When Gordon Brown became prime minister, we were briefed that he was suspect on the environment. He did not have a good record as the chancellor, and we were going to attack him on that.
So why would this be?
Labour ministers often start with good intentions on the environment, but fail to deliver. Their failure is down to how strong the anti-green movement is. Popular elements of the anti-green movement include the pro-car movement, which contains the likes of Jeremy Clarkson; the anti-tax movement (recently the Taxpayers Alliance was complaining about the amount spent on informing the public about global warming); the Daily Mail/Telegraph/Express/Sun; and the NFU and the CBI.
To be fair, the record of the CBI is mixed. Recently it has become ‘green’, and of course we do rely on new technology to mitigate the human contribution to global warming. The CBI has something to gain.
But the CBI also lobbies for things we do not agree with, such as nuclear power, and an expansion of the road building program. Incidentally, I checked the CBI website and I could not find anything there about road building. However that is their record up until now.
So if we attack Gordon Brown for not being green, we should attack those who lobby the government to water down their green policies, namely the CBI, of which of course Digby Jones was, until last year, the Director General. Digby Jones was recently made a trade minister by Gordon Brown in his new government.
So why is it that it is only the Labour left that is attacking this appointment?
In fact I notice that one of our “senior MPs” claimed he was one of ours.
What is going on? Why are we so half-hearted, again?
* Geoffrey Payne is the secretary of Hackney Liberal Democrats.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
My tweets
Now Boris Johnson has lost the support of the Daily Mail
Where does Liverpool go now after Council's consultation debacle
Striking a deal with the SNP
Weekly Road Report - West End Ward #dundeewestend
Cassie
Peter Watson
Joseph Gerald Bourke
Brad Barrows
Jeff
11 Comments
The CBI also lobbies for things we do not agree with, such as nuclear power.
I can’t help feeling that Lib Dem policy on nuclear power might be a mistake.
I can’t help feeling that your views on Lib Dem policy on nuclear power might be a mistake.
I can’t help feeling that your views on my views on Lib Dem policy on nuclear power might be a mistake.
Is there anything about the Lib Dems that you do actually agree with Laurence? ;o)
Yes, I think the Iraq war was a bad idea. And I don’t like the council tax much either.
The LibDem nuclear power policy is a mistake. We’ve fallen into the problem of the green movement – /everything/ is bad for the environment in some way. When we wish to protect one thing we end up harming another.
The so-called ‘anti-green’ lobby are not anti-green as such, but they have other priorities. The world does not break down along green lines, there are other considerations – like standards of living, or how robust our food supply is. Or whether we can actually feed everyone.
So the Tax Payers Alliance lobby for the noble aim of reducing the size of government they clash because the green lobby is mostly big government supporting.
The pro-car lobby seek to preserve what they enjoy against the anti-car lobby (which is most of the green movement hence the clash).
The CBI lobbies for the interests of business. Which clashes with some green policies because they will destroy some businesses or make business more difficult.
So, what’s the solution? Lets try being liberal and develop liberal green policies (Pigouvian taxation is a start, scrapping the CAP is another good one, a ban on nuclear power is not a good one – let the market decide – if the costs are too high (and costs are not simply financial) then they won’t get built).
Lets not follow the rest of the green movement down the cul-de-sac of eco-socialism and bansturbation.
Tristan,
I disagree with your assertion that opposing new nuclear power is in conflict to our green tax policies. You as for Pigouvian taxes and scrapping the CAP. these are both long standing Lib Dem policies and, since the Huhne has been the environment spokesperson, now at the forefront of out policy agenda.
The policies are clearly indicative of a market approach to cutting out emissions by which we would punish all carbon output equally so that the market can choose where the savings are made.
The problem with Nuclear Power altogether is that you cannot include it in a market system like this. You cannot account for all of its externalities within a power production market. Put simply, the costs of clean up of decommissioned power stations and the storage of spent nuclear fuel will not be included in the market costs of nuclear power production.
If you were to genuinely say that a company planning to build a nuclear power station had to be liable for all costs pertaining to the plant, even after decommissioning, then they would run a mile. There is a reason why no nuclear power plant has ever been built with 100% private funding and management – the market would run a mile from this uncompetitive option.
I also think that Lib Dem policy on nuclear power is wrong. Not wildly wrong in the long run, but for *this generation* of nuclear power, I think the practical environmentalist has little choice but to support one last round of nuclear power stations.
Basically, if we want to cut down on greenhouse gases, then we need to reduce the oil and gas fired generation which we currently get most of our electricity from. There is no way the renewable sector can grow at the rate we would require it to, and even if it did, we need controllable sources of energy which can be turned on and off when demand necessitates it.
The other option, I suppose, would be to go for carbon capture coal fired power stations in a big way, but I don’t see that happening, and it may well be just as costly as nuclear. In the absence of any other great solutions, nuclear power is the least worst option. Tristan is right, though: we should be achieving this through Pigovian taxation, not regulation, for all the reasoning that goes along with them about incentivising the reduction of pollution in any way possible, not simply by bluntly banning certain forms of generation. (But lets not kid ourselves; we would still be effectively controlling the policy, because the level of taxation would determine which was the least costly option, and we would set the level of taxation.)
This is a good quote from The Revenge of Gaia by James Lovelock:
An outstanding advantage of nuclear over fossil-fuel energy is how easy it is to deal with the waste it produces. Burning fossil fuels produces 27,000 million tons of carbon dioxide yearly, enough to make, if solidified, a mountain nearly one mile high and with a base twelve miles in circumference. The same quantity of energy produced from nuclear-fission reactions would generate two million times less waste, and it would occupy a sixteen-metre cube. The carbon-dioxide waste is invisible but so deadly that if its emissions go unchecked it will kill nearly everyone. The nuclear waste buried in pits at the production sites is no threat to Gaia and dangerous only to those foolish enough to expose themselves to its radiation.
I think that Lib Dem policy on nuclear power is wrong (“and so does my wife!”), but Kevin has a point.
Rather than Government encouraging or opposing nuclear power, it should allow the market to decide. However, it should require firms to factor in set-up and decomissioning costs into their business plan (perhaps by requiring nuclear power providers to contribute regularly to a trust fund that will finance the decomissioning and spent fuel storage).
If all sources of power (nuclear, coal, wind) bore the full cost of production including all externalities then the market would produce the cheapest, least polluting and thus most efficient source of energy.
And it would not rely on 650 people largely former lawyers and doctors making the right judgement, or on their willingness to appease their supporters.
The debate about energy and whether to include nuclear or not is hugely complex, lets have a debate about that on another thread.
Whether you like it or not, the Liberal Democrats are determined to be the foremost green party in British politics and after the recent floods for good reason. Huhne has approvingly quoted the Stern report as identifying the process of global warming as a market failure. If you assume that to be correct, then the government has to step in and make a correction, because this is about our future survival on this planet and we cannot rely on market forces to correct what it caused to fail.
In that context it is not surprising that Gordan Brown, being susceptible to lobbying from the anti-Green movement has been identified by our party as being weak on the environment. Yet one of the instigators of that weakness, namely “Comrade” Digby is now appointed by him as the trade minister in our government.
And instead of condemning what has happened, our party seems to wish he joined us instead. What hypocracy!
I am not impressed by Tristan’s point about various groups not being anti-green, and that they just have other priorities – as though we can pick and choose. Unfortunately the supermarket theory of economics does not permit us to choose what planet we live on. We only have this one. It is hardly worth comparing whether choosing not to be green due to lack of interest is better or worse than being anti-Green for the fun of it.