Welcome back to Conversations with Stephen
Kamugasa. This is the third episode in our
2025 Leadership Series. Today's guest is
a great friend of this podcast, Sir Jonathon
Porritt, CBE. Sir Jonathon is a well-known
British writer, broadcaster, and environmentalist.
Whenever the name Jonathon Porritt is mentioned,
People often say to me, ah, yes, that chap
who keeps banging on about the environment.
I believe it is unfair to pigeonhole him
in this way. While Sir Jonathon is indeed
a leading voice on the environment, framing
him solely through that lens overlooks his
extensive 50-year contribution to the full
scope of sustainability. His impact extends
deeply into social dimensions, such as health
and social justice. As a consistent and influential
advocate, he has shaped the sustainability
agenda across political, corporate, and non-governmental
landscapes. His career highlights are explored
in our 2023 podcast, Climate Change, The
New Apocalypse, which I strongly encourage
you to listen to. In this episode, we discuss
the topic, Climate Leadership in a Multipolar
New World Order. So Jonathon Porat, welcome.
Thank you, Stephen. Very good to be joining
you again. I certainly enjoyed our first
conversation, that's for sure.
I had the pleasure of reviewing your book,
Hope in Hell: A Decade to Confront the Climate
Crisis. And in a podcast conversation we
had together in 2023, you stressed the importance
of fighting for the young people because
it is they who are most disproportionately
affected by the climate emergency. That's
why I was very impressed to learn that you
spent the lion's share of 2024 working with
and listening to the voices of young Just
Stop Oil activists with a view to publishing
a new book titled Climate Justice. Jonathon,
can you please share with us the general
thrust of your new book, Climate Justice?
When will you publish the book?
The book will be published in July, so not
very far away now. And as you say, Stephen,
I've been working on this for the last year
or more with young activists involved in
the direct action campaigning of Just Stop
Oil. Obviously, Just Stop Oil is a controversial
organization. It excites a lot of very divergent
views about tactics in today's climate movement,
with some people understanding the deep motivation
behind what Just Stop Oil does, but suspicious
of or nervous about some of the tactics used.
So for me, being able to engage directly
with many of those people involved in those
actions nine of whom have spent time in prison
during the course of the last year, either
on sentence or on remand, has been actually
a remarkable experience for me. I mean, really
energizing to spend time with a group of
incredibly principled, bright, forward-looking
individuals, nearly all of them under the
age of 28. And to see things through their
eyes, Stephen, that's basically what I think
intergenerational justice asks of us. is
that we don't just see things through our
own eyes, but we're prepared to put ourselves
in the shoes of other people, in this instance,
young people looking forward to the second
half of this century, not just the next couple
of decades, and to see things differently
as a consequence of doing that.
You very kindly shared with me the outline
of your book, Climate Justice, and this caught
my eye. It is as follows, and I quote, Even
though governments have just as much access
to the whole truth about accelerating climate
change as campaigners, they have mostly chosen
to double down on institutional denial, not
so much denying the science as denying its
implications and rejecting the case for accelerated
radical change. Please explain what you mean
by institutional denial in terms an ordinary
person can understand. What are the most
effective strategies for overcoming denial
of climate change and fostering policy action?
I think one of the biggest changes that we've
seen, Stephen, over the last decade or more,
is that those people who once used to deny
the science of climate change, the actual
empirical evidence about the way in which
many aspects of our climate and our planet
are changing, that doesn't happen very much
these days. It still does in America. You've
still got a strong overt climate denial movement
in America led, if you can call it that,
by President Trump himself. But elsewhere
in the world, outright science-based denialism
or anti-science doesn't really exist. But
what we see is a refusal to accept what that
science is actually telling us about the
speed with which we now need to change our
model of progress, our economy, the way in
which we create growth and development for
people, and so on. And that's where the denial
is, not around the science itself, but a
denial as to the way in which we need now
to accept what that science is really telling.
So we don't have decades to play with. We
have very few years left to do what we really
need to do. We have to use all the levers
of government to make the changes required
in a much shorter period of time than people
are talking about. Most people think we can
just carry on more or less as usual until
2050. We can't. We have to do what we need
to do in the next decade. And it has to embrace
the whole of society. Politicians are very,
very bad at engaging with people to explain
what is happening, to explain the importance
of that for people, families, communities,
the country. the whole of humankind, and
then to move on from a better engagement
with people to laying out the policy options
for change in energy policy, transport, in
manufacturing, in the whole business of food
and farming. So actually getting to grips
with the transformation that is now required.
