With talks ongoing at the COP 21 in Paris this week, now seems like a good time to talk about one of the most pressing issues of our generation: climate change.

Indeed discussion of this issue has not been confined to Paris; November saw the annual Oxford Climate Forum – a student-run conference that invites leading thinkers, campaigners, journalists and academics to discuss climate change and its effects. The theme of the forum this year was ‘climate connections’, with a focus on why everyone should be thinking about this issue, not just activists. A range of people spoke throughout the weekend, from lawyers working for ClientEarth to veteran Friends of the Earth campaigner Tony Juniper, to venerated diplomat and academic Sir Crispin Tickell. This conference brought together this disparate set of people behind a common banner of concern over our warming climate.

What was striking about this event was the sheer diversity of views on offer from the speakers. Considering that all the speakers had the same goals in mind, namely decreasing emissions and limiting the warming of our climate, there was a surprising lack of consensus. This debate isn’t over whether or not humans are causing climate change. For all serious scientists and observers, that question was settled long ago. Instead the discussion continues over what the best agenda for action is.

Kirsty Gogan, founder of Energy for Humanity, maintained that nuclear energy is vital for efforts to decarbonise our global economy and that we can’t rely on theoretical improvements in renewable technology to meet the growing demand for energy. In contrast, Tony Juniper, when asked about the nuclear industry, dismissed it as “irrelevant” without hesitation. He professed that it is too expensive and too slow to develop for it to be of any use. However, despite these differences of opinion, there are things that everyone agrees we could be doing now to try and meet the, possibly unsafe, target of 2°C warming. These include developing renewable energy generation capacity as quickly as possible and stopping the policy flip-flops that prevent progress in this sector. As Nina Klein, the coordinator of this year’s forum, commented, “I think focusing on the issues which are debated has allowed politicians and businesses to stall year-on-year. Now we are in a position where it is going to be a much more significant challenge to implement these changes soon enough and feel their positive effects.”

There also appears to be a polarisation of opinion regarding the rhetoric surrounding climate change. George Marshall, a co-founder of the charity Climate Outreach, insisted that much of the current dialogue surrounding climate change is unhelpful and actually drives people away from being interested or caring. Climate change rhetoric grew out of the environmentalist movement, but this wasn’t inevitable. It could have grown out of academia, economics or a range of other areas. Environmentalism is fundamentally tied to left wing views and opinions and the fact that climate change is so embedded within this movement has meant that conservatives have almost automatically been alienated. Without engaging conservatives, the movement has a much tougher job of forcing significant action in the UK and around the world.

The same goes for corporations and big business, especially the fossil fuel industry. Confrontational slogans which cast these organisations as the enemy only serves to push them further away. As the Forum committee put it, “we have to make the climate change story personal to different people based on their values so it engages them”.

George Marshall’s opinion showed a deep divergence with the viewpoint that Bill Mckibben revealed during his recorded video. He asserted that we need to ‘break’ the power of the fossil fuel industry and on more than one occasion thanked the audience that we were on his side in the ‘fight’ to save the planet.

For a movement that professes to be safeguarding the future of the planet and humanity itself, are these differences in opinion detrimental to the communication of their message? Just as divided political parties will struggle to get elected, surely divided activist movements will experience the same problems. It becomes very easy for governments and lobbies unsympathetic to the cause to cast those campaigning to make changes on emissions and climate change as confused and at odds with each other. It then becomes much easier to justify inaction.

The other major theme of the conference was the COP21 Paris Climate Conference that is taking place this week. The Conference’s attitude towards the talks was one of cautious optimism. Many were stung by the unmitigated failure of the international community to reach any kind of agreement during the last COP talks in Copenhagen in 2010. The disillusionment that followed has still not quite gone away among this community so it seems like they will not let themselves hope for a significant agreement lest they are disappointed again.

As the committee commented, “we believe the forum has helped raise a greater awareness of the effects of climate change, that it goes far beyond polar bears or a distant future and it is affecting real people all around the world today. We hope that holding the forum means that when the students go on to be the next generation of leaders we will one day have world leaders who consider climate change and give it the appropriate significance in their decisions and plans for the future.”

With talks ongoing at the COP 21 in Paris this week, now seems like a good time to talk about one of the most pressing issues of our generation: climate change.

