Every so often I post something that I found interesting on The Local - a website that gives you news about Sweden in English. I’ve spotted something today that was interesting but also highly appropriate given my latest postings on local politics here in Sheffield.
A study by the Captus think tank in Sweden has concluded that the policies of the Green Party would actually do less for the environment than those of the mainstream parties. The main argument being that Greens tend to oppose economic development and modern technological solutions, despite the fact that both of these can help us to find solutions to environmental issues. Probably the best thing to do is read the article yourself as it sums the issue up quite neatly and is very much where I come from on the Green Party in the UK, even though this article is about the Swedish Green Party.
The article also reminds me of some of the excellent analysis from Joe Otten on why he left the Green Party and joined the Liberal Democrats. A quote from Joe that pretty much sums it up (although I can’t find it now and so I am paraphrasing) is that whereas the Greens look at climate change with panic and despair and jump at the first solution they come across (usually sackcloth and ashes) the Liberal Democrats see it as an opportunity to harness modern technology and innovative solutions to find ways of combating climate change and reducing our impact on the environment, whilst also creating new jobs, opportunities and maintaining a high standard of living.
Many Liberal Democrats see the Green Party as next best after the Liberal Democrats. This is clearly part of the reason the Greens are currently trying to make a pitch for Lib Dem voters to back Sian Berry, their candidate in the London Mayoral election, rather than Brian Paddick. But although Lib Dems should rightly approve of a party putting the environment at the top of the agenda, the whole Green Party approach to the environment and society in general is far from liberal. Given that the Greens have forged an alliance with Ken Livingstone it is clear that they are very much a part of the old-fashioned lunatic left that the Lib Dems oppose. If you see yourself as a liberal (big L or little L) then you should never consider backing the Greens.
12 responses so far ↓
Scott Redding // 5 April 2008 at 12:25 pm
Look, Greens recognise that the economy is a sub-system of the environment. Most people seem to see it as the other way around, that the environment is just another issue to list on election manifestoes.
Anything “economic” is entirely dependent on inputs from the environment.
It is impossible for the economy to outgrow the carrying capacity of the environment. Any attempt to do so will end in catastrophe, but we’re well on our way to testing it out.
So, I think your problem is that you think “economic development” equals “economic growth”, when with relentless GDP growth — with no concern for the planet — the costs to the planet get externalised. The true cost of polluting the atmosphere with carbon dioxide doesn’t get worn by the people actually doing the polluting; rather it is being worn by all of us facing the threat of climate change.
As for Greens not liking modern technology, that’s a pretty vague charge. Do you mean GM crops? Do you mean those new-fangled aeroplanes?
MatGB // 5 April 2008 at 5:00 pm
“the costs to the planet get externalised. The true cost of polluting the atmosphere with carbon dioxide doesn’t get worn by the people actually doing the polluting; rather it is being worn by all of us facing the threat of climate change.”
Which is why we should implement a series of pigouvian taxes on the externalities that effect the true costs, then we can use that money to reduce the cost of beneficial things and people, and especially businesses, will respond to the incentives so that we get growth while helping the environment.
If you’re going to use terms like “externalised” then at least show you understand what they mean and how to deal with it.
Appears you not only dislike modern technology, but modern economics has escaped you as well. Or maybe appearnaces are wrong and your policies actually do reflect this but are just very very very badly written and explained?
Scott Redding // 5 April 2008 at 7:28 pm
Well, I better not comment here again. If I pose my argument in accessible language, I get scorn pourned on me, since I haven’t used £20 words like “pigouvian” …
If you want to look at our policies on the economy, including eco-taxes, you could use something called Google, or you can just follow this link:
http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/mfss/mfssec.html
Joe Otten // 5 April 2008 at 8:05 pm
Yeah, I’ve read that Scott. In fact I think I was a party member and in the conference chamber when it was agreed. I still to be honest struggle to see what it was getting at.
If you want to contract the economy, that is easy. Whack up taxes and pile on regulation. The policy doesn’t say that - instead it seems to be a random mixture of good ideas, banality and bonkers, with no unifying theme.
Richard // 5 April 2008 at 8:53 pm
“It is impossible for the economy to outgrow the carrying capacity of the environment”
Just a restatement of the old left-wing fallacy of the zero-sum game. It is just basic ignorance of admittedly fairly esoteric mathematics, or really rather basic economics. There’s no real excuse for any political party that wants to be taken seriously.
Joe Otten // 5 April 2008 at 8:58 pm
By the way, and just to clarify, joining the Lib Dems was quite a separate decision to leaving the Greens, and there was about 4 years between them. I think if you find yourself in the wrong party, it merits reflection on how that happened before you jump into another one.
Steven Hurdle // 6 April 2008 at 6:19 am
I can’t speak for Swedish or UK Greens, but Canadian Greens have no such compunctions about embracing new technologies or supporting sustainable economic activity. There is no inherent contradiction between being Green and being a good steward of a vibrant economy that maintains a good standard of living for citizens.
