Skip to main content
Read page text
page 294
WHAT WE MEAN WHEN WE TALK SPEAKERS C O R N E R ABOUT CLIMATE JUSTICE WORDS Lawyer, PhD candidate and Writer Harpreet Kaur Paul frontline of impacts. This is not just down to geographic vulnerabilities, it is as much – if not more – a result of the fewer resources available to countries and communities that have had wealth, income, minerals, metals and labour extracted over a process that has lasted for more than 500 years. to reduce racialised exposure to the health consequences of toxic air. Gender justice, racial justice, Indigenous rights, workers’ rights and anti-poverty movements all align to propose meaningful climate action that is rooted in evidence and equity. Developed countries continue to propose climate action rooted in protecting and promoting those business enterprises that have led us to this juncture of accelerating climate impacts, whether that is through the promotion of bioenergy, hydrogen and carbon capture and storage, or through their promotion of carbon markets over regulation. At the same time, they refuse to pay equitable climate finance to repair the consequences of their historic emissions, an issue that threatens a breakdown in COP26 (the 26th UN Climate Change Conference) negotiations scheduled to take place in Glasgow this November. At the same time, those who have done the most to cause our crisis must repair the consequences. Research by Oxfam shows that the world’s richest ten per cent of people cause 52 per cent of emissions. This group also claims more than half of the world’s wealth, and most live in the so-called “developed” world. The world’s poorest 50 per cent of people contribute approximately seven per cent of global emissions and receive about eight per cent of global income. Data from the World Bank show that the average person in the UK emits In a recent conversation, an acquaintance lamented that climate action was now unfairly required to carry the weight of every injustice. “Let’s address the climate emergency first,” she argued, “the justice issues can come later.” In another space, a prominent funder complained about the ways in which the “woke agenda” had created divisions in communities where straightforward “climate action could reach a broader base”, the implication being that urgent climate action could be achieved with support from across liberals and conservatives, whereas the justice agenda was fragmenting momentum towards minimising emissions and addressing climate-changeimpacts. In my view, both the acquaintance and the funder misunderstand the root drivers of accelerating greenhouse-gas emissions alongside the impacts that are becoming clearer, whether sealevel rise, droughts, wildfires, floods and storms, soaring temperatures, crop failure and glacier melt. Fossil-fuel companies predicted, as early as the 70s and 80s, that we would be seeing these kinds of impacts if they continued in the ways that they planned. They did not change paths and regulation was not brought in to stop them. It was also known that the countries that have done least to contribute to greenhouse-gas emissions, in the Global South, would be on the Climate justice, on the other hand, is committed to using already-existing technology and solutions to create good green jobs, support low-carbon care work, improve our collective wellbeing, limit unmanageable future impacts and ensure communities facing current climate hazards have the resources and agency that they need to respond with dignity. It is committed to repairing the social and cultural inequities that have led to poor and racialised communities, alongside Indigenous peoples and women, being on the frontline of toxic chemicals and increasingclimateharms. We have the solutions. Women in the Global South have defended and promoted sustainable agroecology, which limits greenhouse-gas emissions, even in the face of displacement, as the industrial agriculture industry has driven unsustainable, unhealthy and dangerous food systems. Indigenous communities, representing five per cent of the global population, have resiliently protected 80 per cent of global biodiversity. The UK’s Trades Union Congress (TUC) is advocating for green homes and green jobs that can reduce emissions and limit fuel poverty – increasing wellbeing – over hydrogen reliance, which locks in fossil fuels. Students in London are calling for measures “Climate justice is having the courage to imagine equity and fight forit.” 65 times more carbon compared to someone in Malawi. US, Canadian and Australian citizens emit more than 150 times more. These (already unbelievably disproportionate numbers) do not account for the carbon emissions built into making and shipping the technology we’re using, the food that we’re eating, or clothes we’re wearing. At the same time, Mozambique, one of the poorest countries in the world, shoulders the burden of more than $3.2 billion in loss and damage following two unprecedented cyclones in 2019. According to Civil Society Review, the global bill for damage related to climate change is likely to hit $300-$700 billion by 2030. This requires macreconomic structural reform to allow countries to invest in education, healthcare and social protection as well as new and additional public climate financing. Climate justice is about having the courage to imagine equity and fight for it. Another way of living and being is not only possible but necessary and so much more joyful. TAKING BACK CONTROL
