Is there time for Wild Law?

Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:09 pm    Post subject: Is there time for Wild Law?


The latest IPCC prediction is that the Arctic will be ice free by 2030. Catastrophe is therefore imminently upon us. Arguably this cannot now be averted. Humanity is therefore in a crisis situation on a global scale.

Wild Law is desperately needed. Now.

But the system being what it is, lamentably there is little or no prospect of Wild Law being implemented on the comprehensive scale necessary in the foreseeable future. And certainly not fast enough to make the slightest difference to this dire outcome of our own folly.

A change to environmental law of the magnitude required is a massive undertaking, both politically and administratively. It can only come about quickly if backed by a strong and absolutely committed government pushing through the mass of primary legislation required on an urgent basis.

That in itself would require the subordination of most if not all the usual calls on the business of parliament – in other words a radical rewriting of the political agenda.

It would also demand either a huge majority or a cross-party political consensus, particularly with the narrow interests of so many stakeholders apparently under threat.

Such an impetus has rarely been seen outside of wartime, and is unlikely to emerge until we feel equally imperilled. In other words, only when the crisis has already broken upon us with overwhelming force will we start to react effectively.

And when it is, by the same token, already too late to influence the outcome.



This analysis, emphatically, is not to suggest that Wild Law is therefore irrelevant or futile. The conclusions that should be drawn are:

1. That we cannot look to Wild Law – or anything else – to avert an environmental crisis that is now inevitable and which will be severe, global, on-going and multi-faceted.

2. For that very reason the transition to a Wild Law framework of environmental protection is an absolute imperative and all the more urgently required.

3. Wild Law can only make a positive impact on the environment when it manifests in concrete actions.

4. That can only come about when it is has been translated into comprehensive legislation that has been enacted and come into force.

5. Within the UK that requires adoption by at least one political party that is in or succeeds in winning office, and ideally cross-party support on the broadest possible basis.

6. To achieve that will be an inevitably organic process requiring time and cultivation, which under normal circumstances is unlikely to bear fruit for several years at least.

7. It should therefore be of the highest priority that a start be made as soon as practically possible.

8. The risk is that as it currently stands, Wild Law courts the danger of being marginalised or worse still dismissed altogether as ephemeral, wishy-washy, romantic or utopian.

9. This requires that Wild Law be firmed up into a set of proposals that can be put forward in a form readily digestible by politicians – ie readily understandable, practicable, translatable into legislation, sellable to the electorate, and sufficiently robust to stand up to the flak that it will attract from opposition of all types.

10. That is likely to be considerable, given that corporate and other interests will almost inevitably act out of short-term self-interest, perceive Wild Law as a threat to their autonomy of action – which it inevitably is – and line up powerfully to oppose it.

11. To counter that and to accelerate its acceptance politically, there is a parallel need to popularise Wild Law to provide a groundswell of support at grassroots level.

12. An allied or alternative strategy might be to concentrate instead or as well as on achieving adoption at the EU level.

13. That process is essentially the same, other than it would require networking and co-ordinated action with those promoting Wild Law in the other EU states.

14. It has the advantages that some of those states and the EU itself seem more favourably disposed to environmental protection than the UK, and that any victories will bear fruit in 27 member states rather than just one. The downside includes that it will require a great deal of co-ordination, language barriers, distance and the like.



Given the timing and urgency, these would seem imperative issues to thrash out at the Wild Law – a Response to Climate Change workshop later this month, with a view to ending up with a fairly clear vision of the path forward and an outline on timing.


In parallel, this forum proved a place to discuss these ideas, and how - if this analysis is accepted in whole or part – we can act as effectively as the situation demands, given the lamentable climate of awareness as it currently stands.


NB Those requiring more on the contention that crisis is imminent and unavoidable will find it set out more fully under the topic ‘Can we save the polar bear…?’ elsewhere in this forum.


.