Carl Lee // 27 April 2008 at 10:14 am
It is true that an ecological approach to the global economy is not necessarily a ‘liberal’ approach. After all liberalism is predicated on individuals exercising choice and for choice to exist over-supply must exist or there is only choice for those who choose first (the wealthy). It is one of the most interesting tensions in modern ‘green’ politics whether human behaviour can be altered to be less impactful upon the environment and more equitable to all of the worlds citizens by a coercive approach or a voluntary approach. The more I explore this tension the less drawn I am to liberalism although instinctively I am liberal. What do you think? Do you really expect people to do the ‘right’ thing or are we going to have to make them? As George Monbiot observes what does a Green Economy look like- well it looks a bit like an LEDC economy- and who is going to vote for that? Most mainstream politics is broadly greenwash but that is what the electorate want. In a democracy the people get what the people want, and I suspect that may include Paul Scriven as Lib Dem leader of Sheffield Council,a man who fails to recognoise one of the central ideas of sustainability is redistribution from the rich -Dore/Fulwood to the poor Manor/Pitsmoor
Anyway Anders to busy campaigning to update the blog? When you sober up next Friday give us your thoughts on your glourious victory.
Joe Otten // 27 April 2008 at 6:16 pm
A couple of things Carl.
I think Monbiot observes this wrongly. Making ourselves poorer isn’t the answer. There is nothing particularly sustainable about historical ways of doing things - the steam locomotive is grossly inefficient by todays standards. What economic and technological progress has made possible is to sustain larger numbers of people on the same amount of land. You will sustain fewer people, for the same environmental impact, with cheaper, dirtier and lower-tech approaches.
This highly principled redistribution policy of Sheffield Labour is an excuse for not maintaining the roads or parks properly in half of the city. We’re quite happy to support extra funding where it is needed for things like social care and education, but frankly the idea that you will make a difference to poverty by biasing basic infrastructure and essential services spending to the point where house prices rise a little in the poorer areas at the expense of the richer ones is absurd. You’re just redistributing from Lib Dem voting property owners to Labour voting property owners. Yes, it is that shabby.
Back to your big question. Will people do the right thing or must we make them? In general attempts to make people do the right thing lead to tyranny. (Read up on this). Rather what legislators should concern themselves with is making laws against doing the wrong thing. Given that most of what we are told to do ‘for the environment’ is, as you say, greenwash, this is not such a problem. J.S.Mill’s harm principle is entirely up to the task of environmental legislation. Beyond that, you probably agree that people will find the best ways to do things if not told exactly what to do by some “authority”.
Joe Otten // 28 April 2008 at 1:36 pm
Carl,
Actually the most obvious question here is that if poverty is the solution, what is the point of this redistribution from Dore to the Manor? Do you tell the people of the Manor that it is not for their benefit, just to hammer the people of Dore?
Shouldn’t you be looking for ways to redistribute the causes of poverty from the Manor to Dore? Perhaps you could go into King Egberts and disrupt the lessons? Or stand outside the gates and sell drugs?
Where socialists would often feel guilty about being middle class, at the risk of being contemptuous of some of the aspirations of those they purported to represent; greens risk feeling guilty about being human at all, leading to a self-loathing politics that would hammer the poor most of all. Being socialist does not make up for this kind of self-loathing, that gives socialism too much credit.
Carl Lee // 1 May 2008 at 10:08 pm
Blimey what a rant.
I was just offering up a few observations. At no point do I say that I am either a Socialist or a supporter of George Monbiots’ ideas. I have never voted Green in my life. Mind you I might.
Anyway you completely mis-understand the point that Monbiot refers to. This is a macro-idea. If we in the UK consume somewhere in the region of 3.8 ‘planets’ of resources to sustain our lifestyles (that is to say if everybody lived like us that is how many planets worth of resources it would take to sustain us all at that level) then the scale of redistribution, if we are to even edge towards some form of global equity, would have substantial consequences on the material living standards of people whether they lived in Dore or Darnall.
Why do you think I need to look up what tyranny is? Or is this how you try to persuade people towards your arguments? Humm!
Have a nice day Joe,
Oh and by the way What Do You Think Anders?
Joe Otten // 2 May 2008 at 8:00 pm
I’m not suggesting you should look up what tyranny is, just that there is a lot that has been said on the idea that when governments try to make people good, that leads to tyranny. Saying “read up” was perhaps a little brusque of me. But my intention was just to refer to that kind of argument rather than rehashing it here.
I find Monbiot’s concept of ‘resources’ quite gross. There is land, water, fossil fuels, metals, etc, and the issues for each are different. Water is renewable. Many metals are superabundant in the earth’s crust. The others are more limited, but even here resource use does not equal prosperity. The poor world will get a fairer share of the use of the limited resources only by prospering, and much of it has done so in the last 50 years. This has not made us any poorer.
Leave a Comment