Growth in material wealth gave our ancestors a standard of living previously undreamed of and more comfortable longer lives, but in recent decades growth in GDP has not translated into greater happiness for most people in the UK or similar countries. There are still many Britons who are struggling to get necessities, but it is important to note that centuries of growth-centred policy have not eliminated poverty.

We don’t oppose “growth”, but we do ask: growth of what, or of what kind? We would emphasise growth of security of various types (economic, food, etc.) and fairness (of income distribution), public trust, community, the health of natural environments, and free time. None of these kinds of growth are assured by a rising GDP, and all of these contribute more to quality of life for most people than increasing GDP. 

Economic considerations should always be contained within the ecological considerations. Planetary boundaries are non-negotiable; and we are breaching most of them, and many in ways assessed ‘high risk’. Uncritical pursuit of “growth” is driving every breach.

Across the world, and especially for already-rich countries, where economic growth brings little benefit to quality of life, we emphasise a need for a massive increase in creative experimentation and re-imagination of our economy. We need an economy that allows most people to believe that their day job is truly an important part of society. The creativity and innovativeness of markets must be preserved, but directed towards goods and services that truly make our lives better. Longer lasting, environmentally-friendly products, and technology that does not addict us, are examples of things that a majority agree we need more of. We need deep thought about how to build markets that produce such things. Britain is among the world’s historically most innovative nations and should take a leading role in this needed economic innovation.

Whether ‘green growth’ is possible is a highly contested and politi argument that we do think can be decisively won by either side currently. We do not take a position on this issue in the interest of including all climate concerned people. We do not expect the environmental movement to unify around either a growth or degrowth narrative and so accepting differences is necessary for both sides. For complex, technical and controversial issues we seek credible processes for increasing collectve understanding, and more importantly, agreeing on priorities. What is clear is that, in order to avoid ecosystem collapse – which is farther along than is “officially admitted” – we must be ready to green the economy with or without growth. Maintaining GDP growth is at best secondary. 

Intelligent people differ on green growth, by which we mean continued growth in GDP, but of a kind that does cause ecological harm (and is maybe even ecologically beneficial). Agreement on whether green growth is actually possible might be achieved, but this would certainly  demand a credible public conversation that does not ignore ecological realities and combines vast expertise with popular input. The IPCC has created such a conversation on climate breakdown; however no equally credible body exists to address green growth. Until society makes sufficient space this inquiry, reexamining its deepest priorities, consensus and progress on this issue will be difficult. Such a conversation is needed to guide the government action that is necessary to make tomorrow’s markets.

Some comments on the debate:

Important, urgent and informative debate on green growth often starts by exploring the tension between two facts:

1) 200+ years of rapid economic growth has undeniably been associated with severe damage to our planet, and we have no clear and concrete evidence that this long-standing trajectory is about to change… or even can.

2) that same history also reveals the extraordinary and unpredictable capacity of modern capitalist economies for rapid, world-changing innovation and socio-technical transformation. We cannot prove that this innovation engine will not radically change to enable ‘green growth’.  

Creative and practical insights will come to us most readily if we do not ignore either of these points. We must remark, however, that most discussion of green growth does not reflect with sufficient seriousness on the challenges of avoiding ecologicial collapse while continuing to grow in the near future.  The depth and speed of change needed in our economic systems is incredible. The challenges have been growing for decades. Thus, while most sustainability discussion takes pursuit of growth as given, more and more people question whether we can afford the environmental costs of economic growth.

Debates about whether such an abrupt transition is possible depend on highly technical discussions of specific proposals for how the transport and production systems could be remade quickly and “greenly”. No such proposal is without critics and the old adage “the devil is in the details” applies. Further such rapid systems change needs serious government (and political) backing in order to be adopted, and becomes more difficult and costly as time passes without action. Thus, as we say above, we must urgently  organise a credible public conversation that is able to deal with this complexity. However, we should start pursuing ways to live better lives that do not depend on growth now, because green growth is not a given.

