Preventing climate crisis

An admirable move by the Guardian and 55 other papers

Full credit to the Guardian and 55 other newspapers across the world who have taken the innovative step today of publishing a front-page leader article calling for emergency action to tackle the looming climate crisis:

The key insight of the Stern report, that the cost of not acting is greater than the cost of acting, is absorbed:

The transformation will be costly, but many times less than the bill for bailing out global finance -- and far less costly than the consequences of doing nothing.

It's one the government lamentably tore up when it approved a third runway for Heathrow based on crude short-term economic judgements.

Here's a key section on the personal implications of reform:

Many of us, particularly in the developed world, will have to change our lifestyles. The era of flights that cost less than the taxi ride to the airport is drawing to a close. We will have to shop, eat and travel more intelligently. We will have to pay more for our energy, and use less of it.

But the shift to a low-carbon society holds out the prospect of more opportunity than sacrifice. Already some countries have recognized that embracing the transformation can bring growth, jobs and better quality lives. The flow of capital tells its own story: last year for the first time more was invested in renewable forms of energy than producing electricity from fossil fuels.

One point that isn't made enough is that much of what we're doing to tackle climate chaos we need to do anyway, to become more energy efficient and to prepare for the coming oil crisis.

I only differ on the leader's persistent use of 'climate change', a euphemism coined by the Republican pollster Frank Luntz, when he discovered that focus groups were scared by the term 'global warming'. 'Change' is all too passive and feeble a term to refer to the planetary emergency we face. In an act of consciousness raising we should refer to 'climate chaos' or 'climate crisis'.

 

Follow the New Statesman team on Twitter

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

The US intelligence leaks on the Manchester attack are part of a disturbing pattern

Even the United States' strongest allies cannot rely on this president or his administration to keep their secrets.

A special relationship, indeed. British intelligence services will stop sharing information with their American counterparts about the Manchester bombing after leaks persisted even after public rebukes from Amber Rudd (who called the leaks "irritating") and Michael Fallon (who branded them "disappointing").

In what must be a diplomatic first, Britain isn't even the first of the United States' allies to review its intelligence sharing protocols this week. The Israeli government have also "reviewed" their approach to intelligence sharing with Washington after Donald Trump first blabbed information about Isis to the Russian ambassador from a "close ally" of the United States and then told reporters, unprompted, that he had "never mentioned Israel" in the conversation.

Whether the Manchester leaks emanate from political officials appointed by Trump - many of whom tend to be, if you're feeling generous, cranks of the highest order - or discontent with Trump has caused a breakdown in discipline further down the chain, what's clear is that something is very rotten in the Trump administration.

Elsewhere, a transcript of Trump's call to the Philippine strongman Rodrigo Duterte in which the American president revealed that two nuclear submarines had been deployed off the coast of North Korea, has been widely leaked to the American press

It's all part of a clear and disturbing pattern, that even the United States' strongest allies in Tel Aviv and London cannot rely on this president or his administration to keep their secrets.

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.

0800 7318496