Indeed discussion of this issue has not been confined to Paris; November saw the annual Oxford Climate Forum – a student-run conference that invites leading thinkers, campaigners, journalists and academics to discuss climate change and its effects. The theme of the forum this year was ‘climate connections’, with a focus on why everyone should be thinking about this issue, not just activists. A range of people spoke throughout the weekend, from lawyers working for ClientEarth to veteran Friends of the Earth campaigner Tony Juniper, to venerated diplomat and academic Sir Crispin Tickell. This conference brought together this disparate set of people behind a common banner of concern over our warming climate.

What was striking about this event was the sheer diversity of views on offer from the speakers. Considering that all the speakers had the same goals in mind, namely decreasing emissions and limiting the warming of our climate, there was a surprising lack of consensus . This debate isn’t over whether or not humans are causing climate change. For all serious scientists and observers, that question was settled long ago. Instead the discussion continues over what the best agenda for action is.

Kirsty Gogan, founder of Energy for Humanity, maintained that nuclear energy is vital for efforts to decarbonise our global economy and that we can’t rely on theoretical improvements in renewable technology to meet the growing demand for energy. In contrast, Tony Juniper, when asked about the nuclear industry, dismissed it as ‘irrelevant’ without hesitation. He professed that it is too expensive and too slow to develop for it to be of any use. However, despite these differences of opinion, there are things that everyone agrees we could be doing now to try and meet the, possibly unsafe, target of 2°C warming. These include developing renewable energy generation capacity as quickly as possible and stopping the policy flip-flops that prevent progress in this sector. As Nina Klein, the coordinator of this year’s forum, commented, “I think focusing on the issues which are debated has allowed politicians and businesses to stall year-on-year. Now we arein a position where it is going to be a much more significant challengeto implement these changes soon enough and feel their positive effects.”

There also appears to be a polarisation of opinion regarding the rhetoric surrounding climate change. George Marshall, a co-founder of the charity Climate Outreach, insisted that much of the current dialogue surrounding climate change is unhelpful and actually drives people away from being interested or caring. Climate change rhetoric grew out of the environmentalist movement, but this wasn’t inevitable. It could have grown out of academia, economics or a range of other areas. Environmentalism is fundamentally tied to left wing views and opinions and the fact that climate change is so embedded within this movement has meant that conservatives have almost automatically been alienated. Without engaging conservatives, the movement has a much tougher job of forcing significant action in the UK and around the world.

The same goes for corporations and big business, especially the fossil fuel industry. Confrontational slogans which cast these organisations as the enemy only serves to push them further away. As the Forum committee put it, “we have to make the climate change story personal to different people based on their values so it engages them”.

George Marshall’s opinion showed a deep divergence with the viewpoint that Bill Mckibben revealed during his recorded video. He asserted that we need to ‘break’ the power of the fossil fuel industry and on more than one occasion thanked the audience that we were on his side in the ‘fight’ to save the planet.

For a movement that professes to be safeguarding the future of the planet and humanity itself, are these differences in opinion detrimental to the communication of their message? Just as divided political parties will struggle to get elected, surely divided activist movements will experience the same problems. It becomes very easy for governments and lobbies unsympathetic to the cause to cast those campaigning to make changes on emissions and climate change as confused and at odds with each other. It then becomes much easier to justify inaction.

The other major theme of the conference was the COP21 Paris Climate Conference that is taking place this week. The Conference’s attitude towards the talks was one of cautious optimism. Many were stung by the unmitigated failure of the international community to reach any kind of agreement during the last COP talks in Copenhagen in 2010. The disillusionment that followed has still not quite gone away among this community so it seems like they will not let themselves hope for a significant agreement lest they are disappointed again.

As the committee commented, “we believe the forum has helped raise a greater awareness of the effects of climate change, that it goes far beyond polar bears or a distant future and it is affecting real people all around the world today. We hope that holding the forum means that when the students go on to be the next generation of leaders we will one day have world leaders who consider climate change and give it the appropriate significance in their decisions and plans for the future.”

People throw around the term ‘cultural appropriation’ a lot, and discourse about it has reared its bindi-wearing head in Oxford again recently. Lincoln publicised its ‘New Orleans’ themed ball last week, after earlier this year LMH themed a bop ‘Arabian Nights’. Pembroke put on an ‘Indian Summers’ ball last Trinity and Queens have announced their ‘A Night on the Orient Express’ ball theme. There has been criticism, much of which has been quite sympathetically heard by planning committees (even if little real action was taken in consequence), and a vast amount of confusion and angry debate over exactly what the problem is.

