AT THE opening session of the UN, its general secretary, Antonio Guterres, challenged bigotry and entitled complacency: “The pillars of peace and progress are buckling under the weight of impunity, inequality, and indifference … Hunger, weaponised. Truth, silenced. Rising smoke from bombed-out cities … Rising seas swallowing coastlines … Each one a question …”

President Lula of Brazil followed on. The 30th Cop conference on climate change meets in Brazil in six weeks’ time. “Developing countries confront climate change … The rich nations enjoy a standard of living reached at the expense of 200 years of greenhouse gas emissions.”

Prabowo Subianto, president of another Brics member, Indonesia, continued. “We testify before you that we are already experiencing the direct consequences … the sea level on the north coast of our capital city is increasing at five centimetres a year. Thucydides warned: ‘the strong do what they want: the weak suffer.’ We must reject this doctrine.”

What has Britain done on climate change? At first sight, its past record on cutting emissions is better than some. Per head, it currently emits 4.4 metric tonnes of carbon emissions a year against 13.9 in the US — though this can be compared with just 2.3 metric tonnes in Brazil and Indonesia’s 2.4. 

But Britain’s reduction is in part the consequence of domestic deindustrialisation — combined with the offshoring of polluting industries. Banks and finance firms in the City of London own industries in the global South, particularly mining and extraction, that are estimated by Friends of the Earth to generate something like 1.6 times the emissions of Britain itself. 

The current government began with relatively good policies on limiting carbon emissions. It has failed to sustain them. Overseas aid, which contained substantial funding for this purpose, was cancelled to fund armaments. The stalling of housebuilding has limited progress on new environmental standards for heating and insulation. So has the failure to develop rail infrastructure, and simultaneously allowing a significant expansion of airports.

There is also a more immediate threat. The government appears to be about to reverse its ban on further drilling for North Sea oil. A report by Common Wealth published earlier this year noted that, even with existing policies, current levels of extraction will be maintained for some years.

Progress on Just Transition has been limited. Workers and their communities remain exposed. This has enabled the oil companies, now increasingly run by hedge funds and private equity, to build a wider campaign, also involving some trade unions, to expand production.

However, the biggest betrayal is elsewhere. The Keir Starmer government, as well as actively involving itself in the war on Palestine, has radically expanded its arms spending — now scheduled to more than double over the next nine years. Worse still, it has acted as an agent for the US in expanding Nato, militarising the EU and setting in motion a massive programme of rearmament across Europe.

Aircraft carriers, tanks and fighter bombers, apart from their ultimate use, all carry a massive environmental price tag in terms of production, maintenance and preparation for deployment. This is why our politicians need to listen to the voices of the global South. 

“The pillars of peace are crumbling” is not rhetoric. The world’s last remaining international agreement limiting medium-range nuclear weapons, the START treaty, is due to expire in four months. On Monday, the Russian president, in what appears to be a welcome move back to negotiations, called on the US and other signatories to discuss its extension. Trade unions, in line with TUC policy, need to insist that our government responds.