subject: Margaret Thatcher: Global Warming Visionary [print this page] Margaret Thatcher: Global Warming Visionary
It may be a tribute to the efficiency of the Global Climate Coalition, a body founded by the fossil-fuel and other industries in 1989 to tell politicians and the public that climate science is too uncertain to justify action, that many of the public in both the US and elsewhere remain unmoved to act on reducing emission of climate changing gases like carbon dioxide. One person, however, that was not taking in by their argument was Margaret Thatcher, was Britain's first female prime minister.
Mrs Thatcher was elected in 1979 and her ascent to power sent shockwaves not only through Whitehall and Westminster but across the world. She had a fairly belligerent style as was shown by Cabinet Papers from the time when they were released under the 30 year rule. The 1979 files provided a fascinating insight into the way she took a grip, first of her ministers, then the country with a pugnacious style that is revealed in hostile handwritten remarks in the margins of previously secret documents.
The Downing Street files show that within a month of taking office Thatcher told Geoffrey Howe, her chancellor, that the two Treasury papers on public spending cuts he put forward for their first budget were "not nearly tough enough" and that his proposal to double VAT to 15% would push up inflation. A paper on pay policy by the employment secretary, Jim Prior, was so "thoroughly deficient in content" that she ordered it not to be circulated to the cabinet. It is also reported that her furious handwritten notes in the margins of the files. These revealed her impatience at the cautious approach of some of her cabinet ministers that did not share her reforming zeal. "This will not do" is often written, as does "too small" whenever public spending cuts are being discussed. Sometimes she used a blue felt-tip pen to write the single word "no", which she heavily underlined.
Thatcher transformed Britain's economy, not least through her decision to essentially close the coal mines and have a dash for gas' in Britain's power stations. At the time she came to power, I was a student and had no particular support for her strident ways or her determination to push through her agenda at her speed, regardless of what others wanted. What I had not appreciated at the time was that she was the first major world leader to speak out about global warming and the resultant climate change.
Those who deny that global warming and the resultant climate change requires massive action by the industrialised world have a somewhat patronising theory of why Thatcher decided to focus on the issue.
They suggest that the hypothesis of man-made global warming was an obscure scientific hypothesis that had been around since the 1880s. It related to burning fossil fuels to increased Carbon Dioxide (CO2 in shorthand) levels in the air, which enhanced the greenhouse effect of these gases and thus causes global warming. They claim that 1980s this hypothesis was regarded as a curiosity until Mrs Margaret Thatcher elevated it to the status of a major international policy issue. Her motivations, they claim, is that when she came to power, she was the first female leader of a major western state, and she wanted to be taken seriously by the male political leaders of other major countries. As her only experience in government had been as Education Secretary, a fairly junior government ministry during the Heath administration of the early 1970's, this desire seemed difficult to achieve.
The then UK Ambassador to the UN, Sir Crispin Tickell, supposedly suggested a solution to the problem. He is alleged to have reasoned that as almost all international statesmen were scientifically illiterate, a scientifically literate politician could win any summit debate on a matter which seemed to depend on scientific understandings. And, as Mrs Thatcher had a BSc degree in chemistry, Sir Crispin suggested that if a 'scientific' issue were to gain international significance, then she could easily take a prominent role. This could provide credibility for her views on other world affairs and so he supposedly suggested that Mrs Thatcher should campaign about global warming at each summit meeting.
The possibility that, because Mrs Thatcher held a chemistry degree meant that she could actually understand the full impact of the global warming threat seems to pass them by.
It wasn't only the science that Mrs Thatcher understood, though it was the interaction between the environment and the economy and the fools' paradise that we are currently enjoying. "No generation has a freehold on this Earth" she said in a 1988 speech "all we have is a life tenancy with a full repairing lease". She knew full well that the way we account for our economic activity encourages us to think we have the freehold on the planet and can do what we want, without consideration for tomorrow. Economics is supposed to answer the question of how best humans can maximise scarce resource but the way we account for our economic activity makes the ludicrous assumption that the planet's resources and services are not only unlimited but that there is no cost attached to their use.
As a result of this false accounting, the previous and current generation has indulged in harmful behaviours because it seemed the "cheapest" way to do things. As a result the generation being born onto the planet today face a future with empty seas, barren soil, scare fresh water, extended deserts and fierce storms and flooding that will destroy infrastructure and lives at unprecedented levels. Or, they do if we do not act soon to switch our energy source away from fossil based carbon.
To achieve the scale of change that is necessary is a great task but humans generally are happier when engaged in something worthwhile.
There are two possible reforms to the economic system that would help us make the transition.
The first approach is to view the planet's ecosystem services and resources as being "natural capital", which is either renewable (i.e. plant or water based) or non-renewable (i.e. minerals like oil). Business has long been use to the idea that it is necessary to have a depreciation charge to put aside cash so that when a capital item needs replacing there is money to do it. This idea is then extended so that business also pays a charge for the "natural capital" it consumes, i.e. the depreciation of natural capital. The mechanics of this scheme would also be market based. By obliging the businesses to spend that charge on restoration projects of their choice (e.g. restocking oceans, protecting biodiversity, taking carbon out of the atmosphere) there would be no need for government administration, although clearly verification would be required. By re-circulating money, economic activity is increased but in a positive regeneration. The world would be put onto a rapid course of making thing better and stimulate the needed creativity that has, so far, ensured our species has thrived.
The second is called "Fee & Dividend". A "Carbon fee and 100% dividend" is proposed by James Hansen, one of the world's leading climatologists. The principles are crystal clear and must be adhered to rigorously. It involves placing a fee on coal, oil and gas in a simple manner. It could be collected at the first point of sale within the country or at the last (e.g., at the gas pump), but it can be collected easily and reliably, just as fees on alcohol and tobacco currently are.
The key part of the working of this scheme is that the entire carbon fee should be returned to the public, with a monthly deposit to their bank accounts, an equal share to each person. If no bank account can be provided, an annual payment could be made on production of documentation that demonstrates a person's right of residency in the country. Very little bureaucracy is needed to administer such a system. How much the carbon fee should be is open to debate (although it would need to be much higher than the one suggested by oil companies). To make an easy illustration suppose it is set so that it raises 1200 per person per year, then 100would be deposited in each account each month Although the fee is returned on a per capita basis, perhaps a limit of four shares per family would be necessary such that having children would not be penalised but neither would population growth be encourage.
The carbon fee will raise energy prices, but families' incomes will be lifted: there is now a strong incentive, especially for lower and middle income people, to find ways to reduce carbon emissions so as to come out ahead. Product demand will spur economic activity and innovation. The rate of infrastructure replacement, which is economic activity, and jobs can be modulated by how fast the carbon fee rate increases. The effects will permeate society far faster than any policy of encouraging reductions. There will be a growing price incentive for life style changes needed for sustainable living.
The present political approach is not as radical as these suggestions. Instead, they set carbon emission reduction goals for 2025 or 2050. The politicians do not expect the goals to be reached, and the promises of action contain let-off clauses that virtually guarantee they will not. Politicians live for today or at most the next election: they are easily seduced to trade off current popularity against future damage as they expect to be retired or become lobbyists before the day of reckoning.
Mrs Thatcher was a conviction politician. To implement the solution to global warming and the resultant climate change, we need someone like her again; someone who has determination to push through the agenda at speed, regardless of what loudly others complain. Except this time, who would really complain about a leader determined to deliver a safe, healthy and just world with clean air, water, soil and power?
welcome to Insurances.net (https://www.insurances.net)
