The trope of ‘choosing pets over people’ is not new | Letter

Letter: The problem isn’t the beaver on the banknote – it’s a politics that no longer recognises what holds value, writes Dr Michael J Richardson

Jonn Elledge (What’s worth more: Churchill or a woke badger? Welcome to Britain’s banknote culture war, 16 March) is right that the debate over whether wildlife might replace figures such as Winston Churchill on Bank of England banknotes has become another front in Britain’s culture wars. As he notes, proposals to feature animals are neither unprecedented nor unpopular, with public consultation showing majority support for nature-themed designs.

But the backlash relies on a familiar claim: that attention to wildlife represents a misplaced priority – “the definition of woke”, as Nigel Farage put it. This framing is not new. During the 2021 evacuation efforts of animal charity Nowzad in Kabul, the story was reduced to “pets over people”, despite the fact that both animals and staff were saved. Similar narratives now position social care v climate concern.

What this gets wrong is the assumption that care for animals is opposed to care for humans – or that capacity is the preserve of a narrow metropolitan elite. I work on an ecological project with young working-class men in the north-east of England. Far from rejecting environmental issues, many express care for wildlife through everyday experiences: noticing birds, bees and trees; valuing green space; and worrying about pollution and habitat loss.

The “woke beaver” narrative creates a false choice between people and planet. But the problem isn’t the beaver on the banknote – it’s a politics that no longer recognises what holds value.
Dr Michael J Richardson
Senior lecturer in human geography, Newcastle University

• Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.