page 295
WHY MEDIA REFORM IS SO ESSENTIAL 293 WORDS Writer and Editor Moya Lothian-McLean “The public must be the agents of change if the media is to once again be remade in the image of those it seeks to represent.” Who shapes the way we view the world around us? Much as we would like to imagine ourselves as independent actors, capable of consistent critical analysis and a healthy dose of scepticism when necessary, there’s plenty of evidence to show that the media is one of the most powerful forces in sculpting our perspectives of society. Our news sources – from papers to rolling TV coverage – are supposed to reflect reality back at us. At its best, the media acts as a magnifying mirror, exposing the pockmarks on our political, cultural and social landscapes. But what happens when that mirror itself becomes tarnished? As an institution, a lack of funding and true diversity is warping the image of society the UK media presents to the general public, fuelling misinformation and polarising communities. Contrary to what many journalists like to believe about themselves, none of them – no matter what their political beliefs, economic background or ethnicity are – is unbiased. I’m certainly not. Objectivity in media is a myth; even the BBC, that famous bastion of supposed neutrality, has been found to platform Conservative and corporate voices at a higher rate than individuals representing left-wing or trade union organisations. Bias in reporting is to be expected and prepared for. The problem is, if the majority of journalists working in our media come from similar backgrounds and identity groups, that bias adds up and becomes groupthink. How can the media truly discern what news is of “public interest” if those who make up the ranks don’t represent the masses, but instead belong to the same class as the so-called “political elite”, who much of their reporting is centred on? Little wonder that trust in news sources is falling across the board. When we speak about “diversity” in the media, it means more than simply hiring the odd person of colour as a quick, tokenistic fix. The UK media is unrepresentative of the public it is supposed to speak for, and to, across the board. A recent report on diversity in the industry by the National Council for the Training of Journalists found that 92 per cent of journalists are white and 89 per cent have a degree. Threequarters of UK journalists are also from comfortable backgrounds, with at least one parent belonging to one of the three highestearning occupational groups – a figure that has increased since the last study of this kind, in 2016. Whereas 20 per cent of all UK workers have a parent in the lowest two occupational groups, only one in ten (eight per cent) of UK journalists can say the same. UK media is also seen by the public as unabashedly leaning politically to the right, according to research by YouGov. Media reform is long overdue. But the Hydra of a rotten media has many heads. To properly address the issue means attacking on many fronts. There’s the need to fund far more traineeships and apprenticeships for young talent from the age of 16, so an expensive degree is not a prerequisite for entry into the industry, and those from low-income backgrounds are not immediately confronted with looming obstacles. But top-down change is also vital; too many of the most powerful people in the industry are cut from exactly the same cloth. Anecdotally there is often far more representation in the bowels of big media companies, but those from “diverse” backgrounds often find their career progression stalls when they attempt to ascend beyond junior level. There must also be investment in ravaged local-news outlets, now owned by a dominant six parent companies in a similar manner to our national outlets. Digital journalism needs funding that isn’t dependent on advertising to turn a profit, which would put an end to the fastpaced, low-quality “churnalism” that makes up so much of online news. And there must be an audience willingness to support grassroots publications, such as member-led news models pioneered by the likes of TheBristol Cable. None of this will happen without reader support; there is no motivation for billionaire owners to make changes that could lead to their political influence being eroded. Instead, the public must be the agents of change if the media is to be remade in the image of those it seeks to represent. TAKING BACK CONTROL