And politicians won't do that. They just
aren't doing that engagement work. And that's
where the denial lies, unfortunately.
You also suggest in the outline that, and
I quote, the UK has become the most repressive
state among OECD countries. New laws introduced
by the Conservative government since 2022
have given the police and the courts unprecedented
powers. the full weight of those new laws,
has been seen in action throughout 2024,
with defendants in court silenced and multi-year
prison sentences regularly handed down. Now,
in December 2024, a 77-year-old grandmother
was recalled to prison after her wrists were
too small for an electronic tag. The UK is
by no means unique in its hostility to climate
activism. Jonathon, how can the international
community support climate change activists
acting, facing legal repression in their
own respective countries?
There's been a marked shift over the last
couple of years in many countries, cracking
down on the right to protest about the climate
and making it much harder for people to express
their their freedom to speak out about these
problems and to protest as a consequence
of that. And the UK, the comment I made there,
Stephen, the UK unfortunately has introduced
some of the most draconian legislation anywhere
in the world. So more activists are arrested
here in the UK than almost any other country
in the world. And The way in which the courts
have responded to that has been equally repressive.
So we now have a number of judges here in
the UK who won't allow defendants charged
with public order, nuisance offences, criminal
damage, won't allow those defendants to explain
what their motivations were in doing what
they did. They won't allow them to talk about
climate change. And of course, we've seen
very harsh sentences handed down, as you
said. I think the international community
has been pretty astonished by that. Michel
Forst, who is the UN's Special Rapporteur
for Environmental Defenders, has visited
the UK on several occasions and has commented
explicitly on the way in which the UK now
is overreaching has become excessively repressive
in trying to eliminate that form of protest
in society today and has, through its new
acts of parliament, introduced a very hostile
regime indeed for people who are deeply concerned
about climate change and want to make their
concern known to others. So the international
community is alert to what has happened here.
It's not the only country. Similarly, in
the USA, we've seen really repressive measures
introduced at the state level to clamp down
on campaigners. And there's a less friendly
atmosphere now about climate protest in many
parts of the world, in the European Union,
in Australia, in many parts of Africa, for
instance, a very lively and I think inspiring
group in Uganda, headed up by young people
there protesting against the new pipeline,
the East Africa pipeline. And what we've
seen, of course, is that these repressive
laws just make it harder for the public to
understand what's going on, because they're
not hearing the truth about it from the principal
actors, the main agents involved in protest
and dissent.
We're doing something new in this episode.
I have invited three people to each contribute
a question or two. And the first contributor
is Tim Smedley. Tim Smedley is an award-winning
sustainability journalist, copywriter, author,
and speaker. Tim is also the editor of the
New Climate on Medium. The New Climate is
the only publication for climate action,
covering the environment, biodiversity, net
zero, renewable energy, and regeneration
approaches. Tim's recent book is The Last
Drop, Solving the World's Water Crisis. Tim's
questions are as follows. What do you think
about the current duty-bound project? from
the new climate, which asks whether climate
scientists are now duty bound to engage in
activism and direct action in order to get
the message heard. And has the cause benefited
or suffered as a result of just stop oil
protesters acts, such as hurling soup on
the glass of a Van Gogh artwork or paint,
or powder during athletic events? How can
we normalize the cause and bring it into
mainstream consciousness at a speed required?
Yes, I really respond to these questions
from Tim, Smedley, Stephen, I think they're
spot on. It is interesting, there's a big
divide in the science, the climate science
community, to be honest. And a growing number
of scientists do feel that they are now duty
bound to go over and above the work that
they do as scientists, as researchers, as
advocates for change, as communicators, as
educationists, and so on, and to go to the
next step and to take part in some kind of
civil disobedience, activism of one kind
or another. And we have a number of initiatives
here. We have scientists rebel. which has
been a very important and vocal organization.
