Chiltern Green Party

We stand at the precipice. The actions we take or fail to take in the next few years could well determine the kind of world our future our children and grandchildren will face. Will it be business as usual, or will Britain be lurching from crisis to crisis, flood to flood? Will we be facing the prospect of the permanent presence of "the wrong kind of snow" as the Atlantic conveyor, that brings the UK its temperate climate, turns off as a result of the melting of the ice caps? Imagine in forty years standing in the dock:- "What did you do about global warming, Daddy? What you, Mummy?"

Vulcan logic

Is this alarmist? I really can't tell you the answer to that question. But I believe it to be one of the most important questions we face today. Mr Spock of Star Trek would have no difficulty in dealing with it. The following steps would be impeccably logical:

1. Decide whether the threat posed by global warming was as serious as the majority of climatologists say it is.
2. If we think it is, decide whether we can do anything about it. It is indisputably in all our interests to do so.
3. If we think we can do something about it, then do it.

All too human

We are not Vulcans but humans, and suffer from all-too-human frailties. One of the main problems is that we appear to have lost our desire to learn the truth. In an information-rich world of 24-hour media and internet any view becomes arguable. What passes for political debate is not debate at all in any real sense. Instead, participants see argument as merely a constraint: the rules they must adhere to in a game whose aim is to come out smelling the best. The idea that we could learn from the arguments of another would create, in this world, a dangerous precedent. All participants know they will not change their beliefs as a result of anything that is said, and any wavering is a sign of weakness. That there might be anything more important at stake than winning the game of politics is rarely considered. Our political attitudes are like fashion accessories; just an expression of how we like to see ourselves. An attack on them is an attack on us, and must be repelled.

The spectator hoping to form their opinions as a result of this spectacle often simply leaves bewildered by it all. But what is always communicated is the lack of any real sense of importance in any of it. It might as well be football, and football is more fun. Before we know it a creeping apathy pervades.

We need to ask questions of ourselves. And we need to ask them is a way that changing one's mind about something remains an option. This is how we would behave in a crisis; we would help each other, and learn from each other.

Crisis? What crisis?

But is this a crisis? Is global warming a reality?

First of all it's important to consider what is and what is not in question. That global temperatures are rising few would dispute: it's measurable, it's been measured, and they are. Second, concentrations of carbon in the atmosphere are also rising - that's measurable too. The reason why we have a temperate climate and Mars doesn't is largely because of the greenhouse effect of CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 is a by-product of burning fossil fuels, and significant warming appears to have taken place since the industrial revolution. Borehole analysis tells us that temperatures rose 2 degrees Fahrenheit between 1750 and 2000 and has been increasing at a rate of 7 degrees Fahrenheit per century since 1990.

It's difficult to ascertain whether sceptics accept all this because they rarely focus on it. Instead they argue that you can't be sure that man-made emissions account for the rises in temperature. Indeed you can't, but overwhelming scientific opinion is that they do. Moreover, if we are not responsible for global warning then conversely there's nothing we can do about it. But if so, then Dad's Army's Fraser was right and "we're doomed!"

Alternatively, they argue that you can't accurately predict what's going to happen (despite the overwhelming scientific consensus that we can have a pretty good idea). But would they not hold a child's hand in a busy street? If there was even a chance that this simple precaution might avoid a tragedy most of us would take it. I may not quite have the ears or the green blood, but I can't fault the Vulcan logic: if there's something we think we can do we should do it.

Join the crowd

Now we're not the only party to go "Global warming blah terrible blah most serious issue facing mankind blah blah". They're all at it. But that is where it is where it is essential to go and look at the actual policies that are being put forward to see which ones present the most joined-up approach to dealing with this. It's no surprise that our emissions targets are more stringent than other parties, but it's not that that I want to focus on. Anyone can have targets, the question is: will your other policies allow these targets to be met?

The fundamental difference between Green thinking and those of the other parties relates (perhaps surprisingly) to the economy. The predominant thinking tends to regard the workings of the economy on a par with that of the operation of the sun and the stars: we do not. Despite the fact that we have undoubtedly lost control of it, the global economy is not a fact of nature but man-made. Our ambition should be to bring it back under our control, not to operate to its dictates.

A properly functioning economy would reward activities that were beneficial to humanity and punish those that were not. Yet we continue to function according to the principle of economic growth irrespective of what activities this "growth" consists of. Clearing up an oil-spillage or responding to a road traffic accident all have a positive effect on GNP. We might all be close to suffocation as a result of the proliferation of plastic bags, but imagine what effect a severe reduction in demand would have on the plastic bag production industry!

We could, of course, interfere but we choose not to. In the grip of an uncritical and utopian view that free trade will solve all the problems of our economy and is the answer to world poverty (a view promoted relentlessly by the big business interests it most benefits) the three older parties all pursue courses which forfeit our rights to govern. Even UKIP who laughably call themselves an "independence" party while queuing up to join NAFTA (just another sovereignty-overriding agreement, but it's OK because the Americans are in charge not the Europeans) follow this demented line.

Real answers lie close to home

The Green answer - and the next "big idea" that just isn't being discussed in anything like the seriousness that it deserves - is localisation. The idea is that where possible you try to source things locally and create the economic conditions that reward local supply. Over time this results in greater domestic diversification, and a stronger emphasis on farming and manufacture, and less on service and finance.

Earnings would be engineered to reflect the social and ecological benefit of a trade or a profession, not just its financial influence. (A Martian reviewing the way we currently reward people would conclude that we did not value nurses or teachers particularly highly, but it was clearly essential that we look after people that gamble other people's money on the stock exchange).

To achieve all this you would need increased financial controls, stringent resource taxation, subsidies (particularly for organic farming as part of the health budget), and (cross yourself before daring to suggest it) tariffs. No, we don't want a return to old-style beggar-thy-neighbour protectionism, but it needs to be understood that if businesses become uncompetitive as a result of setting higher environmental or labour standards they should be "recompetitivised" (a term that would make even the current US president blanche).

The environmental costs of mass transportation of goods we can produce for ourselves can no longer be borne. Yet we are continually told that ever-expanding air traffic (the fastest contributor to global warming) is essential for our economy. On a human scale this makes no sense. Who wants another runway close to them just to satisfy our (apparently) insatiable desire for kumquats?

Closing the circle

And this is where the great irony is most evident. Scepticism about global warming, like anything else these days, is arguable. It benefits from more exposure than it deserves because people are afraid to believe the alternative. Yet the avoidance of the alternatives along Green party lines would bring so many benefits to society that now seems missing: a thriving local economy, fresher more natural food, working closer to home, less congestion, less stressful more secure working conditions, a greater sense of community (gasp for breath).

And so many Green reforms are just plainly not difficult. Why doesn't every new home have a solar panel at the very least to heat its water? Why are we not investing more in renewable energy when the economic advantages (aside from purely environmental ones) are so blindingly obvious? But if your answer to the question about what you did about global warming was to blame the politicians I'd like you to consider the following:-

The Green Party's Manifesto for Sustainable Society has no section on "Rights", per se. It does, however, have one called "Rights and Responsibilities". This is because we think the two go hand in hand. Consider, then, your right to vote. Is it not only your right but also your responsibility to ensure proper governance for now and for the future? If so, it's no good saying "I didn't vote for any of them because they were all etc etc ":- you need to back someone or stand yourself.

It's you or never

This election can be an election about ideas, but it is up to you to make it so. The older parties remain simply interchangeable caretakers for the big-business status quo, with nothing more of substance to offer. Good ideas can find their own majority, but they need nurturing. So the call is to do something more considered and contribute to a pressure - a "mood-swing" if you like. Anyone who has ever taken to the streets (or written a letter) to protest knows what this is about.

Voting Green contributes to an enduring mood-swing towards sustainability and global justice. Be proud to be part of that movement.

Nick Wilkins

Page 1 of 2  > >>