Climate: Change Will Be A Dicey Path When Conflicts Of Interest Remain

As we approach COP 26, megaphones are reaching their apical resonance.

There are polarising beliefs on both sides of the climate argument and at the forefront of bickering is – money.

Chancellor Rishi Sunak has been unjustifiably warning Prime Minister Boris Johnson over net zero targets with concerns for economic advances should the UK convert to green energy. This is but one of many examples regarding a lack of long game foresight with emphasis on the need for now.

The easiest way for a politician to make her/his ‘mark’ is to sound tough on everything and strongly regress on policy, driving for cuts, deregulation and all to look like a woman/man of action. Sunak’s legacy is pea sized at best and moving to prolong fossil fuel energy use will devolve it to seed like proportions.

Traditionally, conservative values are anything but short of regressive and mostly in the name of building a legacy. Not pathways to better living. Take Thatcher for example, who deregulated pretty much every industry, increased taxes and made cuts to public spending. It ended in price increases leaving many in debt and poverty.

Conservative led parties aspire to the same ‘easy way out’ mentality to make a name for themselves. So it’s no surprise that as we approach the COP26 summit, slimey lobbying (legalised bribery) is going on behind the scenes.

There is no way out of this mess created by the ancestors of those seeking to save their killer fumes. We could have launched steam, wind, solar and hydro energy industries years ago. But the few that benefit from the dusty ways of old are of prime prospect for politicians whose portfolios are a conflict of interest in green politics. Rishi Sunak being a prime example. The man with the budget, is the man with the power to destroy progress.

COP 26 will be a farce if major change is not embraced following the dangerous loitering of carbon.