Imagine you needed to solve the greatest problem facing humanity; a problem that was universally acknowledged and whose solution was an urgent necessity. Most of us would do anything to save a person we love. Surely we would also spend any amount of money, mortgage our futures even, to save the planet, our life-support system, from catastrophic climate change? But with such commitment and devotion comes vulnerability. This is particularly so when it comes to the issue of climate finance.
For the last seven years, I've spent a portion of the school holidays doing live shows at some of the nation's best-known zoos. The shows attract thousands, mostly families with younger kids, and most leave with big smiles on their faces. I do however every year receive a number of messages that go something like this: "You're a massive hypocrite. You claim to be a conservationist, to care about wild animals, and yet you endorse institutions that keep these noble beasts imprisoned behind bars." My stance on this criticism - for which I have a certain amount of sympathy - is rather too complex to get across in 140 characters or less, so I decided to offer a more considered response to the ethics of keeping wild animals in captivity.
I would like Labour to do more on the environment, and I would like it to become one of their top priorities, and let's be fair, at this election, so far it hasn't. But for this to happen, I believe we need to challenge the party from within, which is why I joined. The more members of the Labour party who care and challenge green issues, the more likely it is that it will become a core Labour policy.