My uncomfortable stance on climate change and racial equity

Edit: upon reflection, a previous article I wrote on "A journey from shame to activism " provides crucial context to the article below.

If I had to put it into words, what drives my activism is the racially equitable distribution of money/wealth by any legal means necessary. This often involves holding seemingly competing ideologies, and I regularly find myself on what feels like the ‘wrong’ side of the political argument. Good long-term policies can have unintended short-term consequences and too many of these disproportionately affect Black and Brown communities.?

Take Rishi Sunak’s recent U-turn on a range of policies designed to achieve the UK’s net zero targets. He has ditched some and delayed others by 5 years to 2035. Given the inequitable distribution of wealth in the UK, I instinctively support this policy shift because of its immediate benefit to Black communities. Unlike many of his critics, I’m less concerned with his possible motivations than with the practical outcomes; especially for those who can least afford the initial costs of reducing their carbon emissions - who are disproportionately from Black and Brown communities.

An equitable transition demands that those who have most pay most. An effective transition means that we remove polluting vehicles from the system altogether, and not export pollution to other parts of the UK or the world, by reselling old cars on the open market. To have both an effective and equitable solution we need to fully subsidise the cost of transitioning for those who can least afford it. Current efforts to do this are underfunded and simply leave too many people behind. For example, while the wealthiest move to low emission cars and continue to drive in London, those least able to replace their old cars are faced with daily charges of up to ￡12.50 per day. Their only other option is to absorb an up to a ￡3k loss if they apply to the Mayor of London’s scrappage scheme ; which provides a grant subsidy (typically less than the value of the car) when someone chooses to get rid of a polluting car.? For those without cars - again, disproportionately Black and Brown communities - there are few benefits without better or free public transport.

I’m torn by my position on this because on the one hand I am allied with a policy that is short term and politically expedient, but on the other, from a race equity lens, one that feels more realistic and fairer. I’ve heard the arguments about the longer-term negative implications of this policy change, including on the least wealthy; but long-term thinking is a privilege. Financial survival means that those who have least don’t have the luxury of thinking beyond the next pay cheque; spending thousands to reduce their carbon emissions is a social necessity too many just can’t afford.?

In terms of transitioning to net zero, wealth divides us into those who can and do, those who can but don’t, and those who simply can’t. For this last invisible group, the imposition of inequitable net zero transition policies is (at the very least) a significant inconvenience and at worst a financial tipping point into destitution.?

The ideal would be to stick to the original net zero targets and properly subsidise the investment in transition for those who can least afford it. Beyond the initial transition costs there would need to be an investment in new technology to make sure that any ongoing costs associated with running and maintaining any new eco-tech (e.g. an electric car or a heat pump) are kept as low as possible.

Effectively we would need to invest in accelerating the eco tech revolution and protect the poorest whilst this is happening. We are not yet there.

Whatever Rishi Sunak’s reasons for the change to net zero targets, the principle of ‘taking the poor with us’ in the transition to net zero is the right one. Even if that principle is maintained for disingenuous reasons, I’ll support it, whatever side of the political fence it leaves me on. For the poorest the practical outcome of financial survival is more important than the political manoeuvres that deliver those outcomes. Those debates and any subsequent participation in the political process are, unsurprisingly, left to those who have the money and time to engage.?

This brings me back to what drives my activism; a more equitable distribution of wealth leads to greater participation in political discourse and in the political process; and political engagement makes for a fairer, more cohesive, and more democratic society, which benefits us all.