And of course, right back at the time of
Extinction Rebellion, we had scientists for
XR, for Extinction Rebellion, who in fact,
Stephen, have just brought out a really interesting
new book called Scientists on Survival. And
these are the personal testimonies of many
individual scientists involved in frontline
activism of that kind. So there's a strong
There's a strong group of scientists around
the world very involved in this, but it has
to be said that the majority of the climate
science community does not take part in direct
action of that kind and somehow feels that
it would weaken their role as authoritative
voices in often complex and controversial
scientific areas and have felt that that
would be inappropriate for them to behave
like that. So they do not feel duty-bound.
to extend their existing commitment to the
truth being told and heard about the climate
by engaging in activity of that kind. And
I must admit, I I think Tim would probably
back me up here. I asked myself the question,
why is it that relatively few scientists
still feel called on to do that, to do that
stepping up to a higher level of action?
They're all so knowledgeable about what's
happening. They can see the horrible things
that are waiting us down the track. They
know that given the warming we've already
put into the atmosphere, that the consequences
already for humankind are going to be traumatic
and deadly for many hundreds of millions
of people. And they can see that if we go
on down this path, the consequences are going
to be even more apocalyptic than that. So
they sit with this truth much more than the
average individual can possibly do. And they're
often themselves parents with children or
with grandparents or grandparents with grandchildren.
So they have a personal stake in this as
well. I share in the questioning of why more
scientists are not on the front line. Now
maybe, and I think this was Tim's second
question, maybe they're put off by some of
the tactics of Just Stop Oil. I've met a
lot of people who are put off and don't really
understand the point of some of the actions
that they take, the soup throwing or the
activity at Stonehenge or historic places,
whatever it might be. And the answer to that
isn't simple, Stephen. But the answer is
that in this weird world that we live in
now, trying to get attention of decision
makers to focus on the climate crisis is
unbelievably difficult. I know that because
I've taken part in many conventional campaigning
initiatives myself and I'm now very involved
working with those who say that's not enough,
we're not getting that attention and therefore
we need to commit to direct action, non-violent
direct action as an expression of civil disobedience.
And the truth is that every single one of
those actions and a lot of the people you've
referred to there Stephen are involved in
the 26 young campaigners I've been working
with, every single one of those actions is
basically saying, look, you have to pay attention
to this. It's really urgent. You can't go
on ignoring it or at least putting it to
one side rather than putting the main focus
upon it. So in an age where attention really
matters, where what you can get through the
media, the mainstream media, is the mechanism,
principle mechanism you have for waking people
up to this astonishing crisis. That's why
all of those actions are, in my opinion,
justified in their own terms and have actually
succeeded in jolting a lot of politicians
into increased awareness and increased action
in some cases than would otherwise have been
the case.
The second contributor is Barbara Williams,
the Fellow of the RSA in London. Barbara
has been a climate and environmental activist
since 2019. She has published a book titled,
Saving Us from Ourselves, Can We Repair 50
Years of Ecological Overshoot? She also runs
a website, Poems for Parliament, a global
aspiration for ecological justice. Barbara's
questions are as follows. How can we set
ourselves incentives to reduce GDP equitably
until our global economy is back within the
carrying capacity of earth? And why don't
we design economic algorithms that ensure
equitable wealth distribution?
Well, Barbara's gone to the heart of the
issue here, Stephen. There's no question
about it. And over those 50 years that she
refers to there, the truth is, of course,
that the primary model of progress for humankind
has been economic growth, increased GDP on
a national basis and a global basis, and
increased per capita improvements in material
standards of living. That's what lies behind
the notion of progress today. We make good
things happen by virtue of generating growth
in our national economies and therefore in
the global economy as a whole. And of course,
a lot of benefits have been generated by
that kind of growth over 50 years. But what
we're now taking stock of is the massive
costs. that have been accruing during the
course of those five decades. Huge damage
done to the climate, to people's communities,
to nature, to biodiversity. And we're beginning
now to understand the full extent of that
damage. Economists refer to it as externalized
costs. the things that aren't paid for in
the goods and services that we buy on a daily
basis or companies buy as part of their supply
chain engagement but which are still real
costs in the economy which are paid for by
people down the line. I mean, I was just
talking about intergenerational justice.
The truth is that climate change is an externalized
cost because we haven't paid the real price
for the emissions of those greenhouse gases.
But future generations will. in big time.
So that's the problem, is that our model
of economy has promoted growth at all costs.
And Barbara's asking, why don't we redesign
the global economy so that we eliminate those
external costs and we get a much more equitable
and sustainable model of economic progress?
