Very few sound minds do not believe that there is climate change. Pretty much anyone knows that pumping carbon and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is increasing temperatures. One can dispute the degree the latter affects climate, but perhaps it’s not such a great idea to put too many more up there.

Net-zero globally is therefore almost universally acknowledged as a good idea, as is getting there as fast as possible. But the Devil is in the detail of how. And where there is dispute there will be politics.

Trying to keep politics out of the climate debate is an impossible task, but as the Conservatives has recently endorsed a different path from Onward of how to get there fastest, Labour MP Jeevun Sandher sees the debate in terms of how it can be used to stay in power as it ‘splits the right bloc’. Indeed, writing on Substack, he even says: “Support for net-zero has fallen overall, but this has been driven by falls in support by hardcore Reform and Conservative voters who do not support us and never will.”

Wait. Is this an elected MP saying he cares nothing for voters who aren’t in his ‘political corner’? Not inform, challenge or persuade, but ignore and hope that even if it's a majority it won't vote as one.

One might be naïve to think that MPs don’t think like this, that in private they see it all as a game, but to publicly admit that your position on climate is a tool for division? Or as he calls it a ‘wedge’.

Politically polarising the debate on reaching net-zero is beyond petty, it is actively dangerous. What if your opponents ascend to power, now forced into an opposing position with no room for compromise?

Holder of a doctorate in political economy, Sandher concludes: “It is a winning issue for us in our new political era – where blocs matter and attention is the scarcest resource. Oh, and also, it helps stop the planet from burning. That too.”

I hope he is joking in that last line, I really do.

---