I thought this was a hoax the first time I saw this story. But apparently not. The man is becoming a parody of himself.
12ft.io link for those who cannot be arsed with the Indie: https://12ft.io/proxy?&q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuk%2Fpolitics%2Flabour-green-climate-change-starmer-miliband-b2372012.html
I find myself largely in agreement with him.
It seems you can now categorise environmentalists into two distinct groups:
Group 1 prioritizes preservation over progress, insisting on halting all developmental projects to protect every speck of biodiversity. This includes everything from rare newt species to broader environmental concerns, which are used as reasons to oppose various forms of green energy initiatives such as battery factories, solar installations, wind and tidal turbines. The ironic consequence of this approach is that despite protecting individual species in the short term, long-term survival becomes more precarious as global warming accelerates unchecked.
Group 2, which I personally identify with, holds a more pragmatic view. This group acknowledges the inevitable environmental impact of green technologies, such as harm to individual species and certain ecosystem disturbances. Yet, they firmly believe that without expediting the implementation of green technology, we risk compromising the planet’s overall sustainability.
While I understand and appreciate the intent behind the preservationist approach, I feel frustrated. In my view, their well-meaning actions might inadvertently exacerbate the very environmental crises we’re striving to mitigate.
Seemed to me that Starmer falls in the “I don’t really believe there’s a climate catastrophe happening” camp.
If he did, he wouldn’t say stuff like this or - more importantly - avoid adopting policies that require immediate action when he gets into power.
“Tree huggers” = people who believe the climate catastrophe is an imminent existential crisis.
“Tree Huggers” to me is a short hand for Group 1 but that is subjective and either of us could be right.
I think it is a big claim to say Starmer doesn’t believe in the climate catastrophe, we should probably have a bit more evidence before making such a claim.
I don’t know why you’d think that given that the language is used specifically in rejection of miliband’s green agenda which includes extensive investment in green energy.
You seem to have both set up a weird “group 1” strawman (that if it really exists is entirely marginalised from the actual debate) and an idealised version of starmer that doesn’t correspond with his expressed views.
Those that prioritise preservation over progress have weaponised ecology to block development. They are sadly far from marginalised. For example a significant portion of NIMBYs abuse environmental law to block development from occurring near to them. You only have to look at the ban on on-shore wind for an example of this. People were worried about visual amenity, not ecology. That didn’t stop them using ecology as part of their argument to get them banned.
Exactly. Your example about onshore wind (bird conservation as a convenient figleaf) shows precisely that NIMBYs are not environmentalists at all, hence not in “group1” by definition.
The “evidence” is clearly that the Green Agenda isn’t at the top of Labour’s plans. I heard Starmer on LBC last week refusing to defend ULEZ and Sadiq Khan. I heard Starmer also telling young environmentalists in Gillingham when challenged about which side of the climate debate he was on, saying “the side of economic growth.” Two weeks ago, Starmer decided to u-turn on the Green Plan Labour had been developing.
What more evidence do you need?
If we do face an existential crisis then it means actually doing radical stuff. Postponing things until Rupert Murdoch or one of the other oligarchs tell us it’s ok, isn’t an option.
Dont forget that Khan has green lit the Silvertown tunnel, which will have massive negative environmental impact on the east of London
deleted by creator
I wasn’t aware of it. Now having read about it, I agree.
None of that has anything to do with his unprofessional outburst.
In your opinion, which you are entitled to hold.
In my opinion it does go some way towards explaining it. I feel Starmer falls into Group 2 here and the outburst was directed towards members of Group 1.
I’ve felt very much the same way myself and found myself saying things like “fuck newt lovers” when what I actually should be doing is explaining the above and advocating for members of Group 1 to join Group 2.
Starmer knows that the right wing is going to accuse him of being too cosy with climate protesters, so he’s desperate to appear tough on “tree huggers”. I doubt these anonymously attributed comments are real.