And if I knew the answer to that question,
I probably wouldn't be sitting here having
an enjoyable conversation with you today,
Stephen, because I've been banging on about
this for 50 years. I joined the Green Party
in 1974. So it is exactly the span of my
engagement in these things that Barbara is
referring to. I think the really difficult
bit She mentions there, why don't we just
change the algorithms that drive these huge
economic factors? Well, that's, I think,
a deliberately a sort of faux-naive question,
because Barbara knows the answer to that
as well as I do. The truth is that people
don't want to make the process of creating
and distributing wealth more equitable. The
Oxfam report in January this year revealed
that there are now 2,739 billionaires in
the world today. 2,739 billionaires. And
every year we see a significant increase
in the number of people who enjoy that, some
might say, excessive level of wealth. And
the truth is that over the last 50 years,
much more of the wealth created has drifted
upwards. to enrich the already super rich
in our global economy rather than being equitably
shared so that many, many more, hundreds
of millions of people would have benefited
more fairly as a consequence of the surplus,
the wealth created during that time. So if
we want to get to grips with that, we're
going to have to address The oligarchy today,
these super rich, who of course control an
awful lot of our politics today, not just
because of their relationship with the politicians
themselves, but because of their influence
over the global media. A lot of these super-rich
billionaires are media owners in their own
right. They control huge media empires. And
so they manage the mainstream media content,
both print, broadcast, and social media content,
in such a way that people remain detached
from the consequences of us having allowed
such disproportionate wealth extraction schemes
to benefit so few at the expense of so many?
The final contributor is Emeritus Professor
Rupert Read. Rupert is an academic and a
Green Party campaigner, a former spokesman
for Extinction Rebellion and the current
director of the Climate Majority Project.
He has written several books on climate change,
his most recent being, Why Climate Breakdown
Matters, published in 2022. Professor Reed's
questions are as follows. What are the most
important things for business people who
want to do the right thing to do now? Is
it taking adaptation seriously? lobbying
and advocating for much more serious regulation
of themselves for climate and nature, telling
the truth about how terrible the situation
now is.
Rupert and I are good colleagues, Stephen,
we've been around dealing with these issues
for a long time and he knows of course that
I've spent much of the last 25 years of my
life of my work as a sustainability advocate,
working with companies, with largely big
businesses rather than small companies. And
I did that both through Forum for the Future,
of which I was a co-founder in 1996, and
through the Prince of Wales' Business and
Sustainability Program, which I was also
lucky enough to be a co-founder of. So I've
spent a huge amount of time over the last
25 years, trying to get the voice of business
more involved in sustainability issues, more
progressive. in the positions they take on
not just environmental issues, so biodiversity,
climate pollution, but also in social issues
around diversity, inclusion, equality, all
of those rather controversial things now
dismissed by many people on the other side
of the Atlantic as woke. And I don't regret
spending that time at all. I feel it's been
a really important part of my career as a
sustainability activist, and I've learned
a lot as a consequence of it. But one of
the things I've come to see, and Rupert and
I don't necessarily agree about this, is
that business is much more limited than you
might imagine. Everyone sees these huge companies
and thinks, oh my gosh, they've got massive
power in the world today, and they can do
whatever they want. They can deploy all of
their different resources and assets to make
change happen. And so they can, if they want
to. But very often, of course, they're bound
by their fiduciary duties to their shareholders.
They have to honor those fiduciary duties
as their primary legal obligation. We now
live in a period of capitalism which focuses
on shareholder primacy, shareholder first,
And very often that is interpreted as needing
to maximize profit in the short term, even
if the damage done in the long term is of
huge concern to everybody. And that's where
we are now at this particular moment in the
history of 21st century capitalism, quarter
of the way through this century, we're living
through a very, very dark period. in the
history of capitalism and we've got a resurgence
of what I would call the worst kind of capitalism
where it's a very small number of people
who benefit at the expense of huge majorities.
