Rio+20 and responsible capitalism: opportunities for Labour

We cannot rely on the market to create sustainable growth.

Next week, world leaders will meet in Rio de Janeiro to discuss how the global economy can tackle the joint challenges of global poverty reduction, social equity and environmental sustainability. The United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development marks the 20th anniversary of the 1992 Earth Summit: hence the popular short-hand, "Rio+20".

For environmentalists, Rio+20 is one of the most significant events to happen for a generation. But that's precisely the problem. As long as it remains the preoccupation of the green movement, Rio+20 will deliver only a fragile consensus that will ultimately fail.

The natural environment is fundamental to supporting and supplying the basis of economic value. Yet we do not consider the protection and enhancement of the natural environment is a strategic economic priority. Part of the reason for this is because our conventional model of economic growth values short-term return and wealth creation, rather than long-term productive wealth. While we may increase GDP in the short term, our conventional approach to economic growth can actually reduce a nation’s wealth.

Ed Miliband recognised these limitations in a speech to the Social Market Foundation last year where he told the audience that rules that encourage wealth creation focus on "short-term returns not the productive creation of long-term value". A major consequence is that resource consumption and the loss of ecosystems are treated as a benefit rather than a cost. And communities, co-operation and equality are undervalued in favour of creating conditions to maximise consumption.

An important challenge for Labour is now to translate Ed Miliband's vision for a "new economy" into a shared understanding of exactly what we want, and need, from the economy - and to be clear about the measures that will ensure that this can be achieved sustainably.

For many years there has been a lively debate about how the transition to a "green economy" will happen. However, no one has successfully managed to align the green economy with the everyday priorities of people, business and politics. Nor has anyone managed to set a pro-growth agenda that is also clear about the long-term productive value of a sustainable economy.

Most would agree that our expectations for the economy include job creation; competitiveness; the fair distribution of resources and wealth; fair and affordable access to food, water and energy; and enhanced biodiversity and ecosystem services. While these outcomes are complementary, much of the debate about our economic future has hitherto traded one aspect against another: green groups have one priority, business another, politicians another still.

Rio+20 provides a valuable political focus to continue work already underway on how Labour can address this. A question that the party might seek to answer is how we embed the three pillars of sustainable development - economic, social and environmental - into policy-making so that they become a natural by-product of the economy's total activities.

This would create huge economic opportunities for the UK - new green technologies, sustainable innovation, sustainability skills and sustainable investment products - all of which will also be instrumental in assisting emerging economies with the transition to a green economy.  

The Labour Party has a strong track record on the green economy. The world’s first Climate Change Act and the Climate Change Committee; the 2005 Sustainable Development Strategy with its recognition of the concept of environmental limits; the Sustainable Development Commission; the Commission on Environmental Markets and Economic Performance and the Low Carbon Industrial Strategy are all good examples of the Labour government's successes.

The party's approach in government was based on an understanding that policy and regulatory intervention is necessary to correct the market failure of un-priced environmental costs and benefits - thereby reconciling the free market economy with environmental sustainability. It understood that a strong and robust economic-environmental policy framework would also encourage finance and investment in low-carbon, resource-efficient business operations and supply chains.

Green conservatism of the sought advocated by David Cameron is flawed in this respect as it fails to reconcile the free market economy with environmental sustainability. It relies heavily on "environmental stewardship", which typically values the natural world only in terms of its contribution to human well-being. It leave the environment detached from and irrelevant to the wider economy.

As Chancellor, George Osborne has resurrected the age-old argument that we need to choose between economic growth and the environment - despite stating in 2009 that he had "always considered this to be a false divide" and that "economic growth and environmental sustainability can go hand in hand". He is the cheerleader for the outdated view amongst Tory MPs that the free market alone can satisfy the long-term needs of the economy.

For the reasons Miliband identified in his speech to the Social Market Foundation, an over-reliance on free markets - and their short-term priorities - is not a viable response to the challenges we face.

He has therefore been absolutely right to distinguish between "productive" and "predatory" capitalism. If it can underline the links between economic and environmental sustainability, Rio+20 will represent a valuable opportunity for the party to develop further examples of how it would tackle predatory capitalism.

