Directory of Lost Causes

You can click on this link if you would like to send an e-mail or letter like the one below to your MP:

Dear ....

I do not know how many others will be sending you this e-mail. I suppose it's possible that I am the only one who will do so. Just in case you receive a large number of them, however, I thought I would at least write something a little different to the text prepared by the WWF at the top of my e-mail.

I am not sure how eloquent I can be, but I would like to appeal to your conscience and your reason. I'm sorry also, if that sounds like an assumption that you usually heed neither, but in these times it seems that it is rare for a politician even to possess those two things. We are seeing in the world now in at least two ways, how the politics of economic expansion is ultimately to the detriment of all. We are suffering for the greed of those with power not only through the loss of the beauty of our environment, and the squandering of resources, but also in economic instability. Can we afford to continue in such a short-sighted manner? I urge you sincerely to do the utmost in your power as a politician to support those changes in our society that will ensure we continue to have a coherent society. The words below are not my own, but I have read them and back them wholeheartedly. Thank you for reading:

I am writing to you as my MP to urge you to seize this last opportunity to help strengthen the Climate Change Bill. It is vital that three important changes are made to the Bill to ensure the UK does its fair share in tackling climate change.

Firstly, the emissions reduction target for 2050 must be increased to at least 80% in order to reflect the latest science. As you aware, the Committee on Climate Change has just given its advice to the Prime Minister that the UK should make a reduction of at least 80% by 2050 and it is vital that Parliament amends the Bill to reflect this. In addition, the 2020 reduction target must also be strengthened to 40% to ensure that the Government starts making substantial cuts straightaway and sets the UK on course towards a low-carbon economy.

Secondly, the UK’s fair share of emissions from international aviation and shipping must be included within the targets of the Bill. As you will be aware, the Committee on Climate Change also recommended that the 80% target cover all sectors including international aviation and shipping. It does not make sense to exclude the emissions from rapidly growing sectors when every other part of the economy will have to do its bit to meet the targets. Successful efforts to reduce emissions will be undermined by the growth in aviation and shipping unless they are brought into the Bill. Therefore, I urge you to vote to include international aviation and shipping within the targets of the Bill from the outset.

Finally, it is essential that the vast majority of these emissions reductions are actually achieved here in the UK. At present the Bill contains a loophole which allows the UK Government and business to buy an unlimited amount of carbon credits from overseas to achieve the reduction targets. Ultimately this loophole could open the door to a whole new generation of unabated coal-fired power stations, such as at Kingsnorth, which will ruin attempts to build a low-carbon economy. The Committee on Climate Change has called for a fully decarbonised power sector in the UK by 2030 so the overreliance on carbon credits is crucial. Therefore, it is vital that a requirement, added in the House of Lords, that 70% of the emission reductions are achieved domestically, is reinstated in the Bill.

The remaining stages of the Climate Change Bill mark a final opportunity to improve this legislation to ensure that the UK truly does its fair share to tackle climate change and is able to agree a strong global deal at Copenhagen next year.

Yours sincerely,
Quentin S. Crisp

I had an e-mail from the World Wildlife Fund the other day informing me of something called 'Earth Hour 2008'.

Between 8-9pm on 29 March, millions of people around the world will take part in Earth Hour 2008 – a WWF initiative asking people to turn their lights off for one hour.

Read more, if you are interested, at the link above, or watch here.

I quote from the lastest Avaaz newsletter e-mail:

We're here at the climate summit in Bali -- but it's reached crisis point. Working late, negotiators were nearing consensus that developed countries should pledge post-Kyoto emissions cuts by 2020--a step which the scientists say is needed to avert the worst ravages of global warming, and which will help to bring China and the developing world onboard. But then the news broke: the US, Canada and Japan rejected any mention of such cuts. Every few hours the draft changes.

If you disagree with the gross irresponsibility of the USA, Canada and Japan, please sign the petition here.

I read this entry on Interbreeding today, and it reminded me of some of my feelings about politics and communism. I don't consider myself a political person. Because, in the same way people pester you to say what football team you support, they will often pester you to say what your politics are, I suppose I have tended to think of myself or represent myself as left-leaning, but I basically think that politics itself - left or right - is the problem not the solution. Interbreeding tells us that, "There is nothing noble about politicians. One of the core features of the dictatorship of the proletariat is their abolition." I agree with the first sentence. The second sentence is interesting because it reminds me that I feel myself becoming very sympathetic towards the idea of communism. However, as a political, historical phenomenon, I more or less hate communism. I have said in the past that any ideal society has to be communist in a way. The word 'communist' obviously belongs to the same etymological family as 'commune' (noun and verb) and 'community'. I feel strongly that what is missing from modern society is a sense of community. But any communism that takes place must, to succeed, be apolitical. It must represent the end of politics, not just another form of politics. To reiterate - politics is the problem, not the solution.

I suppose I'm not particularly optimistic about the possibility of a successful (that is, a spontaneous and apolitical) communism. There are too many people in the world, and their interests and values seem too much at variance. I only have to look at any public forum on the Internet, with ordinary people (idiots, as they were called in Greece) giving the world the benefit of their views, and I become depressed at the chaotic conflict of it all and wish to withdraw. And, since the population has reached its current state, where there is no room for people to leave and set up their own country (everywhere has already been taken), this withdrawal is what the triumph of capitalism is built upon. Money and politics are the symptoms of distrust and disharmony. Politicians feed on conflict for their power. Who would need these parasites if there were harmony? It is at this point that I begin to despair, knowing that my misanthropy feeds capitalism, but being unable to relate to (commune with) the vast majority of people around me.

I'm not quite sure what to do about that, except try to remain open and not to 'play politics'.