So when Rupert asked me what should they
focus on, The answer is, well, they should
do these good things. They should speak out
more often. Of course they should. They should
use their voice to try and bring about greater
awareness. They should use their influence
with governments and regulators to get better
rules in place. But Rupert knows that isn't
what happens. Most of the time, these companies
use their lobbying and advocacy power to
shift things in their favor, to make it easier
for them to generate the dividends, the profits
that their shareholders expect. Business
doesn't, by and large. advocate for societal
benefit and increased value for ordinary
citizens and communities. It advocates for
the interests of its primary group, namely
its shareholders. So it's quite difficult
suggesting that business has a really progressive
role to play here, because they are bound
by the rules of the countries in which they're
operating. And at the moment, those rules,
those laws, those regulations are geared
to promoting the interests of shareholders,
not to promoting the interests of humankind
as a whole, or all of those companies, different
stakeholders. So they've got a job to do.
That's why I was pleased to be involved in
that world for 25, 30 years. But we don't,
we can't afford to have any illusions about
this. They can't change what they do beyond
a certain point until the rules of the game
are changed. And the only people who can
change the rules of the game are governments,
not businesses, however big and powerful
they might be.
The title of our podcast is Climate Leadership
in a Multipolar New World Order. The Guardian
published a powerful editorial on January
10th, 2025, titled, The Guardian's View on
the LA Fires. Donald Trump's denial and division
fuels climate inaction. It said the following,
and I quote, The climate crisis knows no
national borders. Deadly floods in Spain,
Hawaii's fires, and East Africa's devastating
drought show nowhere is safe from its effects.
Countries must work toward the global common
interest and beyond their narrow national
interests. The scale of the climate emergency
is such that there is a case to view all
crises through a green lens. Instead, Mr.
Trump's denialism works to foment distrust
about the science. It's not just aiming to
delay the onset of the truth. He wants to
demolish it. Jonathon, in keeping with our
podcast theme, What are the psychological
and social political factors that contribute
to climate change denial? And how can these
be effectively countered in the context of
a major wildfire event like the one in Los
Angeles?
I think we have to take stock of the fact
that the situation in the U.S. is extraordinary.
The Trump administration has moved with great
vigor to destroy much of the alternative
energy industry, the renewables, the storage,
the whole approach to building a different
energy economy. And it's done that, Stephen,
we have to spell this out, because Donald
Trump promised leaders in the fossil fuel
industry, in oil and gas, and in the coal
industry during his election campaign, that
if he was elected, he would work to promote
their cause. And that would include doing
down the energy alternatives that America
has in abundance if it wanted to pursue them.
So this is a pretty abhorrent example of
political venality and corruption at its
worst. and it's going to hurt the world.
There's no question about that. It will be
a problem for as long as it lasts. It won't
last, in my opinion, all that long, but it
will be very painful when it does. The reason
I say it won't last all that long is because,
as you rightly identified with the title
of this overall podcast series, Stephen,
this is a multipolar world. It's not a world
in which America can control everything,
and it certainly can't control the response
to climate change that we see elsewhere in
the world. So right now, for instance, it
is fascinating to see what is happening in
China. More than 25 years ago, China decided
that the future would be a lower carbon economy,
less dependent on fossil fuels, and began
to make massive strategic investments in
renewable energy, in storage, in electric
vehicles, electric buses, and of course,
in all of those raw materials that the new
renewable energy economy will depend on,
including rare earths and precious metals
from elsewhere in the world. So China already
leads the world in every single one of these
areas by a very long way, by a very long
way. Electric vehicles, for instance, we
think a lot about Elon Musk and Tesla. Tesla's
technology is second rate. in comparison
to the technology of Chinese companies like
Build Your Dreams and others. Musk claims
to be a leader on batteries. He's not a leader
at all. He's an absolute laggard. And Tesla
is rapidly losing its position as a technology
driver of change. I only mentioned that because
in all of these different fields, China is
leading the way. Now, don't get me wrong,
I'm not saying that I admire everything that
happens in China. I absolutely don't. I find
a lot of what China does, particularly in
the field of human rights and treatment of
its own citizens, absolutely abhorrent. I
really find it difficult. to acknowledge
China's leadership in this space, in the
world of energy and sustainability in general.
But that's the truth and we can't deny that.
So when I look at the battle now between
Trump who's given up on a decarbonized global
economy and China that is the undisputed
leader in the decarbonized global economy.