It’s a chance to challenge the limitations of Tory economic orthodoxy. Most importantly, it’s a chance to start thinking about how the next Labour government can deliver long-term growth and sustainable wealth creation, while at the same time improving human well-being, creating jobs, ensuring fair and affordable access to resources such as water and energy, reducing inequalities, and tackling poverty.

Danny Stevens is an independent environmental policy and political consultant and a Labour councillor in Hackney.
 
Tristan Stubbs works on climate change and development policy at the Overseas Development Institute.

Terena indians dance around a Brazilian national flag during the opening of the Green Games as part of the UN Rio+20 environmental summit. Photograph: Getty Images.
Warner Brothers
Show Hide image

Nigel Farage's love for Dunkirk shows how Brexiteers learned the wrong lessons from WWII

Film has given Britain a dangerously skewed perspective on World War II

For months now it’s been hard to avoid the publicity for what seems like an epidemic of new World War Two films for 2017. June brought us Churchill (starring Brian Cox), which concerns Operation Overlord and the allied invasion of Normandy in 1944. A month later, in July we were pushed back four years, to Dunkirk, with Christopher Nolan’s film of the evacuation of Allied troops from French soil in the summer of 1940. April had already brought Their Finest, a comedy about making a - let us not let the irony go unacknowledged -  stirring film about the evacuation of Dunkirk in the event’s more or less immediate aftermath and November will bring us Darkest Hour, some events in which will predate all three earlier films, as Gary Oldman’s Churchill struggles through the earliest days of his war premiership.

This glut is peculiar. There are no significant round anniversaries to commemorate (e.g. Dunkirk is 77 years ago, the Normandy landings 73). More, we’re meant to be in the middle of a series of commemorations of the horror and waste of the Great War of 1914-18, but that seems to have slipped away from us in the political turmoil that’s engulfed this country since 2014. Instead, it’s to the Second World War we return yet again. To modern Britain’s founding myth.

It’s a coincidence, of course, that these films should come along together, and at a seemingly odd time. They were developed separately, and films takes so long to conceive and produce that no one could have anticipated them arriving together, let alone arriving in a toxic Brexit Britain where they seem like literally the least useful things for anyone in the UK to watch right now. As works that will inevitably, whatever their own creative intentions and merits, be hi-jacked by a press and political culture that is determined to gloss its opposition to the UK’s membership of the European Union, and its appalling mishandling of the process of exit with garbled references to, the conflict the films portray.

This is an impression that is not exactly dismissed by Nigel Farage posting to twitter of an image of himself standing next to the poster for Dunkirk, along with a statement in which he encourages all young people to see the film. For what reason, we’re entitled to wonder, does he make this encouragement? Does he admire the sound design? Or the aerial photography? Or is he just a big fan of Mark Rylance and Harry Styles? Or perhaps he is, inevitably, indulging in a behaviour that some might call "nostalgic"? Of pining for the past. Except, of course, nostalgia requires an element of pain. The suffix "algia" the same as employed when referring to chronic conditions. For Farage and his ilk there is no pain in this behaviour, just the most extraordinarily banal comfort.

Farage is asking us and asking the young who voted against his chosen cause by an overwhelming majority, and who are are sickened by where he and his ilk have brought us - to share in his indulgence. To enjoy, as he does, those fatuous analogies between the UK’s isolation between Dunkirk and Pearl Harbour with its imminent failures in European politics. To see that "escaping from Europe with nothing is at least better than not escaping at all". Or to believe, once again, in a "plucky little Britain, standing up against the might of a wicked mainland European tyranny, its back against the wall".

All this, confused, indeed nonsensical, as it is, is being invoked, as surely as the anti-EU right have always invoked Churchill. This is despite his own family recognising him, as the EU itself does, as the fervent pro-European he was. Indeed, he was one of the founding fathers of the whole post-war pan-European enterprise.

What Farage and his behaviour demonstrates, yet again, is that British culture, in many ways, learned not merely the wrong lessons from the war against Hitler, but exactly the wrong lessons. It’s a lesson that found its most enduring, poisonous expression in Margaret Thatcher’s breathtaking assertion that the European Union was a "third attempt" by Germany to take over the world.