Page Text

View plaintext

WHAT WE MEAN WHEN WE TALK

SPEAKERS C O R N E R

ABOUT CLIMATE JUSTICE

WORDS Lawyer, PhD candidate and Writer

Harpreet Kaur Paul frontline of impacts. This is not just down to geographic vulnerabilities, it is as much – if not more – a result of the fewer resources available to countries and communities that have had wealth, income, minerals, metals and labour extracted over a process that has lasted for more than 500 years.

to reduce racialised exposure to the health consequences of toxic air. Gender justice, racial justice, Indigenous rights, workers’ rights and anti-poverty movements all align to propose meaningful climate action that is rooted in evidence and equity.

Developed countries continue to propose climate action rooted in protecting and promoting those business enterprises that have led us to this juncture of accelerating climate impacts, whether that is through the promotion of bioenergy, hydrogen and carbon capture and storage, or through their promotion of carbon markets over regulation. At the same time, they refuse to pay equitable climate finance to repair the consequences of their historic emissions, an issue that threatens a breakdown in COP26 (the 26th UN Climate Change Conference) negotiations scheduled to take place in Glasgow this November.

At the same time, those who have done the most to cause our crisis must repair the consequences. Research by Oxfam shows that the world’s richest ten per cent of people cause 52 per cent of emissions. This group also claims more than half of the world’s wealth, and most live in the so-called “developed” world. The world’s poorest 50 per cent of people contribute approximately seven per cent of global emissions and receive about eight per cent of global income. Data from the World Bank show that the average person in the UK emits

In a recent conversation, an acquaintance lamented that climate action was now unfairly required to carry the weight of every injustice. “Let’s address the climate emergency first,” she argued, “the justice issues can come later.” In another space, a prominent funder complained about the ways in which the “woke agenda” had created divisions in communities where straightforward “climate action could reach a broader base”, the implication being that urgent climate action could be achieved with support from across liberals and conservatives, whereas the justice agenda was fragmenting momentum towards minimising emissions and addressing climate-changeimpacts.

In my view, both the acquaintance and the funder misunderstand the root drivers of accelerating greenhouse-gas emissions alongside the impacts that are becoming clearer, whether sealevel rise, droughts, wildfires, floods and storms, soaring temperatures, crop failure and glacier melt. Fossil-fuel companies predicted, as early as the 70s and 80s, that we would be seeing these kinds of impacts if they continued in the ways that they planned. They did not change paths and regulation was not brought in to stop them.

It was also known that the countries that have done least to contribute to greenhouse-gas emissions, in the Global South, would be on the

Climate justice, on the other hand, is committed to using already-existing technology and solutions to create good green jobs, support low-carbon care work, improve our collective wellbeing, limit unmanageable future impacts and ensure communities facing current climate hazards have the resources and agency that they need to respond with dignity. It is committed to repairing the social and cultural inequities that have led to poor and racialised communities, alongside Indigenous peoples and women, being on the frontline of toxic chemicals and increasingclimateharms.

We have the solutions. Women in the Global South have defended and promoted sustainable agroecology, which limits greenhouse-gas emissions, even in the face of displacement, as the industrial agriculture industry has driven unsustainable, unhealthy and dangerous food systems. Indigenous communities, representing five per cent of the global population, have resiliently protected 80 per cent of global biodiversity. The UK’s Trades Union Congress (TUC) is advocating for green homes and green jobs that can reduce emissions and limit fuel poverty – increasing wellbeing – over hydrogen reliance, which locks in fossil fuels. Students in London are calling for measures

“Climate justice is having the courage to imagine equity and fight forit.”

65 times more carbon compared to someone in Malawi. US, Canadian and Australian citizens emit more than 150 times more. These (already unbelievably disproportionate numbers) do not account for the carbon emissions built into making and shipping the technology we’re using, the food that we’re eating, or clothes we’re wearing. At the same time, Mozambique, one of the poorest countries in the world, shoulders the burden of more than $3.2 billion in loss and damage following two unprecedented cyclones in 2019. According to Civil Society Review, the global bill for damage related to climate change is likely to hit $300-$700 billion by 2030. This requires macreconomic structural reform to allow countries to invest in education, healthcare and social protection as well as new and additional public climate financing.

Climate justice is about having the courage to imagine equity and fight for it. Another way of living and being is not only possible but necessary and so much more joyful.

TAKING BACK CONTROL

read next page

My Bookmarks

Buy this Book
Skip to main content