At its core, the CMP is pragmatic: we strive for the best outcome possible at a given time, without “letting perfection be the enemy of the good”. Loss and damage payments from rich, high-emitting countries to those vulnerable to climate impacts are essential, yet total global or climate justice is unlikely – in current timeframes, perfect righting of wrongs is an unrealistic goal. 

Nonetheless, tackling dangerous climate change requires the whole world to work together, an achievement hard to imagine without attention to every nation’s concerns, and to building common understanding. Certainly a legitimate and credible global process is necessary to do so, but likewise many actions are possible without shared understanding of global justice. 

Without acknowledging the aspect of human nature that instinctively protects family and kin before the rest, it will be difficult to work towards a more just society for everyone. Most nations and societies have perpetrated murder and abuse of outgroups over millenia – including nations and peoples currently in less powerful positions. Fortunately humans also possess remarkable capacity for care and collaboration. To reach global agreements widely accepted as fair and just, we need to speak honestly to both the altruistic impulses that underpin the world’s great moral/spiritual traditions, and to enlightened self-interest.

While ingroup-outgroup biases are common to humanity, today increasingly polarised and polarising forms of discrimination and bias continue, with regards to gender, race, class, faith, political orientation, and beyond. These issues can’t properly be separated from climate: the way we harm the environment reflects our tendencies to deprioritise and externalise the ‘other’. Conversely, while some populations for geographic and/or socioeconomic reasons are hit much harder and sooner by environmental impacts, seeking to preventing further damage is beneficial not just to “them”, but to everyone living on this planet. 

Finally but perhaps most importantly, while we fail to admit the damage already done by our failures on climate, very little progress will be made on justice. To maintain the illusion that we can limit warming to 1.5°C and still have time to avoid natural calamities is to delay compensation for loss and damage and the cost of adaptation. Pursuit of global justice then depends on letting go of ‘stubborn optimism’ .

When we discuss the ‘climate crisis’, we’re talking not only about dangerous greenhouse gas emissions, but also a wider planetary ecological crisis. We are talking about damage to interrelated systems, including water systems, pollution, nitrogen cycles, and damage to the web of life -biodiversity loss. The matter of biodiversity in particular demonstrates  why we can’t simply ‘solve’ the climate problem with technology. Our current economic system has failed to protect life. 

The web of life has been badly damaged, and powering our drills and diggers with green energy will not repair it. In terms of planetary boundaries, we have overstepped safe limits to integrity of our biosphere even further than those of climate.   

In some parts of the world, biodiversity depletion will impact daily life lives before extreme weather events do. The UK’s biodiversity is among the lowest  10% worldwide. In terms of experiencing effects, farmers are on the frontlines: the loss of pollinators and vulnerability of monocultures, for instance, have direct effects on crop yields, with knock-on effects on food production and availability. We advocate adoption of more holistic approaches to food production in the UK, to maintain independence and resilience.  Promoting food-sovereignty is an ambition that can unite Left and Right, global South and global North. 

A green-energy transition is vital, but projects at such grand scale cannot be successful without attention to biodiversity impacts. For example,  deep sea mining for requisite metals is very likely to cause other forms of ecological disaster.

The relationship of deforestation to climate is the most famous example of an inescapable fact: climate and biodiversity are ultimately inseparable, and it makes no sense to act on behalf of one without the other. 

Lobbying or engagement in electoral politics is not our primary focus. However we do support initiatives, such as MP Watch, to press for feasible change through the political process. We likewise identify and advocate meaningful steps that are possible now through the political process.

We foster initiatives working together on climate and nature across political divides, on the basis of strong common values and goals. Both MP Watch and Community Climate Action (CCA)  work with members of multiple parties across several counties/constituencies.

Rather than expend energy pushing against entrenched political interests, we seek a different leverage point. Certainly, major parties’ commitments on climate are insufficient, but only a groundswell of broad-based public pressure can change that. Engaging a majority in climate action would shift the political agenda towards better policies on emissions, adaptation and compensation / loss and damage for other countries. 

