Can we talk about nationalisation?

People sometimes assume I’m a bit ‘radical’. I’m not. I’m just a thoroughly ordinary middle class, middle aged woman, who happened to never quite grow out of asking “But why?”

We all have a role to play in tackling the environmental crises. I’m completely pragmatic about mine.

For social change to happen, we need protestors - people who push the boundaries, act at the edges, raise awareness and make others thoroughly uncomfortable.

Protestors are rarely popular in their own time - Martin Luther King was despised, as were the suffragettes. But they are an essential part of social change.

But we also need a middle ground. Protestors get talked about. And when the middle ground start talking about the issues the protestors highlight? When there are those within the middle ground who provide a measured, ‘acceptable’, appreciation of the issues?

That’s when change takes off.

I’m a communicator - and I’m good at it. For me to have the most impact, I need to move away from my days happily protesting against the Iraq war and the ending of student grants (yes, I am that old).

Because the greatest impact I can have? It’s sparking conversations, and getting new ideas out there.

So one thing I’m cautious of is being too radical. My role sits within the middle ground. As soon as I go radical, I lose that audience.

But this week, I decided to be loud.

This week I shared on LinkedIn a fantastic idea by Adam Mackay, naming “six actual steps that any semi-functioning government not overrun by billions of dollars in dark and soft money would already be working on”.

He invited others to write their list - and as I wrote my list, I was struck by two things.

Firstly, that Adam McKay - an American - was advocating for an idea that gets to the very core of people’s values and identity. His was a triggering and polarising idea; practically taboo in a country where even health care is privatised.

McKay advocated for the nationalisation of the oil industry.

The second thing that struck me was that I couldn’t honestly write my list without addressing this issue.

What would be the point in writing my list if I omitted something that seems so fundamental?

So, with a deep breath (and a slightly icky feeling in my tummy), I hit ‘publish’.

The response?

Barely noticeable.

Was that because the post was seen by my LinkedIn ‘eco-bubble’? No, definitely not - I was left in no doubt about that, thanks to the comments showed that the usual suspects had found the post; and the flurry of stale, pale males rushing to my inbox to demonstrate their superiority and explain my naivety and lack of understanding.

But of the hundred-plus comments? Just one focused on nationalisation.

So I went back to the original source of Mackay’s article: that gentle, respectful, left-leaning space known as Twitter.

Again. Lots of alternative viewpoints. But virtually none rejecting the idea of nationalisation.

So I dug deeper.

I searched and searched for references to nationalising the oil industry. And there wasn’t the horror I expected.

Heck, I went so far as to ask Chat GPT. And even Chat CPT - whose climate replies are often sourced from the “the science isn’t yet decided” end of the internet - grudgingly acknowledged that if we want to prioritise renewable investment, research and development; whilst setting higher standards and increasing environmental regulation; then nationalisation is the way to go.

It hit me. People like me assume that nationalisation is taboo. That others are unlikely to share our viewpoint.

And that’s exactly what happens with climate change. Many people choose not to talk about climate change, because we over-estimate how many people are more sceptical or care less than we do. The reality is we’re in a room full of people who think like we do, but no one makes that first move.

Could it possibly be that the same thing is happening with nationalisation of oil? That none of us dare to say something so ‘partisan’... when actually most of us are wondering the same thing?