Playing politics is an interesting term. I find it being used by Housing Minister Yvette Cooper, here. There have been quite shocking floods in Britain recently, but Yvette Cooper says that we must not "play politics", by arguing that the floods are a good reason to stop the proposed housing developments on the flood plains. Well, this is interesting. So, tell me again, who is playing politics here, Yvette? Could it be someone with a vested interest like... er... I don't know, the Minister for Housing? Or could it be someone uninterested in politics who happens to notice that if you build houses on a flood plain, they get flooded. Not only that, but development on the flood plain increases flooding, for the same reason that all you folks who pave over the soil of your yard so you can park your massive polluting cars increase flooding - because the water has nowhere to seep away. And it's at this point that I begin to see violence as an attractive option. Anyone who indulges in such Orwellian double-speak has clearly already lost their soul.

The flooding raises another issue - that of climate change. Apparently these recent floods are sparked by the worst rainfall in Britain in living memory. I haven't noticed any speculation or enquiry in the media into how this relates to climate change. The issues focused upon are things like housing - political issues. A recent poll, in fact, found that most of the (British? In keeping with recent sloppy journalism the article I read did not specify the boundaries of the poll) public believe terrorism and graffiti to be greater problems than climate change. I hardly know what to say about such views. I feel as if I am living on a different planet to these people (I certainly wish I was). Of course, terrorism and graffiti are, in a sense, political inventions - they are 'issues' invented by politicians to divide people, to distract them, and to ensure the power of the political class. Climate change should not be such a political issue.

I read an article on the Internet recently, in the wake of Live Earth, giving the point of view of a climate change sceptic. Unfortunately I can't find the link now, so my remarks will have to remain general rather than specific. For one thing, the media prove themselves to be scum once again by angling always for controversy, by overemphasising the idea that the 'sceptic' interviewed is 'against' the idea of climate change, and is 'challenging' it. The headlines were along the lines of "Save people, not the planet." I don't know if you could find a more moronic slogan, but I suppose it will appeal to someone: "Yeah. Yeah. I've had enough of the fucking planet. Let's get rid of the damned thing, and just have the people." Anyway, the sceptic interviewed was basically saying (unable to deny climate change) that he thought money should be spent on 'more urgent' things. I find the psychology here really curious. What, really, is the motivation of this sceptic? Even if we accept that no one really knows what's going to happen, don't you want to do your best to prepare for the worst when there's at least strong evidence that it's coming? My impression is that the motivation here is political. That is, like the media, those with a political bent feed off contorversy and division. If anything looks like having a truth that transcends politics, they must, at all costs, challenge and politicise that truth, for fear of losing their power. But climate change is not political. We are dealing with forces that are way deeper than your shallow and petty little 'issues'. These waves and winds take no account of left or right. They are not politically motivated. You cannot engage them in political discourse. For once, we will have to rise above politics to survive. I have said it before, in different words, but this may be a chance for the human race to become spontaneously, apolitically communist, or it may see us all drowning in the farcical mire of politics, before we are finally drowned by the deeper waves of nature.

Apparently Tony Blair has just about caught up with the rest of humanity and declared that we "must act" to tackle climate change. Reading the news article, I was vaguely encouraged that politicians are slowly beginning to take this idea on board. However, I was also deeply depressed by certain other aspects of the article. We need to look no further than the first sentence, in fact:

The world will suffer irreversible economic damage without immediate action to combat climate change, the Prime Minister has said.

Notice the use of the word 'economic'. No mention of the destruction of the natural environment, or the loss of plant, animal and human life. No, if there's no money involved, it doesn't register on the political radar. This depresses me so much that it's truly beyond my power to put into words. After all, it's this political obsession with money, economic growth and so on, that has brought us to this crisis in the first place. I don't see us getting out of it by maintaining the same obsession. And the thing is, money is the biggest fiction, the least important thing in the world. I found this idea expressed admirably in a comment on the blog of David Miliband, Secretay of State for Environment. Someone signing himself as Mike Bennet writes as follows:

Hi David. I realise this is part of the upcoming announcement about new nuclear power stations to which I am totally opposed. I just wanted to make clear that there are two value systems going on here. Business and the Government work pretty much by money - if the case works financially then it's fine.

But the real world is far more complex than that - it doesn't recognise money at all in fact. And out here we citizens and our descendants are the ones who will bear the full effects of these decisions. And those effects are not financially measurable and are not included in your decisions really.

So I believe the starting point can't possibly really be public safety as you say - preparing for new nuclear power stations is not a path to go down if you truly value public safety.

David, you're in a good position to start to bring some honesty into politics - this would be a good place to start.

Incidentally, if anyone can help me out on this information, I'd been obliged. I saw Jeremy Paxman talking to some kind of government spokesman about the environment on Newsnight a week or two ago. I don't think it was David Miliband, strangely, though it's possible I just didn't recognise him. Anyway, the interview was fascinating, hilarious, depressing and scary. Basically, Paxman asked the spokesman, in view of Gordon Brown's statement that climate change is the biggest problem facing the planet, what exactly the government are doing to tackle that problem. The spokesman was completely unable to come up with anything that they were actually doing. He was really crumbling on camera. "So, climate change is the biggest problem facing the world. Can we therefore have a commitment from the government for some kind of action?" "Well, it's too early to talk about commitment." Blah blah blah. It also transpired that the respective figures for government spending on the environment and on the Iraq war were 100 million pounds (over one or four years, I can't remember) and five billion pounds. The most important problem in the world - 100 million pounds. Slaughtering a load of foreigners for reasons no longer intelligible to anyone - five billion pounds.

So, that's why I hate politicians.