that analysis is that it seeks to exclude democracy. People like the author believe that climate change policies/net zero policies must somehow be protected from the effects of democracy. The language is disingenuous at best, yet I fear the author genuinely believes he has expressed some sort of eternal truth or Holy Writ:

    …the UK’s approach relies on durable institutions [he’s referring to “the institutions that have sustained long-term climate policy. The Climate Change Committee, the carbon budgets, and the legislation“] and long-term planning – a form of democratic immune system against short-term political shocks….

    It beggars belief. Unlected institutions have to defend democracy against….democracy (how convenient to be able to persuade oneself that inconvenient and disagreeable general election results can be dismissed as “short-term political shocks”.

    You’re right not to waste any more time on this one.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. I don’t doubt that opinion polls indicate substantial support for Net Zero. After all, there’s endless propaganda from most of the MSM explaining that we’re all gonna fry unless we stop emitting CO2. But if you ask people how much money they’d personally be prepared to spend achieving Net Zero, the answer is usually around £50, per year. Explain that Net Zero is going to cost every household tens of thousands, and support melts away.

    Liked by 3 people

  5. Mark beat me to it, but liked this partial quote –

    “Unlike in the US, where climate policy and its execution has depended heavily on executive action, the UK’s approach relies on durable institutions and long-term planning – a form of democratic immune system against short-term political shocks.” – bold mine.

    Wonder what “political shocks” he may be thinking about? I can guess.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. To my better judgement, I read further. From the “newly launched Council for the Future, chaired by former Conservative environment secretary Lord Deben”. blurb extract –

    “We are thrilled to announce the establishment of the ‘Council for the Future’. Co-founded by CEE Director Professor Mette High and Greener Vision CEO Claire Haigh, the vision for the council is to provide a high-level inter-sectional advisory board for parliamentarians on issues around climate, energy and sustainability.

    We are at a critical point in our struggle to tackle the climate and nature crises. The 10 hottest years in measured history have been in the last decade.  Seven out of nine planetary boundaries have been breached.  The window to avoid irreversible climate impacts and biodiversity loss is rapidly closing.  

    At the same time, the growth in renewables has repeatedly surpassed expectations, often by record-breaking margins in terms of capacity and speed.  The green economy is the fastest growing sector globally behind only the tech sector.  We have all the solutions we need to tackle the climate crisis. Moreover, the clean energy transition has the potential to bring many wide-ranging social, economic and environmental benefits.”

    Stopped reading any further.

    Like

  8. I’m afraid that Professor Rapley’s attitude is typical of an intellectual elite that believes an essential element of democracy is its prerogative to decide what should and should not be decidable at the ballot box. It is for this reason that they can support egregiously anti-democratic structures whilst claiming to defend democracy. This blind spot would not be possible were it not for their unshakable confidence in their own judgement.

    Liked by 2 people

  9. Professor Rapley posted the following in response to comments received – comments that he deemed to be off-topic:

    The piece is specifically about institutional resilience and political polarisation in UK climate policy. Whether Net Zero is achievable by 2050 is a legitimate debate, but it’s a different debate – and one that can be held constructively within the institutions that exist and are being strengthened (such as the initiative by Lord Deben). Redirecting this discussion towards Net Zero scepticism is itself an example of the culture-war dynamic the article is warning against.

    I’m getting pretty fed up of reading about the ‘culture-war dynamic’. Rather than being a redirection, Net Zero scepticism gets to the nub of the issue, since it is challenging the legitimacy of the ‘institutional resilience’ that Rapley seems so pleased to see. He says that the debate “can be held constructively within the institutions that exist” but how constructive can one expect such debate to be when the institutions exist to de-legitimise Net Zero scepticism and to rob it of its democratic traction? Dismissing sceptical commentary on his article as being “an example of the culture-war dynamic the article is warning against” only serves to exemplify the censorious position he chooses to support.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a comment