Guest essay by Eric Worrall
According to Wired contributor Daphne LePrince-Ringuet, the kind of anti climate policy protests which rocked France can be prevented with a few government handouts, and by convincing ordinary people of the good intentions of government.
To win the climate change battle, we need to talk about gilets jaunes
By DAPHNE LEPRINCE-RINGUET
Saturday 22 December 2018Shifting to a low-carbon economy won’t be painless, and politicians need to win the public over
On the first day of this year’s COP24, nearly 50 heads of state – including British prime minister Theresa May – signed a declaration proposed by the Polish government and ambitiously named the “Solidarity and Just Transition Silesia Declaration”. The paper didn’t make waves in the media, yet it addresses a key issue in the fight against climate change: ensuring that the transition towards a low-carbon economy comes with jobs and an decent quality of life.
Ironically, the story that hogged the limelight in the press was the gilets jaunes protests in France – whose root cause is linked to the very same issue. The carbon tax on diesel fuel announced by the French government as part of low-carbon strategy didn’t go down well with the middle class rural population, who can’t jump on a metro to go to work – but who also can’t afford to see their salary whittled down by an extra tax.
…
Building on those pillars, David Wei, director for climate at sustainable consultancy group Business for Social Responsibility (BSR), has written a guide for businesses to implement low-carbon models while reducing disruption for their workers. Wei’s handbook includes advice and case studies that are more hands-on than the ILO’s guidelines, such as increasing transparency or implementing re-skilling programmes. And it also highlights the importance of working hand-in-hand with governments. Political decision-making, it insists, is crucial to orchestrate a fair transition.
As an example of good behaviour, Wei points to Canada, where this year unions set up a Just Transition Task Force after the government announced plans to phase out the use of coal-fired electricity by 2030. The organisation bridges between policy-makers and the workforce, meeting with the communities affected by the plans, and then reporting to the federal government on how to create opportunities for them. A further $35 billion (£27.55bn) budget was allocated to support training and re-skilling, with the end-goal of making for a smoother shift of the workforce away from coal.
For Wei, this “inclusive economy agenda” should be the focus of governments and businesses alike for the years to come. “We have to look at the threats and risks that decarbonisation poses to the people,” he says. “You can’t ignore the social impact of a transition. If you don’t tackle the human dimension of climate change policy, you will never generate the political will necessary to meet the two-degree target [agreed upon in the 2015 Paris Agreement].”
Businesses and policy-makers will also need to communicate effectively if they want to win over those that will be impacted first-hand by the new rules of the game – especially if those rules imply sacrifices such as paying higher taxes.
…
See – if you want to defuse protests by mainly rural workers smashed by unavoidable fossil fuel tax rises, all you have to do is convince businesses to work more closely with governments, better communicate your good intentions, and give money to the unions, who will ensure the cash is fairly distributed to their members.
Shifting to a low-carbon economy won’t be painless
One of their many almost sincere sounding one-liners, but who is Daphne?
I read that she is a recent City, University of London qualified journalist specialising in the arts and culture and currently writing for Wired UK’s editorial board.
Paint me a picture, Daphne…
This is half the problem, they do not address the basic economics of the situation.
Maybe they could just pay everyone to stay home and not drive to work. If there is no transportation available, then people should just get paid to “save the planet”. Of course, since growing food and raising livestock will be affected in a negative way (no way to transport food and fossil fuels are needed to grow it—unless we use oxen and steam locomotives), people in the cities will have to figure out how to grow food on their windowsills and become vegan, but that’s to “save the planet”. Plus, no need for supermarkets since everyone is growing their own food, so less fossil fuel use. Pay the displaced workers to sit home, of course. I can see 3/4 of the population being paid to sit at home in order to save the planet. Working with the government could turn out really well for 3/4 of the population. There could be some down sides, but let’s not dwell on the negative……;)
And where precisely does the government get this money with which to placate the financially strapped working/middle class/small business people who are hurting from imposed transition taxes? Simple – either tax them more and generously give some back, or crank the printing presses a bit faster, and let the indirect inflation (tax) drain the needed value out of the protesters pockets. Either way, they would be too dumb and grateful to notice. Do it skillfully enough and they would even vote you back into office.
