British prime minister Boris Johnson has set out his stall at COP26, with climate commitments that he says should be funded by the private sector. In response, the Labour Party has released its own recommendations, that involve substantial public funding. This, of course, has attracted some criticism over who should pay.
This approach has been around ever since the Thatcherite theme of “There is no alternative (TINA)” to cutting public spending. This model was prominently enforced during the long period of austerity that the Conservative-led coalition imposed in response to the 2008-09 financial crash.
TINA thus survived, largely unscathed, for years until being finally called out during the brief Corbyn era, especially by John McDonnell. Now, there is widespread acknowledgement among UK political parties that responding to climate breakdown is the crucial challenge of our era, and this response will be very costly. Yet the TINA principle remains in place, as most politicians ignore the fact that government-led funding will be a crucial component. They also ignore the 800lb gorilla in the room – the runaway wealth being accumulated by the ultra-rich.
