I'm looking forward to your comments and just to be clear, this blog is about the politics of environmental action and campaining. Keep it classy.

The only reason the PM is keeping silent is because he relies on the Lib Dems for the majority he needs to govern.I am of the opinion that he is more in line with the Chancellor`s beliefs in this matter.It might be a fact that the green economy employs more people than work as teachers but the government still pay the majority of green workers pay in the form of subsidies.

words do indeed matter. I am really enjoying this debate. Now is the time to speak openly and to debate, not fight, ... thank you Guardian ... love Zac’s piece, also this one by Damian Carrington but, question, is the current economic model REALLY able to address climate change? May i throw the work of Naomi Klein into the debate?
“If you really do believe that freedom means governments getting out of the way of corporations and that any regulation leads us down Hayek’s road to serfdom, then climate science is going to be kryptonite to you. After all, the reality that humans are causing the climate to warm, with potentially catastrophic results, really does demand radical government intervention in the market, as well as collective action on an unprecedented scale. So you can understand why many conservatives see climate change as a threat to their identity. Too often the liberal climate movement runs away from the deep political and economic implications of climate science, which is why I wrote the piece. I think we need to admit that climate change really does demand a profound interrogation of the ideology that currently governs our economy".

In Germany, the FiTs add a few percentage points to a houshold bill. The Germans have norht of 20GW of PV plus wind (from memory) that is somewhat greater than that. They have a substaintial RES industry and it is government policy to develop this industry. The Germans do not just talk about it - they do it. Our politicians, by contrast, talk and do something between little and nothing.

Note how much youth un-employment there is - we could have a RES indsutry that pulled a large number of these young people back into employment - but no - Osborne sticks with his outmoded mantra.

probably one of the best examples i have read anywhere. thanks.

Its at the 'heart' of most corporations' stockholders to just ignore debate (or greenpeace) and to carry on ,
the worst example for me is government's uneven stance on pollution.
The largest polluters continue and the consumer gets practically herded into a dirty shop, and heavily taxed

I disagree - I think Cameron does get it.
As for your claim that "government still pay the majority of green workers pay in the form of subsidies": says who? I'd be interested to see the evidence for that, assuming it exists.
In any case, as Cameron points out above, we're going to have to spend a lot of money on energy infrastructure. We can invest it in old, dirty technology and pay the price, or in clean sustainable technology - the cost is the same, the benefits are radically different.

Naomi Klein's Vanity Fair piece is indeed a must-read piece

Well said Damian. This is much more eloquent than my rant on Zac's post.

I agree with you mostly, but not that "our politicians, by contrast, talk and do something between little and nothing"
This government has done/is doing green deal, electricity market reform, renewable heat incentive, natural environment white paper etc - the problem is this needs to be at the centre of the government, not on the fringe

Osborne. Nail. Head. Hit.

Problem is that saving £10 by not investing more in ugly, noisy wind farms in order to fight climate change (which isn't real anyway, and if it is we'll be dead before it happens) goes down well with the Tory press and a lot of voters.

What they won't say publicly is that they know full well (because a lot of experts keep telling them) that electricity prices are going to go up a lot by the end of the decade, and gas prices are expected to go through the roof. But they also know fuel poverty figures are expected to rocket this year (which might possibly be why they're in the process of redefining the term), so there's a lot of incoming bad press to deflect.

So if you were a PR man what would you do?

Osborne might be wrong on all counts, but the systemic problems underlying all this run far deeper and wider than him or the Tory party.

...climate change (which isn't real anyway,...

silly sheep.

At the moment, is the cost of greening the UK economy a worthwhile one?

I mean, given the limited impact on the global environment of any changes made by the UK why should we hobble our growth in the pursuit of greeness?

here we go again: "hobble our grow in the pursuit of greeness"
why do you believe 20th Century economic thinking is suitable for the 21st Century?

@Bluecloud - ok, I need a sarcasm font, maybe you do too?

Sorry but in the last couple of days I've been privvy to some figures and info that make me weep. Can't say more but I'm about as cynical as it's possible to get right now. The UK is really screwed.

