Politics runs our planet.

If you think you are free from political influence then you are either isolated from the global community, such that it is (in which case you would not be reading this), or you are simply being granted a level of political freedom as defined by the political system under whose influence you live. It may be contradictory, but if we did not have the political systems that we do, then I would not have the facilities, through the division of labour with which to learn about, write and distribute this information, but which are also, in excess, leading me to write about the problems they cause in the first place.
Unfortunately, the power given to politicians is the same power which corrupts humans, often causing them to abuse this power in a selfish and sometimes dangerous way; valuing personal and corporate wealth far above bio-diversity, clean air and water for all, and the rights of species other than humans to share the planet’s natural resources. Those people and organisations that are able to take advantage of this skewed system of values for their own ends – the cash-hungry business leaders, the career politicians after the thrill of pure power and even those people in search of a personal and often modest dream – are keen for things to stay as they are.

The environmentalist seeking to reduce the impact of humankind on the planet has no choice but to use a political system of some description in order to create the conditions for co-ordinated, global change. This political system could be something new and revolutionary; it is not beyond the realms of fantasy to think that some utopian system could be widely adopted which values the global ecosystem above the rights of a few individuals, but it is highly unlikely that this could happen in our lifetimes; more realistically we should look to utilising the systems that exist in a more equitable way, eventually weakening those systems that do benefit the selfish few. I think it is entirely realistic to think that with the right information and widely disseminated, clear arguments, using the tools that we have to hand – uncontaminated research and, of course, the Internet – political systems can be a force for good.


Let’s look at one, but by no means the only, way this can be done.

The direct political impact of energy use is highly pervasive. For transport particularly, a key issue is to reduce local pollution from a health standpoint, but in all cases where raw materials are used there is a global need to reduce dependence on imported energy, thus reducing the risk of conflicts, both between nations and within those that produce the energy sources. If governments are serious about reducing the risk of terrorism, to take one current big political topic, then dependence on nuclear materials will have to cease. In the long term nations will have to (a) find stable long-term political agreements or pacts, (b) increase their energy independence, and (c) reduce the dependence on energy in the first place, i.e. reducing its consumption.

In a political climate of distrust, political agreements can have long term stabilising influence. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is becoming ragged around the edges, but has been instrumental in reducing the risk of nuclear materials being misused. The Kyoto Treaty, whilst being deeply flawed, has at least provided a platform upon which future emissions agreements can be built. A global pact which utilises the principles of Contraction and Convergence has the advantages of giving all humans the theoretical right to emit the same amount of greenhouse gases, increasing the likelihood of global stability as developing countries grow in political stature, whilst also reducing the overall level of emissions globally. Adoption of such agreements are critical in a globalised world, particularly one in which we ultimately share the same small bluish-green planet.

But political agreement takes time; leaders, boundaries and allegiances keep changing; and there is always the potential for conflict, particularly if the mechanisms used in the agreements are watered down. The growth in energy independence, I believe, is inevitable, and is one way in which political regions (states, nations, economic regions etc.) can reduce the friction that hard adherence to political agreements can create. Of course, if a political region is rich in one particular form of energy then they are at an immediate advantage, at least in being quick to achieving energy independence. Other regions without such energy wealth will have to develop alternatives; Japan, for instance, being very poor in fossil fuels or nuclear materials, will need to move towards renewable energy production – using the sea, the sun, the ground – and with its history of technological innovation could become energy independent very rapidly indeed, with the added bonus of being able to export such efficient renewable technologies to other regions poor in conventional resources. As renewable technology takes off it will become more economic to utilise this technology even where fossil fuels or nuclear are abundant – don’t forget that political agreements are being brought into place which limit GHG emissions and the export of nuclear technology – and thus the two methods start to work together.

Finally, and most importantly, political regions will start to move towards an era of energy reduction; as a by-product of political agreement and energy independence, and also the intense pressure created by ordinary people, like you and me, who realise that we only have a finite level of natural resources but a still growing global population. As before, technology will have a major part to play in this, giving the means to carry out the same functions – light, heat, manufacturing, transport, communications – but with less energy intensity. We will also come to realise, I deeply hope, that our profligate way of life is not the path to happiness. We do not really crave material goods, entertainment, luxury; what we actually crave is contentment, the feeling that we are happy with our lot. Contentment does not rely on watching TV, travelling the world, feeling richer than everyone else – it does not depend on the enormous amount of energy that the consumer society has forced us to consume – we can be content with a lot less, and that is one lesson that politics must learn if we are going to achieve the aim of Giving The Earth A Future.