Let me make it clear: cultural appropriation, at its most basic level, is the use of elements created by one culture by members of another. The problem is that in some cases – especially when there’s an imbalance of power or strength between those cultures – there can be negative consequences, and it’s this that the term generally refers to nowadays.

The point I’m getting to is simple. Interaction and exchange between cultures is a beautiful, exciting, important thing. There are reliefs of the Buddha being guarded by Hercules from ancient Afghanistan; the remembrance poppy hijab is a thing and a great one, or how about ‘Bride and Prejudice’, the London-made Bollywood take on Jane Austen?

Breaking down perceived barriers between cultures is clearly a wonderful thing. More importantly, though, it could not be more necessary in today’s political climate: division is a weapon of war in the hands of only the most deluded and hate-loving groups, and benefits no one except them. Cultural division and closed-mindedness is also, unsurprisingly, one of the greatest generators of the pitiable individuals who join these blinded groups.

The problem is that interactions between cultures are not always positive and healthy; when there is an imbalance of power between societies, and when it’s assumed that one culture is somehow superior to another, they can easily cause great harm. Not all interactions between cultures generate understanding, and cultural appropriation is the opposite of friendly, respectful, curious cultural exchange. However, as the exceptionally respectful, open-minded and humble white guy who started yelling at me on the Race Matters Facebook page a few weeks ago made all too clear, coverage of this issue can have a lack of focus on exactly how cultural appropriation is destructive, how it actually causes harm.

You can break it down into two parts: repeated personal hurt, and the perpetuation or reinforcement of often invisible, awful ways of seeing the world and other humans.

The question of personal harm is easier to explain. People of colour in Europe are forced to abandon elements of their culture or cultural heritage, to assimilate, simply to survive – they can’t risk the employability bias against them being made even worse, for example, or may even be afraid of direct physical violence: ‘Go back where you came from’ attacks have not disappeared. In a climate of increasing Islamophobic attacks against Middle Eastern and South Asian people of all religions, the situation is darkening for many. Immigrant communities shame those who haven’t assimilated enough yet: the worst insult I could offer my Dad when he buys a new pair of shoes is that they make him look like a ‘freshie’ (fresh off the boat, that is).

When white people – meaning no harm – wear bindis, saris, decorate themselves with Hindu symbols, the message we hear is clear: ‘We can wear these things and enjoy them, be praised for them.’ How is that supposed to feel, when we have been forced by prejudice to abandon these things? To feel ashamed of them, and hate ourselves by proxy? Yet you can toss them on and toss them aside whenever you wish, free only because of your skin colour.

People of colour suffer a barrage of trauma, from physical violence to micro-aggressions like these. Cultural appropriation, however well-intended, however un-thought-through, can be yet another blow on vulnerable minds. I understand that no harm is meant, but this is hurting us. We are not just ‘offended’.

Cultural appropriation as a source of micro-aggressions is not all, however. It is ugly to think and difficult to accept, but it’s true: contemporary Western culture normalises whiteness and assumes European superiority. I desperately wish that wasn’t true, but the proof is everywhere. Black, Asian and minority ethnic people are wildly overrepresented in British prisons, low-income groups and practically every other marginalised group. They are equally under-represented in university and school syllabuses, high-status jobs and the media that saturates our culture.

One of the patterns of thought that sustains this is strongly linked to cultural appropriation. Non-white, non-European cultures are seen through an orientalising lens: we see them partly as a compressed, reduced stereotype of what they really are, and part of our perception of them is that they are Other, different, not normal. By homogenising and reducing the thousand cultures of a region with a population greater than Europe, comparable cultural heritage and arguably more cultural diversity to a party theme or costume, for example, we are reinforcing these outdated narratives.

What’s the problem with that, then? The charming young man from Facebook phrased it rather more strongly, but it’s an important question. Keeping stereotypes alive, continuing to see foreign cultures as exotic and mostly sources of exciting aesthetics, strengthens two things. First is the dehumanisation of people of colour – stereotypes encourage us to see people as caricatures, as essences, not as actual individuals or humans. When and if a group is already marginalised, that is toxic.

Second is the subtle perception – underlying too much Western thought even today – that non-European cultures are not as culturally rich, diverse, important as European cultures; in short, that non-white cultures – and inseparably from that, non-white people – are somehow inferior. If you cannot see how dangerous, oppressive and violent this idea is, then you have completely lost the plot, and I am afraid.