Because green energy is the future. As has been pointed out earlier on this blog, the costs of conventional sources is bound to go through the roof, once peak oil is reached and North Sea gas is finished. Not mentioning the fact that importing all our energy makes us dependent on countries with not terribly stable or friendly regimes.
We need, as Cameron rightly says, to take a long term view.
The problem with our economic system is that for businesses to take a long term view, is risky, and may actually take them out of business before their long-term view pays off.
That is why we have government subsidies: to tidy them over, to support them until they can stand on their own legs and start paying off.
If we don't do that, in a few decades we will be up the creek without not only a paddle, but probably without a boat as well.....

here we go again: "hobble our grow in the pursuit of greeness"
why do you believe 20th Century economic thinking is suitable for the 21st Century?

Sorry, I haven't seen this one done before. Will do some CiF googling tonight.

My current view. The world has only finite quantities of some (currently) key resources. The global population is growing fast, and as standards of living (a spot of good news) rise, so the rate of consumption of these resources rises too. Further, as more is created to be consumed so the environmental damage wrought by man increases too.

The UK is attempting to maintain its own standards of living at a time when the economic dominance of the West is ending and capital is moving East. In order to protect these standards of living, is now the time to focus on greening the economy? Wouldn't (a sincere wouldn't!) any such unilateral action hold us back as compared with those of our trade competitors who do not make such moves?

It's very simple, if very uncomfortable for the vested interests that dominate the current economy: going green is the only way to long-term prosperity and quality of life, and the first movers get the biggest advantage

@Tigone - but most of our trade competitors are already going there faster than us, and unlike China we can't dramatically change what we produce overnight. Much as I'm opposed to carbon capture and storage I can see the economic logic behind the push - we do research well and the patents would earn more than the domestic value of the technology. Fortunately the same applies to renewables, and when we get better connections to the rest of Europe there will be a big market for low carbon energy.

@evelinev

Because green energy is the future.

A push towards a non oil based economy I can understand (though my first thoug would be nuclear, not wind).

@DamianCarrington

It's very simple, if very uncomfortable for the vested interests that dominate the current economy: going green is the only way to long-term prosperity and quality of life, and the first movers get the biggest advantage

A strategic argument that certainly resonates with me (though I remain uncertain of its truth, but will start reading up fwiw).

@Stumpysheep

As above, that strategic argument certainly seems a strong one. But why renewables when the nuclear option exists?

Tigone, you seem to have answered your own question when you write:

The world has only finite quantities of some (currently) key resources. The global population is growing fast, and as standards of living (a spot of good news) rise, so the rate of consumption of these resources rises too. Further, as more is created to be consumed so the environmental damage wrought by man increases too.

If you can see a hole in the boat, as you suggest, and you don't think you can permanently plug it, don't you think you should make plans to change boats?

Fail to prepare, prepare to fail.

On the subject to greening now or later I think there is a sound financial elephant in the room not being taken into account here.

Ask people in the street how they feel about gas and electricity bills right now. Ask the Head of the National grid about his comments on Sky News with energy prices only going up from now on and then go back to those first people and ask them how it feels to be living with those energy bills.

People feel scared and helpless against this rising cost and renewable energy and energy efficiency (the green economy) saves them money and over a long period of time.

So it's not just about how we impact the global scale, it's also about how every person can have a choice and start escaping those scary expensive old conventional sources of fuel. It also creates jobs, which is handy.

On the subject ot whether George Osbourne gets this, sadly he doesn't really make any effort to show any human side so we don't know what he really thinks of this point. He is also wealthy and insulated against the effects of it. He and Mr Cameron need to realise their voters are scared and helpless and need better choices to bring back some stability in their lives. The old 20th century thinking and brown sources of fuel are short termist and that's not what people really want.

@Tigone - to me the figures say in the short term we need both, with nuclear making 20% - 30% of the mix initially and then declining as rapidly as renewable expansion will permit - but which will take a lot longer. Mr Monbiot is spot on on this.

People feel scared and helpless against this rising cost and renewable energy and energy efficiency (the green economy) saves them money and over a long period of time.

