Lack of Environment

A blog on the politics and psychology underlying the denial of all our environmental problems

Are we all Britain haters now?

with 10 comments

Here in the UK, the Daily Mail has got itself a lot of publicity for printing an article last Saturday entitled “Man Who Hated Britain”.  The article was about the late father of Ed Milliband, who is the current leader of the Labour Party (and could therefore be our next Prime Minister).  For the avoidance of any doubt, I must declare that I think such an eventuality would be a disaster for Britain.  However, I digress…

Basically, the Daily Mail’s argument is that, if for no other reason than that he died in 1994, many people may not realise that Ralph Miliband was a passionate believer in the political philosophy of a certain Karl Marx (oh and, yes, he was Jewish as well).  Choosing to ignore the fact Milliband senior joined the Royal Navy and settled down to married life here after the War, the Daily Mail based its entire article on something he wrote in his diary when he arrived here as a refugee from the Nazis (at the tender age of 17).

Despite asking for and being given a right to reply, Ed Milliband has had to put up with the Daily Mail refusing to apologise and – indeed repeating its criticism of his father.  In essence, therefore, the Daily Mail’s position is that you cannot love Britain if you are a Socialist.  However, this is nothing new; this has always been the position of the Daily Mail – they have just never found such a blunt way to say it before.  The Independent newspaper has helpfully summarised the whole story in this article yesterday.

Unfortunately for the Daily Mail, this is an easily falsifiable argument; especially when you consider that the newspaper routinely uses xenophobic headlines to attract readers:  It does not matter whether the subject is radical Islamic preachers, environmental protestors, or climate scientists – according to the Daily Mail they all hate Britain.

With regard to radical Islamic preachers in Britain, I agree it does seem somewhat hypocritical to criticise the country in which you have chosen to live.  However, to be entirely fair, they have chosen to work here; and they are living here in the hope that they can turn the UK into an Islamic state.  Does this mean that they ‘hate’ Britain?  No it does not; it just means they don’t like it the way it is.

Exactly the same logic applies to environmental campaigners and climate scientists.  To label them as anti-British (anti-Western or anti-progress) is grossly unfair.  They are not anti-British – they just believe Britain would be better if it was not at war with Nature.

So what is the Daily Mail up to?  I think it is essentially peddling xenophobia.  This may well have originated as an evolutionary survival mechanism.  However, today, in the absence of any predators, xenophobic tribalism is essentially a maladaptive coping strategy:  It is a method of absolving oneself of responsibility for anything; and shifting the blame for everything on to somebody else.

This is essentially what climate change denial is:  Many of those of a religious persuasion tell themselves humans cannot be changing the Earth’s climate (because God won’t allow that to happen).  Many of those of a humanist persuasion tell themselves that we are not changing the Earth’s climate (because that would require us all to admit we have made a mess of things).

Seen in this light, we would all appear to be planet haters now.  If we can admit this to ourselves and to each other; I think that this might be the first step on a long road towards doing something about it.

In the meantime, my response to those who think there is still something inherently evil about Communism is as follows:

It is amazing how so many – who no doubt consider themselves to be very much right-of-centre politically – forget that the first people to be called “Christians” would today be described as Communists.* So, I think a little less contempt is called for; and a lot less hypocrisy.

Marxism is essentially Industrialism without the Capitalism. Whereas Marxism prioritises production; Capitalism prioritises consumption. As such, both are deeply mired in the unsustainable delusion of ‘growthmania’.  It may be that Capitalism has proven itself far better at wealth creation, but, neither system has proven to be very good at providing equal opportunity for all.

* The Bible makes it clear that, in the very earliest years at least, Christians formed a self-supporting community of people within which property and food were shared. Therefore, those who think there is something inherently evil about Communism have got stuck in the past: McCarthyism never did do anyone much good; and it is now at least 50 years out of date.

Having said all that, I am still not a ‘Watermelon’ (i.e. green on the outside but red on the inside).  I remain a (non-financial) supporter of the Conservative Party and, as such, I live in the hope that one day soon it may stop allowing ideology to prejudice its attitude to science; and accept what climate scientists are telling us will happen if we do not take radical steps to decarbonise our economies by 2050.  For goodness sake, even business leaders are now saying we must do this.  What the hell are we waiting for?

——–

UPDATE:   On 1 October 2013, in a welcome attempt to put the record straight, The Daily Telegraph has re-published its very fair-minded obituary of Professor Ralph Milliband from its edition of 7 June 1994.  (H/T  Roger Davies [@4589roger] on Twitter).