“We welcome every drop of blood spilled in Jerusalem,” President Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of the Palestinian National Authority, said on September 16^th. “This is pure blood, clean blood, blood on its way to Allah.”

The attacks might not have come immediately after Abbas’s words, but come they did. Since the beginning of October, Palestinians have initiated over 65 stabbings, mostly in East Jerusalem, eight shootings and eight car rammings. Over a dozen Israelis have been killed, and more than 150 wounded. The shooting dead of two Palestinians by Israeli forces, after one of them allegedly stabbed a policeman, on November 30th reflects a much broader problem.

Maybe you’ve seen some of the videos: a man mowing down civilians, then hopping out of his car to continue chopping at one with an axe; two teenagers boarding a quiet bus and stabbing an 80 year-old woman in the neck; an encouragement released by Palestinian authorities that depicts a man heroically chasing down and killing two caricatured Jews.

But probably not. Instead the media response has been subdued, and reporters have taken measures to present an equivalency between attackers and victims. Headlines especially, do not paint a representative picture. CAMERA, an organisation that focuses on pointing out biases in Middle East reporting, points to examples: CNN’s “Palestinians shot boarding kid’s bus”; BBC’s “Palestinian shot dead after Jerusalem attack kills two”; the Wall Street Journal’s “Two Palestinian Teenagers Killed, Two Injured by Israeli Police.”

In none of these does the reader get a clear picture of what actually occurred: that armed Palestinians tried to board a bus and kill its passengers; that a man was shot after he killed two Israelis; that the teenagers, one of whom had just stabbed a 13 year-old on a bike, were killed because they were attempting themselves to kill policemen and passersby in the street.

All this serves to epitomise what is a greater bias in the media and the international community—one that castigates Israel and often glosses over or downplays Palestinian wrongs. A poorly conceived comment by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that called the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem the instigator of the Holocaust rather than just an instigator was lambasted across the globe. The fact that the Palestinian Authority, under its law of the prisoner, pays the salary of Palestinians who have committed violent acts against Israelis flies mostly under the radar outside of in Israeli journalism.

It would be folly, of course, to attribute this imbalance to anti-Semitism. Anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are often assumed to be closely linked, and while it is probably true that at least some Western commentators opposed to Israel are also anti-Semitic, the large majority certainly are not. Israel is, undeniably, a flawed state and rightfully warrants censure at times.

Actions such as their expansion of the West Bank settlements and racist statements by government figures like the former Foreign Affairs Minster Avigdor Lieberman deserve all the ire they have provoked. They are indicative of a right-wing government under Netanyahu, a highly abrasive figure himself, which has worked less hard than many of its predecessors to protect the rights of Palestinians and Israeli Arabs.

But we also need to understand the circumstances that have brought Likud and the Jewish Home, among more conservative parties, into power. They are circumstances that should be eminently understandable to us in the wake of the horrific attacks in Paris: those of being unsafe in one’s own home, under siege, with the threat of death poisoning the air. And for Israel, such a position is augmented all the more by an existential threat—one that has existed since its conception. A slip-up, and the Israeli state has the potential to be no more.

Look, too, at how France has responded to one terrorist attack: with the declaration of a state of emergency, a bombing campaign, and a surge in Islamophobic sentiment, towards both French natives and Syrian refugees. The doctrine of state security has superseded all others; one would not be amiss in surmising that any action that President Francois Hollande could take to secure French safety would be welcomed by most of the electorate.

It is this mood that has driven Israel to the feelings of isolation and anger that pervade the public space. This mood, but magnified by what is perceived as discriminatory international opprobrium—between 2006 and 2015, the United Nations Human Rights Council published 62 condemnations of Israel, more than on the rest of the world combined—and by repeatedly spurned attempts at peace—like in the 2000 Camp David talks, where Ehud Barak offered Yasser Arafat an almost complete reversion to the 1967 borders just to have Arafat walk away from the table without a counteroffer.

Israel must hold itself to a higher moral standard than its enemies, and so ought the rest of the world—it does have advantages that put it in the driving seat, relative to the Palestinian Authority, and as a country with the same values as most Western democracies, it cannot forget its calling to be liberal and fair to all.

But nor can we forget that Israel has taken long and hard measures time and again to be as perfect a democracy as it possibly can, given the constraints upon it; even now, it provides hospital care to Palestinian assailants. And before we jump to criticise, we must keep in mind how the United States, or the United Kingdom or France would respond to a constant security threat—and question if we really think that Israel has done any differently than the best among us would have done.