In contrast to the rush of war films in cinemas, television has recently given us glimpses into theoretical worlds where Nazism did succeed in conquering the planet, in Amazon Prime’s The Man In The High Castle and BBC One’s SS-GB. There are lessons too, in these alternative histories, proper lessons that we have collectively failed to learn from the real one. Which is that fascism or authoritarianism are not diseases to which anglophone countries are somehow miraculously immune due to [insert misunderstood historical fetish of choice].

The Man in the High Castle, particularly in its more subtle first series, goes out of its way to show Americans that their lack of experience of collaboration with Nazi occupation is a result of circumstance, even luck. Not because collaboration is a peculiarly European tendency. SS-GB also worked hard to demonstrate the helplessness of occupation, and how that leads to the sheer ordinariness of collaboration. Both show the understanding that while fascism from the outside is funny accents and funny uniforms, fascism from the inside is your neighbours informing on you and the absence of the rule of law.

That experience of occupation, of subsequent complicity, and humiliation, felt by many other other European nations, is absent in Britain. Farage’s fellow Leaver Liam Fox, without anything resembling self-awareness, asserted that "the United Kingdom is one of the few countries in the European Union that does not need to bury its 20th century history". Fox’s remark summed up, again seemingly unintentionally, the oafishness of the principle Brexiteers. A group who exemplify a culture that boils a vast and unimaginably complex conflict down to the title sequence of Dad’s Army - an animation in which a Union Flag is forced off the European continent by a trio of Nazi triangles, and after returning home bobs around defiantly. A group who, in a strange and witless inversion, have fantasised themselves into a position where they see the Britain’s membership of the European Union as the occupation the country once avoided.

This is the UK’s postponed tragedy. At a timethat European countries experienced national humiliations which fundamentally reconfigured their understandings of their place in the world, the UK got yet another excuse to shout about how much better it was than everyone else.

I’m a child of the very late Seventies. I grew up in a world where (British) boys’ comics were dominated by war stories rather than science fiction or superheroes, where literally everyone knew several people who had fought in World War Two - and almost everyone someone who could remember World War One. That war was the ever-present past. I am, as a friend who teaches history neatly phrased it "Of the last post-war generation." After me, the generations are post-post-war. They are free. The moral clarity of the war against Hitler has, in the end, been a curse on British culture - a distorting mirror in which we can always see ourselves as heroes. 

But, not, of course, all other generations. The war generation collectively (I make no claim that there were not exceptions) understood what the war was. Which meant they understood that the European Union was, and is, its antonym, not an extension of it. Unlike their children and the eldest of their grandchildren, they had real experience of the conflict, they hadn’t just grown up surrounded by films about how great Britain was during it.

The Prime Minister who, or so he thought, had secured Britain’s European destiny had also, as he related in his autobiography, seen the devastation wrought by that conflict, including by shells he himself had given the order to be fired. Like Helmut Kohl, whose worshipped, conscripted older brother died pointlessly fighting for Hitler, and Francois Mitterrand, himself captured during the fall of France, his experience was real and lived, not second hand.

This can be seen even in the voting in 2016 referendum. That the young principally voted Remain and the old voted Leave has been often noted. But if you break that over-65 vote up further, there’s a substantial flip to back towards Remain amongst the oldest voters, the survivors of the survivors of World War Two. After all, someone who is 65 today was born nearly a decade after the war ended. It was their parents’ war, not their own. A war that has been appropriated, and for purposes of which those who fought in it would, collectively, not approve.

Let’s return to Dad’s Army, after all, BBC Two does often enough. Don’t Panic! The Dad’s Army Story (2000) a cheerful history of the sitcom great written and presented by Victoria Wood contains a telling juxtaposition of interviewees. The series' surprising continued popularity is discussed and Wendy Richard (born 1943) expresses a nostalgia for the war years, and how people banded together during them. This is a sentiment which Clive Dunn (born 1920) bluntly dismisses. “Like most people I had a foul war,” he says, and disgust and horror briefly pass across his face.

It’s the difference between those who remember war, and those who only remember war films.