I don't think this makes things hopeless - when people are scared about interest rates many try and fix their mortgage rates. This usually makes things more expensive short term (and to be honest, on average makes mortgage more expensive long term too - because overall banks don't fix rates that cost them money) but people like the security and knowing what they will be paying for the next x years. On a smaller scale, it is the John Lewis's of this world, rather than the bargain shops, doing well because when money is tight there is reassurance in spending it in a place you trust sells decent quality and will help you out if it goes wrong.

If banks and shops can sell mortgages and white goods this way, it should not be impossible to sell renewables using similar arguments. They remain popular despite the best efforts of many to trash them. But it takes senior Ministers prepared to speak out in their favour - and that does mean Cameron.

Zac is absolutely correct - and politics is the art of the possible.

Where the message one recieves from the environmental lobby is 'however much you do it simply isnt enough - and you are either evil or stupid unless you do everything I tell you to' don't expect to achieve anything much

The problem is the confusion (or is it fusion) between environmentalism and politics in the sense that the 'green party' is seen on the right (that is by about half the population) as the 'watermellon party' - green on the outside and red on the inside - and that 50% of the population - and their elected representatives naturally push back.

The other problem is the exaggeration and simplification of the complex by that same lobby - the Club of Rome report which said we would run out of Oil by 2000 - the spectacular lack of logic and science in discussing the nuclear option - those of us involved with actually achieving change would actually get more done and achieve more without the constant critisism from the unelected and the self richeous!

The other problem is that government tends to allow itself to be talked in to / lobbied to do the wrong thing by the 'green lobby' in defience of science. And when that wrong thing becomes obvious the whole of the environmental argument is dragged into disrepute.

For example, windmills require wind, when the wind doesnt blow then another energy source has to provide that energy - the solution we use is gas power stations which constantly adjust their output to compensate.

Those gas power stations then run at such a low efficiency that the additional emissions which result from that inefficiency cancel out the emissions savings from the windmills!

This is of course expensively stupid - but government can point to the windmills and say 'how green we are' mister lobbyest and we can tick the 'renewables target' box as well - job done!

I suspect I see things a bit differently because I focus on the big picture of what is happening, rather than the fine detail of different policies. If you get too caught up in looking at the trees, you lose sight of the wood. Once you get wrapped up in this policy you completely lose sight of the big picture, and how all the various parts relate to each other.

When it comes to avoiding serious environmental problems it's solely about results. There are no medals for politicians who put up a good show, but who failed to address the problem, or to reverse the trends. In fact it is all about trends. Once a trend starts it gathers momentum.

You would need to have your head buried very deep in the sand to fail to notice that not only is there no positive trend towards addressing environmental problems, but that any positive trends are being reversed. Governments are wriggling out of their environmental commitments and they are pursuing policies which will cause huge problems in the future. The juggernaut of rapidly expanding consumption, fossil fuel burning, population growth all carries on unchecked. In fact it is gathering momentum as politicians poor more petrol onto the fire.

Someone has to be far too wrapped up with their own image, ego and self-justification not to notice or acknowledge this. That Zac Goldsmith fails to acknowledge these trends and the likely consequences, completely destroys any credibility he has to speak on environmental protection. It's apres environmentalism, the equivalent of champagne socialism. This is just about people making themselves feel good, and it's about their self-image. Anyone who genuinely cares about the issue only cares about results and trends, and not about their personal kudos because they made a big public show of saying the right things, and are making a big song and dance about their paltry effort.

For the last 40 years I have heard no end of this self-serving bullshit about how now we understand the problem, we are going to address it. In this time the world's population has doubled, fossil fuel burning grows and grows, we become ever more reliant on this unsustainable economy, it becomes ever more difficult to reverse the trends of what is happening. Yet I am supposed to be appreciative of those who claim they are trying hard, whilst they jet around the world like international playboys. It would be okay if people like Zac Goldsmith were actually achieving something, but they are not. It's like supposed 19th Century philanthropists who employed children in their factories and generally exploited everyone to make huge profits. Then they'd attempt to make themselves feel good by donating a tiny fraction of their wealth towards some public building, which would be named after them. These were vanity projects and not meaningful attempts to change anything. I'm not a Christian but Jesus hit the nail on the head with the widow's mite parable.

Talk about fiddling while Rome burns!

Zac Goldsmith should be concerned about what is happening, not boohooing because some green's have criticised his Tory chums.

The chancellor is not "openly hostile" to green ideas, neither does it help matters to suggest that his mood music is "burn, baby, burn". Claiming so is not keeping it "classy".

He is in a very awkward position, trying to balance a badly teetering economy and is not therefore unable to throw money inefficiently at uneconomic green ideas. To do so would be criminally reckless.

Zac Goldsmith is therefore correct to some extent to criticise certain "green critics" - there's no point attacking the chancellor for not supporting schemes such as ludicrously high wind-power scenarious or inefficient solar power with excessive FITS.

There are points on which the coalition can be reasonably criticised. However, the constant moaning and yearning for a green utopia, especially in these times of austerity, is damaging support for green ideas and hence is actively reducing the pressure on politicians to perform better in this field. See the recent article from Sunny Hundal for a different take on how to improve matters.

at always integrity ... utter nonsense!

It would be okay if people like Zac Goldsmith were actually achieving something, but they are not.

Er -hum ...Zac has done ENORMOUS amounts for the environment. Erstwhile editor of The ecologist ... green policy issues, lots of stuff in his constituency ... Take a look at his website. Take a rain check here. Lets not start criticising each other. isn’t that what the original piece by Zac was about?

In Germany, the FiTs add a few percentage points to a houshold bill. The Germans have norht of 20GW of PV plus wind (from memory) that is somewhat greater than that. They have a substaintial RES industry and it is government policy to develop this industry. The Germans do not just talk about it - they do it.

Whatever you think the Germans have done, their carbon emissions from electricity generation are not impressive - if any country shows how to reduce emissions it is France, whose electricity generation is many times less carbon intensive than Germany's. This has been achieved through nuclear power, and the political decisions made in France to support this energy source (nb - France exports nuclear generated electricity to Germany) should be emulated in the UK. And paradoxically, since coal burning releases vastly more (100x) radioactivity into the environment than nuclear energy, the "radioactive footprint" of France's electricity will be far lower than that of Germany.

calher
6 January 2012 07:58PM

Can you explain why it is nonsense - or is that simply uninformed abuse?

Er -hum ...Zac has done ENORMOUS amounts for the environment. Erstwhile editor of The ecologist ... green policy issues, lots of stuff in his constituency ... Take a look at his website. Take a rain check here. Lets not start criticising each other. isn’t that what the original piece by Zac was about?

You mustn't have read my comment on Zac Goldsmith's article.

met your late uncle Teddy over 20 years ago. Actually he approached me after I spoke at a meeting and asked for my contact details. To tell the truth it was sometimes difficult for me to work out his position on environmental matters, as he had fingers in so many pies, and I admit I never found the Ecologist easy reading. However it's impossible for me to understand how a former editor of the Ecologist can square that perspective, with the immense damage this government is doing to progress on addresing environmental problems.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/discussion/comment-permalink/13994955

If you think Zac Goldsmith has done "ENORMOUS amounts for the environment" I'd suggest that you don't really understand environmental issues. Let's get this very clear, none of us, including me, can be said to have really done anything for the environment, when all the trends keep heading in the wrong direction. We are all failures. But what ruins Zac Goldsmith's credibility, is that instead of acknowledgiing these failures, he seeks to justify and defend himself. The mark of someone who genuinely wants to make a difference, rather using it as PR, is that they acknowledge that no progress has been made. They put the environment before their ego.

I think you'll find it's uniformed abuse, by someone who doesn't like your common sense.

Always integrity ... utter nonsense ... it was a play on words.

Actually, thinking about it, I don’t agree with you all that much either, not your anti wind stuff ... that old chestnut ... but sometimes one has to agree to differ.

I didn't mean to offend you, however. Sorry.

And i’m afraid i have to agree to disagree here too.

We are all failures

No, I don’t think that is so.

I'll just explain my comments a bit further as there appears to be some misunderstanding.

What I perceive to be the biggest single obstacle to making progress in addressing environmental problems is denial. Not so much the denial of our climate change contrarian friends. But denial by those on the environmentalist side. Yes it is necessary to maintain a positive attitude at times to avoid disillusionment and to encourage people to keep on. However, there comes a point when trying to convince yourself that you are making progress ceases to be a positive mental attitude and it becomes denial. I realise my perspective is different than many because I started formulating my own ideas on what was needed to address these problems over 40 years ago when I was very young. This has meant both the problem and the necessary solution has been clear to me for a very long time. Therefore to me it is just putting this into action.

Unfortunately over the last 40 years I have repeatedly seen these optimistic noises, followed by nothing worthwhile happening, and things getting worse.

I'm afraid its not good enough to just say I'm doing my bit any longer. All this stuff about, we are working on it is just denial and procrastination. Most of the environmental problems we face were understood in broad detail 40 years or more ago. There appears to be this mistaken perception that environmental awareness amongst the public only first occurred after the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. This is quite contrary to the evidence. Rachel Carson's Silent Spring - 1962, EF Schumacher's Small is Beautiful - 1973. Watch some of the BBC sitcom The Good Life, which began in 1975.

What changed my perception was that when I was an undergraduated we watched a film/documentary about the history of DDT and matters around it. There was some footage of members of the public being stopped and asked about their opinions on ecology, and environmental damage in the late 1960s in the US. I was amazed at the public awareness.

It is a complete and utter myth that we only realised how serious these problems were within the last 20 years. We do this because we are in denial about how long we've been in denial about the problem. Oh I forgot, Edward Goldsmith founded The Ecologist in 1970. This is rather a long time to fail to make any progress on an issue, which threatens the long term viability of our society. As I say the world population has doubled in the intervening period.

Anyone that consoles themselves that they are doing a good job in helping to solve these environmental problems is kidding themselves when every parameter is continuing to get worse. I am not belittling the efforts of others, no one respects it more than I do.

However, if anyone really cares about addressing these problems, and really making a difference, it is important that they acknowledge the lack of progress. You can only address or resolve a problem if it is acknowledged. If there is denial about the problem it goes unaddressed. If you kid yourself you are making real progress when you are not, you will never be motivated to try and find tactics that will work.

The attitude of Zac Goldsmith that we are working on it is not credible. It is hardly as if we have just discovered these problems and we have all the time in the world to work out a solution. Things are still getting worse. We haven't even halted the accummulating problems, let alone have we reversed the trend of it getting worse. At this rate in another 40 years we will have made no progress, and every parameter will be much worse. However, the most serious problem, is that the further we travel down this unsustainable path, the harder it will become to reform the system to make it run sustainably. I think there is little understanding of just what massive changes are needed to simply check these increasing problems, let alone to roll back this damaging economic model.

I think environmentalists have to make a choice. If they really want to make a difference, there is no time for pussy-footing around any longer. Either we pursue tactics designed to produce real change, or its all just mental masturbation to make us not feel bad. We've heard far more criticism of Ed Milliband by his supposed advisors, than we have heard criticism of this government, Osbourne etc, fro Zac Goldsmith. If Zac Goldsmith is not prepared to be seriously critical of the lack of progress of this government, then he is an apologist for them, and an obstruction to change, and not a facilitator of it. This slowly slowly approach is over 40 years past its sell by date.

Ok, now I hear you. Good, you know your stuff.

Denial. Yes there is lots of that.

However, I think there is progress. i would point you to work at a local level, transition, local currencies, growing schemes, the evolution of community owned renewables, support for small and local business (INCLUDING Zac in his constituency, caroline Lucas in hers etc).

Groundbreaking work on sustainable comms ... futerra, common cause, smartMeme ... changing narratives , independent media etc

and most of all ... most of all ... work on a new economic narrative ... or new economic narratives. crowd sourcing, co-ops and social enterprise, triple bottom line. is it all “new” no, maybe not but the foundations feel firm to me. And perhaps you will agree? I think the economic narrative has to change, Because that is central ... hence my ref to Naomi Klein at top of comments

And i’m afraid i have to agree to disagree here too.

We are all failures

No, I don’t think that is so.

I've no idea what your background or position is because you don't explain anything. However, if you believe yourself to be concerned about the environmental situation, I'm afraid you are in complete denial if you think measures to address environmental problems are not a failure.

Say you had a friend who was addicted to alcohol or heroin, and they kept stealing from you. When you spoke to them about it they promised to address their addiction. But years after making this promise, they were taking twice the amount of heroin or drinking twich as much before. Yet still they demanded you accept that they were working on it and they were going to change. How would you see them? Self-evidently you would see them as in denial.

Yet here we are, well over 40 years after these problems were fairly well understood. We are so addicted to our lifestyles and economic model, that even though we knew what we are doing is suicidal for society, we are powerless to do anything about it. Whilst at the same time a lot of people talk a good un, and act as if they are making real progress on addressing environmental problems. As I say, on every major parameter things are getting worse. The population has doubled, our use of fossil fuels is growing and we are looking to exploit reserves in the Arctic, presumably when climate change gets rid of that pesky ice. All around the world economies are growing, and countires without much of an industrial base in the past are now pumping out ever increasing volumes of CO2. Biodiversity loss is continuing and we are encroaching on more wild habitat all the time. Our ability to support our society is dwindling.

Do you appreciate the cumulative effect of increasing trends over time?

How can anyone who genuinely wants change, not see this as a failure? I don't say this in a negative way, it is positive criticism. Postive criticism is designed to identify what is wrong, so it can be fixed. But first of all you have to acknowledge what the problem is. If we are in denial, and think we are making progress when we are not, we won't be motivated to try and find a more successful approach.

I've often wondered whether many people who claim to be concerned about the environment really want change. Or if they don't really want change. If in fact they want to keep on with their damaging lifestyles, but they make a public show of appearing to do something to make change. I think environmentalism is a hobby for many, but their comfortable lifestyle is really more important to them.

After all this is a clear human failing. Look at dieting and fitness. 2 of the biggest areas of human denial. People are obsessed with dieting and they spend huge amounts of money on diet food, whilst they get ever fatter. They buy gym membership, go a few times and that's it.

My apologies for appearing to be negative. I really appreciate what you and othres are doing. I don't mean to be negative about that. We can do these positive things, whilst also accepting that there if we really want change, we need to also make it clear that far more needs to be done. I know about all these positive things and schemes, I involved myself in some a long time back. I became concerned because it was not expanding.

Im too tired to put forward another cohesive argument. On the surface of it you are right, we are swimming against the tide. But look for the undercurrents, not yet properly surfaced. The central stories, about growth and efficiency and wealth of nations and invisible hands... they are all worn out. They were written in the 18th century. By a small handful of men!

And Don’t tell me we are all failures. My grandad thought I was born with Original Sin ... that’s more than enough damage for one lifetime.

having said all that, I really enjoyed the discussion. Thanks and goodnight.

Two quotes for George Osbourne to muse upon

“The economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment, not the other way around.”

“All economic activity is dependent upon that environment and its underlying resource base of forests, water, air, soil, and minerals. When the environment is finally forced to file for bankruptcy because its resource base has been polluted, degraded, dissipated, and irretrievably compromised, the economy goes into bankruptcy with it.”

For him to pretend that we can somehow continue to grow in the same old dirty, unsustainable and wasteful way is sophistry and magical thinking of a peculiarly bizarre variety.

I have no wish to live a life of want and deprivation - but anyone with a little scientific knowledge who reads up on climate science can see we are in the midst of the biggest crisis humanity has faced for many a century. Quite simply no economy will be safe when Nature presents her bill in rising sea levels, wild weather, food shortages, droughts and floods. This is so obvious that it beggars belief that a finance minister anywhere cannot see this simple truth. Add to that our impacts in pollution of other kinds, our destruction of habitats and priceless landscapes often for mere baubles, and anyone can see we have a problem.

It is also quite clear that under Osbourne's chancellorship no serios attempt will be made to get us onto a path which will reduce the risks of future clamity.

If you doubt my opinion on the urgency of now, have a listen to Professor Kevin Anderson on the crisis here

Good article @DamianCarrington. The thinking person's George Monbiot.

The guilty parties deserve to be named and shamed, because this is primarily a failure of leadership.
Voters were deliberately and systematically deceived by Cameron, the plausible and smooth talking frontman for an economic dinosaur.

spike25
7 January 2012 09:14AM
.. quotes for George Osbourne to muse upon

“The economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment, not the other way around.”

This has been quite obvious since The Limits to Growth 1972 but still has not won the balance of power in decision making circles.

Goldsmith has been cover for Cameron, helping him win power and then being dismissed from influence. Goldsmith is even an apologist for carbon floor policies to facilitate new nuclear build with which he profoundly disagrees.
A hypocritical specimen, from an odious government, only hiding behind the fig leaf that the previous New Labour administration was even more cynical and inept.

We need to move on from left and right.

Economics is in the business of choice in a world of scarce resources.
The age of austerity simply means those choices are tougher, it should not be an excuse to back peddle on environmental commitments. Quite the opposite.

Damian, have you seen this article in the Guardian today?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/travel/2012/jan/06/cheap-long-haul-flights-experts?intcmp=122

How to get cheap long-haul flights

Perhaps the Guardian should put its own eco-house in order if it expects columnists like you to be taken seriously.

Excellent link spike25.

Damian

It may be simple to point to "vested interests" but it is unhelpful sloganising. You have a vested interest in people reading your pieces. Politicians have a vested interest in winning elections. NGOs have a vested interest in gaining more members and funding. And so on.

And whether it be limited to the environment or related to innovation more generally, it is simply not a straightforward or invariable case that "first movers get the biggest advantage". It depends on what you are talking about and the many factors involved in producing and exploiting innovation.

The extent to which you might be able to capture and protect all the "first mover advantagee" from coming up with the perfect mousetrap will for example depend on the extent to which others are able to copy what you have done against your ability to stop that happening, whether that be through legal means - chiefly intellectual property rights, or the practicalities that nobody else can work out what you have done or has the skills, finance or market power to copy it.

It will often be the case that is is "fast followers" who get the biggest advantages if they are able to copy the basic idea but learn from the first mover and avoid initial teething problems in putting it into practice.

why do you believe 20th Century economic thinking is suitable for the 21st Century?

Because, Damian, whilst some things change others do not. Chief among the things that don't change are human nature and the laws of physics.

So often we read and hear the cry "but this is the twenty-first century". Doubtless the same thing was said in the twentieth, nineteenth, eighteenth, and so on. Possibly back to the first dynasty of pharaohs. So what? We are still the same human species.

There's no doubt power generation can be made cleaner, the use of oil reserves made more sensible, and so on. However, resorting to inefficient and expensive methods of power generation will always run up against the same problems in physics - the amount of work, or money, or economic potential (they're all basically different views of the same thing) you have to put in to get a given amount of power out is too high. In economic terms, this means that too much of our economic potential is lost trying to increase our economic potential by that given amount.

It's like spending a pound to save ten pounds - good idea. Spending two pounds to save ten pounds, less good idea. Spending nine pounds to save ten pounds, silly if there is a better way. Spending eleven pounds to save ten, stupid idea. The opportunity cost of many green ideas is simply too high.

As for human nature, we have not yet created a race of selfless and identical drones, therefore the economic system that will work least ineffectively remains one that takes advantage of individualism, selfishness and greed - capitalism. This must of course be reasonably regulated, but the basic principle isn't going to go away.

Even if, say, Europe decides to go green and inefficient, others will not. China, for example, is rampantly capitalistic in its approach to trade. If Europe decides to go down the road of the green welfare economy, that's fine for Europe - but Europe will lose more and more ground to competitors who choose to adopt a more "20th century" approach (which they choose because it does, like or not, actually work).

@AlwaysIntegrity

I'm proud to be a card-carrying 'watermelon' Green, even if I don't agree with quite a few of the party's policies (e.g. nuclear and homeopathy). Historically the problem for the party has been that green issues are still too niche and divisive with voters, so after Labour sold out the left it's no surprise that being open about our 'socialist principles' (thank you Caroline!) has heralded our most successful period as a party yet. The party is far from perfect (see above) but it's moving in the right direction and finally carving out a distinct, and unashamedly left-wing, position for itself. And if you look to other countries where the Greens are now rising fast they aren't the centrist-right Germans or the sell-out Irish, they're the ones who are sticking to what are in may ways 'socialist principles'. Given that, on paper at least, they've been there all along, it's just a pity it's taken so long to get this far.

So let's get this straight:
Guardian CIFers (Sunny Hundal) criticising greens: ok
Tories criticising greens (and for largely the same reasons as Hundal): bad

And then there's the accusation of "trash talk" from Osborne, presumably for his statement about balancing environmental concerns against economic ones (that's his only reference to the environment in his autumn statement).

This accusation is immediately followed by "trash talk" from Carrington about Osborne. Once again it seems like there is one rule for those that "greens" agree with and another rule for those they disagree with.

Such behaviour, while providing some self-satisfaction, does not help the environment.

I won't say too much more, because it is apparent that there is a lot of misunderstaning about what I'm saying and why. What I've said is not negative criticism of Zac Goldsmith. No one would be more appreciative and respectful of Zac Goldsmith if he changed tack, and used his position to influence the very damaging actions of this government to environmental protection.

I understand the concept of working patiently behind the scenes to influence positive change, because I've done it. However, in matters of strategy and tactics, it has to be understood that there is a tipping point, when not only does that not work, but it actually has a negative effect. This is because it gives credibility to the damaging mode of behaviour you supposedly want to change.

As long as Zac Goldsmith could influence Cameron and the Tories to pursue a more enlightened attitude the environment he was doing something useful. However, it's clear that the Conservatives have dropped all their supposed ambitions to make a major change in their policy on the environment, and to become the greenest government ever. It also appears that Cameron has sidelined Zac Goldsmith.

The problem is this. As a former editor of The Ecologist and nephew of Edward Goldsmith, he gives respectablity to the incredibly environmentally damaging policy of this government. Even worse he is bizarrely attempting to mount a clever defence of them against justifiable positive criticism the actions of this government by the responsible environmentally aware.

Given that Zac Goldsmith's influence over Cameron is no longer producing anything worthwhile, the only effective thing Zac Goldsmith can do is to openly criticise this government, and especially Cameron and Osbourne - to shame them into getting back on track to being the supposed "greenest government" ever. Of course this would make him very unpopular with his old Etonian chum. But this is the price you have to pay for actually believing in something. Zac Goldsmith has to decide which is most important, the environment or his good relations with people in this government. It really is a simple as that. Either he grows a pair, or he is doing incredible damage to the environmental cause.

I've no idea what Zac Goldsmith's personal insight is into the environmental situation. But you would have hoped that when he was editor of The Ecologist, he would have at least got some grasp of the massive changes we need to our economic model, to even check the dangerous course we are on, let alone to reverse it. It's a matter of great urgency. If someone decides their good relationships with people damaging the environment, is more important to them than averting serious environmental damage - he is merely a dilettante rich kid playing at being an environmentalist for appearances sake. In other words he wears his evironmentalism, like he wears his expensive clothes. It is skin deep.

What matters with reversing the trends of our damage to the environment is not these little gestures labelled "green" policy, which make no difference to the overall situation. It's what effect environmental concern has on mainstream policy that really matters. If a government has a mainly environmentally damaging mainstream policy, but makes a few gestures in a very compartmentalized area it labels "green" - then this is the very worst sort of meaningless tokenism and gesturing. It misleads people into thinking there is progress, when there isn't any. It's actually far worse than doing nothing.

A government that pretends to want to address the environmental damage being caused by our economic model, but which does nothing meaningful, is muich worse than a government that does nothing, and makes no such claims. At least if a government does nothing, and makes no claims about wanting to address environmental damage, people can see what the problem is, and campaign for change. People become indifferent when the government says we will fix these problems, and they let the government get on with it.

The simple fact is that it is bleeding obvious that Zac Goldsmith has no influence over this government pursuing a more meaningful environmental policy in the current situation. The only meaningul way he could now make a difference is to openly criticise Cameron and Osbourne over what they have done. This would have a lot of impact because Zac Goldsmith is a Conservative MP and a former adviser to Cameron. If Zac Goldsmith chooses not to do this, it is his choice. But if he chooses to do this, and expects to still be treated as someone with anything useful to say on environmental issues, he is living in cloud cuckoo land - because he will simply be seen as a meaningless dilettante without anything useful to say.

Zac Goldsmith has made various pledges to quit if he was unable to achieve certain things. He appears to have back pedalled on this.