Eric, your opening sentence, “According to Wired contributor Daphne LePrince-Ringuet, the kind of anti climate policy protests which rocked France can be prevented with a few government handouts, and by convincing ordinary people of the good intentions of government…” is priceless. It made me laugh. I’m still smiling and chuckling as I write this.
HAPPY HOLIDAYS to you and yours,
Bob
How can anyone trust a government that acts in complete opposition to the public good, especially when those actions are based on bogus IPCC science that couldn’t be more wrong if they tried, presuming they aren’t already trying as hard as possible to reinforce and perpetuate the many errors.
This sentence added since the pressure of Yellow Vest demonstration clearly shows that the “transition” was initially designed to destroy decent quality of life despite all the green job promises. Confiscation of fossil fuels for military only use is the ultimate goal and anything else is a lie.
Odd that war has gone nuclear, as Putin reminds NATO all the time.
The other issue is, what is the definition of “decent”? This is, again, a socialist mindset where a bar is set and it is labeled as “decent”. A bar inherently caps off financial and social mobility.
To my liberal and socialist friends reading this, this is the core issue: the green movement seeks reduce of the role of the individuals to increase the role of a supposedly just and fair government. This cannot work… ever. Replacing individual autonomy is a disastrous philosophy.
this is the core issue: the green movement seeks reduce of the role of the individuals to increase the role of a supposedly just and fair government. This cannot work… ever. Replacing individual autonomy is a disastrous philosophy.
Indeed, not only that but it’s a fatally flawed idea as history shows there is no such thing as a just and fair government for any significant length of time. Governments are run by people and people have biases. People get corrupted by power or money or both. And consequentially, Governments can and do act in ways that are unjust or unfair. Even if you have believe that the current regime in whatever country you live in is just and fair, you can’t honestly guarantee that the next regime will be so. Or the one after that and so on.
John, that’s why SMART Americans hold to their 2nd Amendment.
I don’t think any amount of propaganda is going to keep average folks from knowing when their pocket is being picked by the government.
When people feel like their pocket is being picked, they get upset and go out and express their unhappiness. No amount of talk is going to stop that.
We have a Labour (socialist ) government here in New Zealand supported by the Green party and the New Zealand First party who are set to apply every tax to our people that they can.
Some wiser heads have said lets not be to hasty so they have appointed a tax working commission to look at all the ways that they can tax every one in the productive sector and will bring these proposals forward to our next parliamentary election in 2020 where they will attempt to sell them with bribes to the population.
Our prime minister has already pulled back on an extra transport fuel tax across the country as fuel prices soared with the oil price surge .
Auckland our largest city had been allowed to impose a further 11 cents per liter on fuel to fund transport in the Auckland region .
The largest project is a light rail to the airport costed at ten billion dollars and run down the center of streets that will cause even more congestion.
The yellow vest movement is gaining momentum every day in New Zealand .
Everyone who spends money in NZ is taxed. Anyone who runs a business in NZ, above a certain income, is an unpaid tax collector for the Govn’t. The IRD is a rapacious beast. GST was raised to 15% and GST is applied to everything with one or two exceptions IIRC.
My friend in NZ has just accepted a job here in Aus. She has done the numbers and has worked she will be worse off by about AU$100 p/w at the NZ$ – AU$ comparison however, moving to Aus opens up job opportunities for her husband because there are simply no opportunities for him there. Raising taxes and thinking of new taxes to apply will drive industry and people away.
What they do is apply the fees and taxes to businesses, then when the businesses raise their prices to compensate, the usual suspects tell the people that their suffering is being caused by greedy corporations.
Most of them also proclaim that the only solution is for those greedy corporations to be taken over by the government, so that they can be run for everyone’s benefit.
“Training and re-skilling” is the same lie used for Globalization which is really outsourcing with a more palatable name. You can’t create jobs when industry and services leave. The plethora of new jobs opened by “going green” never materialized and those that were promised are disappearing fast. Only China has taken advantage of the outsourcing and rush to green energy as witnessed by their steady GDP and it’s growth but that too will come to an end as the economies of countries shedding their industries shrink along with markets for goods. The grand scam by the UN to redistribute the wealth is coming to light and the West/industrialized countries are waking up to it. One would have to be in total denial not to see what’s happening.
