John Harris says “the case for … extra-parliamentary activity feels beyond argument” in addressing climate breakdown (Politicians talk about net zero – but not the sacrifices we must make to get there, 31 October). While I understand the sentiment, there is a danger that this becomes the only route for trying to convince the country that radical action is needed. The case needs making repeatedly, even though it’s tedious for those of us who have long been convinced. What we miss is that many people have barely got their heads around the need for radical action and others completely reject the idea. Despite earlier optimism that Covid would engender a major change in outlook, the dominant narrative now is business as usual – with a modest green makeover.
Direct action may feel right to activists but, to those affected, the disruption to their daily lives creates hostility to even thinking about the need for change. It’s no good telling them that blocking the road is a minor inconvenience compared with climate breakdown – they will just regard activists as zealots.
The narrative around home insulation is barely articulated – we have among the worst-insulated houses in Europe. To date, the UK’s efforts at tackling this have been feeble, with tiny programmes, often abandoned. Yet a properly funded 10-year programme, following the Dutch Energiesprong model, would deliver hundreds of thousands of skilled jobs and help eliminate fuel poverty.
The argument needs making every day by civil society groups and sympathetic political parties. Instead, we have a series of standoffs on the roads, with activists vowing more disruption and the government promising more draconian measures to restrict protest. The issue itself barely gets any coverage.
John Rigby
Much Wenlock, Shropshire
• John Harris makes some cogent points about the shortcomings of our two main political parties and the need for more Green votes. However, for that to happen, journalists and politicians need to cut through the rhetoric and waffle, and make clear three things.
First, why capitalism can only ever be the cause of, rather than the solution to, our crisis. This case needs to be convincingly made in terms that the majority of voters can understand, starting with a clear definition of what is actually meant by capitalism. Second, what system should replace capitalism. And third, what a truly sustainable lifestyle might look like. This picture, premised on a radical redistribution of wealth both nationally and globally, would probably be one of startling simplicity and frugality. However, it would have the unique advantage of promising voters the scarcest but most desirable commodity of all: hope.
Tim Burton
Whissonsett, Norfolk
• Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication.