The CMP works to accelerate citizen involvement and deepening of conviction needed for comprehensive political success on climate and nature. As the crisis deepens, ever more people from very different backgrounds feel drawn to act. We work to create spaces where everyone can engage. While people already active in the climate space are collaborators, CMP isn’t just for “eco-activists” – it’s for everyone. And most people in the UK don’t see themselves as activists. 

We’re open to supporting policy and legislative proposals that we believe are clearly beneficial, especially if they have a realistic chance of getting adopted, so that campaigning efforts aren’t wasted. While CMP doesn’t take sides in party contests, we’re likely to encourage any candidates for office whose platform fully aligns with CMP’s mission. We will also keep highlighting the alignment between all politicians working hard on climate and nature issues within their different parties, point out unexpected allies, and focus on bringing together people from different political backgrounds to collaborate.

Where it’s possible to influence industry sectors to lobby government themselves, we will do so.

Ultimately, our mission is to shift UK political culture to a point where politicians of different parties are competing over the best policies on climate and nature. This will require a mandate from active citizens demanding a swift route to carbon zero.

Highlighting failure to limit global average warming within the agreed threshold of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels is important for several inter-related reasons. Firstly, this is not an arbitrary limit, but the point beyond which climate scientists overwhelmingly agree that weather patterns will tip into unknown, chaotic dynamics. Beyond 1.5, it won’t just be a bit hotter or rainier: seasons as we know them will be disrupted and local climates and international currents erratic until they reach a new equilibrium. 

Nine years after the Paris Agreement, achieving 1.5°C would require reducing emissions at a faster annual rate than during worldwide Covid lockdowns. Even if this were possible, it would likely be too late: by some metrics, the 1.5 barrier was exceeded in 2023 – and 2024 will likely be hotter still.

Institutional figures have been reluctant to admit the near-certain likelihood of permanently overshooting 1.5°C. Such a stance would mean admitting grave institutional failure. For 29 years COP has been the international response to the climate crisis, but despite small wins has neither prevented emissions from rising nor established routes to avoid aspects of systemic breakdown. Now it is too late to avoid at least some severe impacts.

Where some institutional voices insist on ‘stubborn optimism’ and a need to avoid public panic, without a realistic public narrative of current circumstances, political will to act decisively and limit damage will never be found.

We believe it is essential to admit institutional failure, and trust that while the public will indeed be alarmed by the truth, they can be supported to cope with that fear and respond determinedly, perhaps even magnificently.

So yes, 1.5 is dead. Now we can get to work.

It makes sense to ask why we should care about seemingly far-off matters, while people struggle to make ends meet. But the cost-of-living crisis is deeply connected with the environmental crisis (as well as our inequality crisis, and factors like war in Ukraine). In fact, these issues promise escalating impacts on prices in the near future. Food prices will rise and lack of investment in insulation, renewable energy and grid infrastructure will push energy bills up. Costs of damages will soar. 

The current ‘domestic’ crisis is a perfect moment to get serious about climate breakdown. The cost of living crisis results partly from successive governments’ failure to prepare and adapt to dangerous climate change. We need systemic transformation and adaptation of our society and economy.

Starting with no-brainers such as a massive increase in retrofit, which saves energy, mitigates climate damage, lowers bills and increases comfort all at the same time.

Similarly, rethinking systems of transportation and food, so that for instance a green diet is more widely available – and adaptation in communities to respond to the coming effects of past systemic failures, including rising food prices.

Only a collective citizen response can make this a reality. However, while we all have an individual responsibility to do what we can, the action we are able to take depends on our circumstances. 

By focusing on individual rather than systemic behavioural change, the environmental movement has tended unfairly (if unintentionally) to shame those who can’t afford to live ‘sustainably’ – e.g. buy organic, use renewable energy, drive an EV… Ironically of course, it’s affluent consumers who tend to generate most emissions. This group also has more relative influence in their workplaces, and typically more power to drive systemic transformation. Much of our effort focuses therefore on asking people in positions of influence to use it, advocating changes that make economic security and sustainable consumption available to everybody. 

At the same time, we don’t suggest that some citizens are simply free from responsibility. It’s up to all of us to use whatever power we have to respond to the climate crisis, whose impacts are now hitting home in our daily lives.