This is a clash between the two superpowers
in the world today that is massively important
and everybody will basically react to that
clash. India, Russia, Brazil, the European
Union, else other OECD countries will all
find their way through the politics of that
new multipolar world in a way that couldn't
have been predicted before. So I don't feel
I don't feel completely gloomy and depressed
by all the awful things going on in America
because I know that they can't actually stop
some of the revolutionary changes, technology
changes that are happening elsewhere. So
we do have that to look forward to. You ask
a much more complicated question, Stephen,
when it comes to the psychological and socioeconomic
factors behind denial. Well, I think we all
know that many people find it extremely difficult
to confront the physical reality of climate
change. It's genuinely scary to consider
the consequences. what will happen when climate
change accelerates, becomes even worse as
the warming continues to build up in the
atmosphere and affect ecosystems down here
on planet Earth. We know that's going to
get really bad. And a lot of people turn
away from that because it's just too painful
to contemplate, which is why we have to go
on urging that people need to confront that
truth. You can't turn away from it. It is
happening. It shapes everything in our lives
already today, and it will shape it even
more powerfully and influentially in the
future. So we have to invite people to come
into a space where they can contemplate the
reality of what's happening, and then engage
in such a way that we can begin to put things
right. Interestingly, Stephen, last quick
reflection on this, all the 26 young people
that I've been working with over the last
year, all of them tell me that one of the
reasons why they have committed so bravely,
in my opinion, to civil disobedience and
are prepared to take the consequence for
the actions that they've taken. One of the
reasons is that it's only in that kind of
action that they can keep despair at bay.
And these are young kids in their 20s, and
they're already forced to acknowledge that
their future through to the end of this century
is going to be one that will be traumatically
devastated by the impacts of climate change.
So for them, taking that action, being prepared
to accept the consequences, of those actions
is a necessary part of avoiding the sort
of despair and grief that afflicts so many
young people today. And I've been very moved,
to be honest, to hear at first hand exactly
why those actions are such an important part
of their own psychological resilience.
And finally, Jonathon, please advise our
listeners where they may find your new book,
Climate Change, when it's finally published.
Well, thank you for that, Stephen. I should
have said right at the start of this podcast
that, as is often the way when you're writing
a book, the title of the book has changed.
So that was a title that I had for a long
time. And the book is now called Love, Anger
and Betrayal. It's an account of the work
that I've been doing with these 26 activists.
The love is theirs, as I call it, because
they express this deep compassion and empathy
for people already affected by climate change
and for all the people who will be affected,
hundreds of millions who will be affected
by climate change in the future, often in
countries that have contributed least of
the problem. The anger, I must admit, Stephen,
is mine. I've been on very good behavior
today. I haven't let rip too much about the
anger I feel concerning politicians and big
business today. And the betrayal is a generational
betrayal. what I feel very strongly that
my generation and yours do, I have to say,
Stephen, that between us, we've betrayed
young people today because their future is
going to be so negatively impacted by our
inability to take the right decisions at
the right time, at the right scale. So the
book now is called Love, Anger, and Betrayal.
It will be published by the middle of July.
It will be available, as you might expect,
on Amazon and elsewhere. And I very much
hope, Stephen, once I've got the details
of all of that together, that I can send
you a press release, and then you can, as
it were, help me bring it to the attention
of people. Because I really want people to
see this more through the eyes of young people.
I've written half the book, and they've written
the other half. So I've interviewed them
at length. I've visited a lot of them in
prison. I've spent time with them. I've asked
them to provide a personal account of why
they've got to the position they're in at
the moment. So it's insight into how a lot
of young people, exceptional young people,
it's not the norm, I want to stress that,
exceptionally young people are responding
to the climate crisis. And I hope it'll make
an impact as a consequence of that.
So Jonathon Porritt, thank you very much
for being a guest on this podcast.
Stephen, thank you very much. I've, as always,
much enjoyed our conversation. Thank you.
This podcast was brought to you by the Kamugasa
Challenge in partnership with Democracy in
Africa. Democracy in Africa is a platform
dedicated to building a bridge between academics,
policymakers, practitioners, and citizens.
The fourth episode in our leadership series
is entitled Exposing Your Blind Spots. the
argument for fostering whistleblower voices
to become a successful leader. An interview
with Mary Inman, a partner at Whistleblower
Partners. The podcast will go live on August
11th, 2025. If you enjoyed this podcast,
please click the share button in your app
to send this episode to a friend. Thank you
very much for taking the time to listen to
this podcast. Until next time, goodbye.