By Ted Vibert
I WAS deeply disappointed when I found out that former States Members would not be permitted to take part in the first ever public debate held in the States Chamber, where members of the public were asked to volunteer to take part in a discussion about whether or not they approved of Jersey being part of the global plan to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and help to make the Island a net-zero emitter by 2035.
I so wanted to be part of this debate, as I have been concerned for several years now about what I consider to be the silliest decision taken by our government that Jersey must take part in what I believe is a ridiculous, expensive and futile exercise to halt “global warming” by restricting the use of anything connected to fossil fuels – ie coal and oil – which have been the bedrock of our wealth and wellbeing since the 1800s.
I was not able to take part in this public debate as the reason for holding it was that it was part of the campaign to get local people interested in becoming a politician by giving them the opportunity of experiencing what it’s like to sit in the government arena and take part in a formal debate.
The purpose was, hopefully, to attract new people into becoming more involved in Jersey political life. Obviously, as a former States Member, I had been through that process so there was no sense in me taking part. Hopefully, some who did may decide that politics could be for them.
I think this was a great initiative by our Bailiff and the States Greffe as I think that any step to encourage people to become part of our island’s government is welcome.
I have always regretted that the Jersey Debating Club failed to survive the introduction of television. Back in the mid 1950s, the Jersey Debating Club met every other Friday during the winter months from October through to April at the Plaza Ballroom (part of West’s Cinema) and would attract up to 150 people. The subjects to be debated were chosen by the committee and the major speakers were invited to make their case for or against in 15 minutes with a seconder speaking for ten minutes. The debate was then open to the floor and floor speakers were allowed five minutes.
This regular event attracted many young Jersey lawyers such as Jacques Labesse and Mike Voisin and politicians such as John and Cyril Le Marquand, who sharpened their public-speaking skills in this often hostile (in a friendly way) environment.
The headmaster of Victoria College at the time, Ronnie Postill, was a gifted humorist and a talented public speaker, who appeared regularly on the platform, as did teacher “Dixie” Landick in the guise of his alter-ego Philoche La Clotte.
At the other end of the social scale, A P Laurent, one of the last remaining weavers of willow lobster pots and baskets, made regular and eagerly awaited interventions as a regular “floor speaker”.
Hopefully, this great institution in Jersey will make a come-back but in the meantime this recent first-time people’s debate in the States Chamber was the next best thing around.
The Jersey Debating Club was a crucial element in my personal development. I was fortunate, at Hautlieu, to be taught English by one of the nicest teachers I had ever met – John Gale, who instilled in me a love of literature and poetry, from Jane Austen to Steinbeck, Hemingway, Shakespeare and Chaucer. This was quite an achievement for him as a teacher and a testament to his skills and personality to achieve this with a lad from a working-class home where the only books in the house were ration books and football and cricket were his main interests. But John Gale’s enthusiasm for English literature was infectious. He just loved teaching.
He started a debating club at Hautlieu, taught us how to write speeches and deliver them. So, when I joined the JEP as a junior reporter and had to report on the Jersey Debating Club meetings I was able to develop those skills, firstly, by being a regular “from the floor speaker” then graduating to be a seconder of propositions and then a main proposer after several seasons.
The proposition debated by the recent people’s debate was “to decide whether it is of the opinion that Jersey should lead the way in the global fight against climate change and accelerate its own efforts by committing to achieve net-zero emissions by 2040”.
Attached to this proposition were some ideas of how this would be achieved, including tax rises to pay for it and traffic measures to reduce car use, including bus lanes.
Before I realised that I could not take part I had done some research into what the global position was regarding Jersey reducing its greenhouse gas emissions from almost nothing (0.0001% of the world’s emissions) to nothing. Since 1970 there have been massive climate conferences in Rio, Stockholm, Berlin, Paris, Kyoto, Geneva and Glasgow attended by thousands of delegates from all over the world (most of whom would have flown there adding to the world’s emissions). Glasgow set the record with 38,457 delegates.
Tough targets to reduce carbon emissions on a global scale were agreed at all of these meetings. It is worth checking on the results of these global jamborees, attended by delegates travelling there, often first class, and staying in top luxury hotels with their bills paid for by their taxpayers.
So what has been achieved by all this hyper activity?
In 1970, when these conferences began the world was emitting 25 million kilo tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. By 2020 it was 53 million. The main culprits were China, from 2,000 to 15,000; India 800,000 to 4,000,000; and Indonesia 200,000 to 1,200,000.
We live in a world inhabited by 8.2 billion people who drive 1.5 billion vehicles and where China operates 1,161 of the world’s 2,425 coal-fired electricity-producing stations and who produce 29% of the world’s emissions. To believe that these countries will change all this is to suspend any rational thinking.
Anyone who believes that Jersey can have the slightest influence on this world must also believe that the tooth fairy still cometh.
