Highlights from the UCL Political Societies’ Environmental Debate

Photography by Tom Cross

Tom Cross reports on the recent debate by UCL’s political societies on the climate emergency.

On 28th October, UCL’s political societies participated in a debate about environmental policy, chaired by the Students’ Union Sustainability Officer. With two thirds of UK voters citing the climate crisis as the biggest issue currently facing humankind, the debate provided a real opportunity for the societies to convince the audience (with the 12th December general election fast approaching) that their parties’ solutions to the crisis are the most appropriate.

The delegates from the Labour (Isha), Green (Vanessa), Liberal Democrat (Chris) and Conservative (Sam) parties were all keen to stress both their green credentials and plans of action in their opening statements. There was an early disagreement about the date at which net zero carbon emissions should be achieved, with the Labour and Green delegates arguing for 2030, and the LibDem and Conservative delegates suggesting 2045 and 2050 respectively. Sam attempted to distance himself from the current Conservative government’s position, reassuring the audience that young conservatives have “seen the light” when it comes to climate change.

The debate’s focus quickly shifted to whether or not corporations could be positive actors when it comes to putting an end to the climate crisis. The Conservative Party delegate argued corporations could play a significant role helping to stop climate change. Isha and Vanessa quickly refuted this idea – drawing loud applause from the audience – and Chris picked the middle ground, arguing that now is not the time to be disrupting the status quo. 

This argument was met with disdain by Isha, who emphasised that the Green New Deal and a new Industrial Revolution was very possible – an idea that was repeated throughout the debate. Sam responded by attacking these “fairy-tale ideas pushed by slogans”, whilst conceding that the current capitalist system was not good for the environment in the long term but that corporations could still help fight climate change.

The issue of the UK’s possible role in assisting the Global South in the climate crisis was raised, which quickly spurred wider debate about neoliberalism and paternalism. All the delegates agreed that the UK should look to provide aid to the Global South. Isha and Vanessa both attacked the concept of neoliberalism and its role in creating the climate crisis. Sam countered that neoliberalism should be exported and argued against “[people who] know nothing about economics beyond slogans”. 

Vanessa argued that “the expansion of neoliberalism is a continuation of imperialist discourse”, an idea that seemed to be very popular with the crowd. Both Vanessa and Chris stressed that cooperation and dialogue between nations are required for the UK to provide effective aid. 

Inevitably, the issue of Brexit was raised, but it was dealt with relatively quickly. There was a consensus that Brexit as a concept is not necessarily bad for the environment; the UK’s environmental outlook depends on who is in power. Then each delegate stressed that their party was the best option for the environment. Vanessa did raise the issue that Brexit may be having negative environmental consequences because it is shifting our focus away from the climate crisis, meaning “we are not having the discussions we need to be having”. 

The last question before the open round focused on Extinction Rebellion and whether or not their actions are legitimate. All of the delegates agreed that Extinction Rebellion’s actions were licit, but disagreement arose about the effectiveness of their tactics. The protests at Canning Town were mentioned by both Isha and Sam as examples of how Extinction Rebellion may be alienating working-class people, although Vanessa stressed that 70% of Extinction Rebellion members voted against it, and that it did succeed in generating more discussion about the group and its goals. 

The questions from the open round largely rehashed the issues that had been covered previously in the debate. A member of the audience did provoke laughter from the crowd and bemusement from the candidates when he asked what the delegates had planned for when “red China and fascist Russia” exploited the melting of polar ice caps to claim territory. Chris answered for the rest by saying that this was not really party policy and that ideally a situation where the polar ice caps completely melted would be avoided.

All the delegates agreed that the climate crisis is pressing and that action must be taken to mitigate its damage. However, they disagreed on how fast and how radical the changes made should be. With an upcoming general election on 12th December, expect these disagreements to become major points of discussion.