About these ads

10 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I find your articles interesting because I’m not and (I imagine) never will be a supporter of the Conservative party. I’m not a member of any party to be quite honest, but I can safely say that I do not align with typical conservative politics. Having said that, I agree with much of what you say and I wish this were more common (or I was aware of it being more common). It should be possible to disagree about certain things (fiscal policy for example) and agree about others (environmental policy for example). It just seems that at the moment this is not the norm and we are busy dividing ourselves essentially into two camps who just feel obliged to disagree about everything.

    wottsupwiththatblog

    2 October 2013 at 14:47

    • Thanks for reading beyond my remark about Milliband being a potential disaster as PM (solely because I think governments must live within their means). I agree that denial of ACD is very much a right-wing thing. I am keen to rectify this ideological blindness from within because to do otherwise would merely reinforce the stereotypical view that all environmentalists are Watermelons.

      However, despite any political differences we may have, I suspect we can agree on one thing: the environment should not be a political football because the essential ecosystem services that sustain life on Earth do not care about politics. I am very fortunate to have a Conservative MP who understands this, but, I suspect, even she is often inclined to listen to the scientifically-illiterate voices of (supposed) authority within the Conservative Party.

      However, as we see all kinds of extreme (once in a lifetime) weather events becoming annual occurrences, I hope that climate change denial will become increasingly untenable. To be clear, I don’t wish for climate meltdown but, sadly, I think that this is what it will take for many people to disavow their ideological blindness.

      Martin Lack

      3 October 2013 at 12:07

  2. Amusingly, Marx missed the deepest critique, and, now that the problem is fully evident, would probably write another book. “Plutocracy” the title.

    Patrice Ayme

    2 October 2013 at 20:25

    • Thanks Patrice. I posted the above comments (about ‘growthmania’ etc.) on the Independent website, only to attract a one-line response that I clearly did not understand Marxism. However, my intention was to be very deliberately critical of both Marxist and Capitalist dogma.

      Martin Lack

      3 October 2013 at 12:19

  3. Great article. I’ve been a Conservative voter all my life, and campaigned for the party on several occasions (admittedly back in the 1990s). I too am puzzled and, frankly infuriated, by the lazy, blinkered drivel that certain leading Tories (eg Owen Patterson) come up with on the subject of climate science. It seems they are determined to make the Conservatives the ‘Stupid Party’ for real.
    As for the Mail, it’s journalistic methods are beyond the pale. Anyone who looks into stories like this can see what they’re up to: we most of us know a smear when we see one.

    philip6464

    2 October 2013 at 21:03

    • Thanks Philip. Unfortunately, all the climate change sceptics within the Conservative Party are told what to say by Lord Lawson’s GWPF, which is in turn told what to think by the likes of the Koch-funded Heartland Institute in the USA.

      If you are new to my blog, I would recommend starting here:
      A brief history of mine (12 March 2012)

      Martin Lack

      3 October 2013 at 12:28

  4. Following your link to Harrabin at the BBC I was surprised about this article for recent BBC coverage of climate leading up to the release of AR5 suggests pressure from Whitehall to ensure that there is a dose of uncertainty inserted. Using Andrew Montford and Bob Carter as contributors to broadcasts takes that even further towards a ‘must delay’ renewables policy. This is re-enforced by recent statements by Owen Paterson and George Osborne.

    So, in that light, your,“I live in the hope that one day soon it may stop allowing ideology to prejudice its attitude to science; and accept what climate scientists are telling us…”, is wishful thinking at the best.

    This from somebody who experienced and witnessed the inequalities introduced during the Thatcher years at first hand.

    Lionel A

    3 October 2013 at 12:07

    • I too was very annoyed about Andrew Montford’s recent appearance on the BBC News (see Twitter) but what is the evidence that UK government encouraged this? What has happened to the 2011 Review by the BBC Trust, which found that “…there was an at times ‘over-rigid’ application of the Editorial Guidelines on impartiality in relation to science coverage, which failed to take into account… the ‘non-contentious’ nature of some stories and the need to avoid giving ‘undue attention to marginal opinion’…”? (i.e. as summarised by Wikipedia.) The only way to make sense of this is to conclude that the UK government just does not want people to panic. If so, are we all (supposed to be) ostriches now?

      Martin Lack

      3 October 2013 at 12:45


Please join the discussion

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 316 other followers

%d bloggers like this: