Sadly,
it says a great deal about people's faith in the UN climate
negotiations process that, after so many summits and empty pledges over
the years, an agreement "in principle" to tackling climate change
without much in the way of substance could still be hailed as an overall
success.
But at least we do now have an international consensus
on the need to cut emissions. The real tragedy is that our government
will completely fail to rise to the challenge in the post-Durban, euro
crisis landscape - and seize the opportunity to build a different kind
of economy.
Drowning out calls for the coalition to deliver on its
green pledges and invest in the low-carbon industries which can help
lift us out of recession and create jobs, are
those who frame the debate as a false choice between "going green" and keeping the economy on track.
And
drowning out news about critical decisions made in Durban has been the
coverage of the prime minister's euro-sceptic swaggering at the Brussels
summit, where he singularly failed to defend the interests of the
people of Britain who, like Europeans, are threatened by a financial
crisis that could result in the loss of their homes, their life savings
and livelihoods.
Preventing financial meltdown was, after all, the
purpose of the summit. Instead, Britain used the occasion to defend the
interests of a tiny minority - the 1% - that are the cause of the
crisis, and that thrive on the back of taxpayer-backed subsidies in the
City of London.
In answer to my question to the prime minister
this week: "Why did he choose to conflate the interests of the nation,
with the interests of the City of London?" no real explanation was
offered.
Meanwhile, Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy appear
hellbent on accelerating the crisis by intensifying austerity across the
eurozone. This is likely to be explosive: in economic, political and
social terms.
But for all their misguided approach to the
consequences of the crisis - rising public debts - German and French
politicians are clear about the causes: lax and loosely regulated
financial centres like the Square Mile.
And in that analysis they
are not wrong. The City of London is set, once again, to play a major
causal role in the coming financial catastrophe.
The reason is not
hard to find. This week we learned about the impotence of the Financial
Services Authority (FSA) in dealing with bankers at RBS that destroyed a
bank, caused many to lose their jobs, and stripped British taxpayers of
£45bn.
That's £45bn which could have been used to keep millions
of young people in employment for a considerable time, to support
renewable energy and energy efficiency measures to create jobs and help
those in fuel poverty, or to pay more nurses and teachers.
Payday
lenders have scuttled across the Atlantic to avoid the anti-usury laws
of Canada and the United States, and found refuge in what the FT calls
the "
singularly attractive market" that is the City of London - where there are no usury laws.
According to
Thomson Reuters,
the City's "lax and loose regulation" allows companies, like the
recently bankrupted MFGlobal, to gamble with money that belongs to
clients and then " …to finance an enormous $6.2bn eurozone repo bet … a
position more than five times the firm's book value, or net worth."
It is this kind of financial speculation that once again threatens not just Europe, but the
global economy.
Occupy
Wall St protesters at St. Paul's are exploring alternatives to this
failed system of financial liberalisation. Even the Bank of England, in
papers
published this week, is considering a transformation away from
deregulation towards a rules-based system, that constrains capital
mobility and secures stability and "internal balance" for countries like
Britain.
Our politicians should be debating these profoundly
important issues. They should be leading us out of this global financial
morass, towards a more just, stable and sustainable future.
But
they are not. Across the political spectrum - from Ed Balls, to Ed
Miliband, to Nick Clegg and David Cameron - we are governed by
politicians that have all promoted and defended the current neo-liberal
system: "light touch regulation".
They are all part of the design team that brought you credit crunch 1.0 and that is about to deliver credit crunch 2.0.
The
fact that the government has confirmed it will not support a financial
transactions tax such as the Robin Hood tax, or offer anything new to
tackle tax avoidance and evasion, tells us all we need to know about the
commitment to social justice amongst the cabinet's millionaire
ministers.
So I want to appeal for a debate about how we transform
our economic system away from today's failed economic order - designed
to serve the interests of the City of London's 1% - and instead build a
new one.
One that is socially just and ecologically sustainable.
One that provides useful and meaningful employment for all and
strengthens our communities. We can and must find a better way of
bringing people closer together and building a better society, while
operating within the limits of the ecosystem.
Why will my fellow
politicians not engage in these debates? The system we have is
catastrophically impaired, yet our leaders remain prostrate before
neoliberalism - an ideology that has destroyed jobs and firms, ruined
the life-chances of millions, while enriching crooks, thieves and
oligarchs. I call on others to join me in calling on our political
leaders to match progressive politics with meaningful action, and in
taking a principled stand to challenge the deeply corrupt financial
system that has plunged us into environmental and economic crisis.
