The motion was proposed by Labour members Candi Chetwynd and Jane Ashworth and called on the council to take clear steps to address the climate crisis.
These included setting up a Climate Change Liaison Group, divesting pension funds held by the council from investments in fossil fuels and working with neighbouring authorities on carbon reduction projects.
The motion also called for the council to take ‘proactive steps to include young people and the public’ in developing a plan of action.
The point about the necessity of tackling climate change now was made with customary eloquence by environmentalist Sir David Attenborough from the stage of the Glastonbury festival the weekend before.
Unsurprisingly for a national treasure expounding on one of the hottest topics of the day he got an ovation louder than the one given to Kylie. Louder too than the one Jeremy Corbyn got in 2017.
There rests the problem, just because an issue is at the forefront of the public consciousness at a given moment, it doesn’t always follow that something will get done about it.
What Labour were doing on that scorching hot Thursday afternoon last week was to introduce a motion that would bring the council, business, campaign groups and most importantly, the public together to tackle climate change.
Moving the motion Councillor Ashworth said that the city and the rest of the country had to ‘listen to scientists’ when they warned about the dangers posed by climate change or risk ‘spiralling into a climate catastrophe’.
Seconding Councillor Chetwynd said that climate change was a ‘monster of our own making’, posing the greatest threat to our society and that the ‘time for action is now!’
Who could disagree with that? The ruling Conservative and Independent group, that’s who.
They went about if not killing the motion, then certainly robbing it of some much-needed oomph through a few, seemingly minor, but strategic changes of wording in an amendment tabled by Councillor Daniel Jellyman.
He spoke about the need to meet the twin challenges of growing the local economy and protecting the environment. The changes he proposed included re-naming the liaison group to make it a ‘commission’ that would ‘hear evidence’ from the public and removing the call for the creation of a plan for Stoke-on-Trent to become carbon neutral in favour to one for ‘addressing climate concerns’.
Despite disapproving looks from several on the Labour benches, including the proposer, the motion was duly passed.
That, you might be tempted to say is a good thing. After all, isn’t it more important to act on climate change than worry about the wording of the call to do so?
Up to a point, however in politics language is hugely important and can often be a barrier to turning good intentions into constructive actions.
Anyone who has ever been involved with a public consultation knows that the gulf between those running it ‘hearing’ evidence from the public and listening to what they say is huge. Particularly if what the public has to say is likely to make things awkward for major corporations with campaign donations to invest.
Addressing climate concerns, rather than coming up with a plan of action allows enough wriggle room to see that nothing beyond publishing a report few people will bother to read gets done.
It is one of the quaint traditions of local government that each meeting of the full council begins with prayers. Last week the cleric leading them called on councillors to act with responsibility on climate change because we hold this world in trust for future generations.
Even allowing for hyperbole if half of what scientists say about the speed and severity of climate change is true; then the time for such self-serving foolishness is long past.
In these doubting days I’m not sure how many people in the chamber last Thursday believe in a higher power. I for one though would say amen to that.
No comments:
Post a Comment