Philip Cross at the National Post wrote an article on just how successful Canada is in transitioning people into jobs in renewables – Not!! (Article titled ‘Stacan just exposed how worthless green industries are to Canada’s economy’s)
https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/philip-cross-statcan-just-exposed-how-worthless-green-industries-are-to-canadas-economy/amp
I could only find reference to $2 billion for skilling.
http://www.fpac.ca/budget-2018-helps-support-forest-sector-priorities-on-addressing-climate-change-skills-training-and-expanding-trade/
I really don’t mind the “sacrifice” of taxation – as long as someone else has to pay it !
I am however curious as to the number of human lives are going to be sacrificed on the alter of the climate change AGW deity.
It will run in the millions – genocide in the name of Gaia – an honourable cause (/sarc.).
Millions? Try more like Billions. The Earth currently has around 7.5 Billion people. Some on the Malthusian green left have claimed Earth can only support as little as 1 billion people without severe environmental consequences. That means the “depopulation” needed to reach that “ideal” is on the order of over 6 billion people.
Hi Daphne, a word in your delicate little shell-like..
Sing along: shake what your mama gave ya..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLl6k59XCI0
and is why ‘some’ amplifiers go to 11, but you knew that.
😀
Note the puffery where the author claims that “50 heads of state – including Theresa May – signed a declaration”. Theresa May is not the head of state, she’s the head of government (the Queen is the UK head of state).
I wonder how many heads of state actually attended or signed? Not many, I bet. Australia, for example, sent neither the head of state nor the head of government, just the Minister for Environment. I’d be surprised if even 5% of Australians know the Minister’s name.
In the US, the head of state can sign anything he darn well pleases. It’s meaningless until the Senate ratifies it.
I wonder how many other countries have something similar.
And even if ratified, if it causes enough economic damage the next party that has control will vote to reverse it.
On the one hand, its a bit more cumbersome that you make it sound. Ratification require 2/3rd majority in the Senate. Hence why Obama chose not to have Paris be a “treaty” and why he never submitted it for ratification.
On the other, Repeal is a bit fuzzy. Once ratified, treaties are considered federal law, and can be altered by congress as such (regardless if the international community still considered the original version binding on the US or not). Not sure if 2/3rd is required for congress to change/repeal a previously ratified treaty (I’m thinking not). It’s also an open question on whether or not the POTUS can unilaterally repeal a treaty. The Supreme Court refused to weigh in on Carter doing just that with a defense treaty (See Goldwater v Carter) and similarly the courts refused to interfere when W Bush did the same with the ABM treaty in 2002. (wanna bet if Trump ever does such a thing, the courts will be all over it).
There are actually 3 types of international agreements in US law.
1) treaties – requires 2/3rds of Senate to ratify
2) Congressional-executive agreements, just needs simple majority of congress to pass
3) executive agreements, basically agreement by executive order (what Obama did) which can just as easily be unagreed to by executive Order of any subsequent President.
The “‘gilets jaunes” riots in France were triggered by the french govt’s intent to charge the diesel fuels with a further tax, purportedly a “carbon tax” intended to fight the so called climate change. Everybody knows the unbearable level of the prices of the car fuels in Europe and peculiarly in France. Until now the diesel fuel was cheaper than the gasoline thus making the diesel powered cars very popular moreover since the french authorities encouraged the car manufacturers in making diesel motors more sober and reliable than the gas powered ones.
This policy was bluntly reversed when Macron decided to make the diesel fuel prices higher than those of the gasoline with the aim to reduce the number of diesel cars which were suddenly ostracized as environmentally damaging with microparticles and nitrous oxides (though producing less carbon dioxide per km).
Many people of the middle class in remote rural places currently are owning old diesel cars which are proven more robust and less fuel consuming. To oblige these low income people to give up their diesel car and to purchase an expensive new one was tantamount to a war declaration.
Their wrath became fury when the media disclosed that only 20% of the amount of this new “carbon tax” would be used for environmental purposes, the remaining 80% being intended to end in the bottomless well of the public expenses and that of the french sovereign debt (€ 2300 billions !).
One of the gilets jaunes’ slogans was: “Before the (climatic) end of the world we have to face the end of this month (expenses)”.
And just like that, the climate activists realised on which side of the barricades they now were. They were not the protestors any more – they are the police state.
The pigs and humans at Animal Farm looked at each other round the table, and no-one could tell anymore the difference between them.
EVERY society that has put their trust in their ruling class to protect them if they gave them total power has collapsed spectacularly. A collapsing society is brutal in the extreme and these incidents are not isolated.
Once the People recognise that those that took all the privileges of deities-that they were living gods that can protect them from anything but were just full of hot air and lies, they will be very, very angry. For all those years, generations they have been subservient to these imposters that failed when they had to perform their duty. First existential threat and they fail- they are frauds that have defrauded the entire society. If the imposters cannot flee in to exile, they will come to a very sticky end.
Governments working closely with big business was one of the key features of Nazi Germany. Quite rightly people now do not see the connection between having their pockets picked by big business and government, and what the weather will be like tomorrow. People know that big business and government are not their friends and trust nothing those two do, especially in concert.
The CAGW-Warmistas are now facing the increasing fury of those who are slowly beginning to see what is happening to their incomes and taxes for what is nothing better than a cult of mysteries.
Just as there is no credible science to support the theory of human induced catastrophic climate change (computer models that can neither hindcast or forecast, are gigo not science), there is no reason to trust a government when it is run by warmists/alarmists! They have earned all the distrust and skepticism that can be aimed at them, their motivations are driven by science they are driven by politics!
Trust, the quintessential ingredient of climate science beliefs.
The yellow vests are recognizing the obvious.
Our governments have brazenly declared war on the citizens.
The parasitic overclass,know better than you and I how we shall spend our effort.
Far be it for us to decide how we shall live,when the “Credentialed Ones” know best.
The meme of “Carbon Reduction” is so stupid that only a university educated person can believe.
We shall refuse the luxury of cheap plentiful energy from proven methods to embrace environmentally destructive non-producers such as wind and solar.
Always with our money,never theirs..
Oh right they have never produced anything beneficial to society.
CAGW is a big lie,once the bureaus marched loudly and proudly down that road.
War it is.
They keep pointing and shrieking”You evil deniers are the reason this story won’t sell”.
“…fairly distributed to their executives‘.
Fixed it for you.
There is no plan for quality jobs and better standard of living with a new energy baseline civilization. All current conversion plans are based on taxation and deprivation mixed with poverty and starvation forcing changes through forced institutional poverty and dislocations. People thrown out of jobs that took 30 years to acquire and ascend pay scales get to start over at new menial jobs with very low pay, part time status, and no benefits. This is a plan for the environmentalism/climatism movements, which are anti-human by their conception. The working class has an alternative to this forced poverty, called civil war, kill the bureaucrats, and destroy the energy conversion as destroying the conversion has no bad consequences. In environmentalism and climatism, the animals get consideration, but the humans can go to hell. This is a sort of self-destructive approach that makes conversion impossible as the slogans to convert are based on low IQ and poor planning and cliche thinking, and more commonly, no planning whatsoever, no evaluations of costs and benefits, and no consideration of feasibility. Plans are based on the idea money is infinite and cliches can substitute for detailed plans. Problems are solved by tossing out slogans. A sort of moron way to rule the world through mass stupidity and lack of thoughtfulness.
This is a sort of self-destructive approach that makes conversion impossible as the slogans to convert are based on low IQ
Which is why they work the propaganda/indoctrination in the schools so hard. The more they can lower the collective student IQ the greater the power they can accumulate in government over the long term.
One common theme in conflict with an invading force is they get rid of the educated people.
So basically Canada is going to a no-electricity style of civilization by 2030, where they bet on a conversion from coal power based on sloganeering will work, else, the economy crashes and devolves into civil war as provinces all declare independence and choose their own way out of the morass.
A pile of $35 billion is set up to retrain people, but no one has a clue what they are going to be retrained to do. What high paying jobs enmasse await? No jobs await. There are no jobs to convert to as the economy toilets from the job losses throughout from high energy costs. This does not foster new job creation.
“A pile of $35 billion is set up to retrain people, but no one has a clue what they are going to be retrained to do.”
How about clean solar panels and remove dead birds and bats by wind turbines?
Businesses and policy-makers will also need to communicate effectively if they want to win over those that will be impacted first-hand by the new rules of the game
Ah yes, the old “if only we communicate our destructive ideas the right way the peons will fall in line” nonsense. The problem is they have been effectively communicating their desires, and the “peons” rightly want nothing to do with it. Especially as they’re the ones that will be “impacted first-hand” (in a negative way).