Conservative 'Green Revolution' in Britain

[bellyscratch]

Just want to know people's thoughts about this.


David Cameron today unveiled plans for a "revolution" in Britain's green economy which he said would slash the country's carbon emissions (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/carbonemissions), guarantee energy supplies and create hundreds of thousands of new jobs.
The Tory plans would see a national network of plug-points in the streets for electric cars, a £1 billion modernisation of the electricity grid with smart meters in every home and a new right to £6,500 worth of insulation for every household in the country.
A Conservative Green Paper for a low-carbon future also set out plans for a national network of wind-farms in large-scale Marine Energy Parks as well as high-speed rail links between North and South and a national nuclear waste site to clear the way for new atomic power plants.
Tories said their plans would allow the UK to hit its 2050 target of 80% cuts in CO2. It would be "selfish, irresponsible and morally wrong" not to make the investment now to ensure that future generations are spared the effects of global warming, said the Green Paper.
Cameron said that the changes would transform the energy industry in the same way the internet has transformed communications, paving the way for a "genuinely low-carbon world".
Key to the Tory proposals, launched today in an internet webcast by Cameron, is the creation of a "smart" National Grid, adding computer intelligence to a system currently using technology dating back to the 1950s.
The smart grid would permit consumers to use energy in the most efficient way, and even feed surplus power generated by solar panels or home-based wind turbines back into the grid, said Tories.
It would allow the creation of a national recharging network, with roadside plug-points, enabling Britain to "lead the world" in switching from traditional petrol and diesel vehicles to electric models.
And it would make it easier for electricity suppliers to tap into energy from renewable sources like tidal and wind power and biogas.
Meanwhile, householders would be entitled to improve the energy efficiency (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/energyefficiency) of their homes with cavity wall or roof insulation, paying back the cost over a period of up to 25 years.
Because consumers can expect immediate reductions of around £160 a year on gas and electricity bills, Tories expect that the repayments will be significantly outweighed by savings.
A Tory government would also require carbon capture and storage technology to be fitted to all new coal-fired energy plants and would introduce new biogas plants using rubbish and farm waste to generate power to heat homes.
Shadow energy secretary Greg Clark, said: "What we are proposing today is nothing less than an environmental and energy revolution, which would make Britain a world leader in moves towards creating a low carbon economy. It is a plan that will help create hundreds of thousands of jobs, raise skills and improve Britain's competitiveness.
"No longer will we need to be overly dependent on imported fossil fuels from unstable countries. Instead our electricity and heating will come from a wider range of more dependable and renewable sources, which will encourage innovative energy sources to be developed. This will help guarantee our energy security, reduce our carbon emissions and do all we can to protect the future.
"We will offer real help for families struggling to make ends meet during Labour's recession. A Conservative government would enable every household to have up to £6,500 worth of insulation fitted in their house, at no up-front cost, which would mean instant reductions in energy bills and would dramatically cut the carbon footprint of every home in Britain."
Conservatives (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/conservatives) said that under their plan Britain's lighting and electronics, as well as most of its machinery, trains and cars, can be powered by low-carbon electricity by 2050.



Source (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/16/tory-green-paper)


I very much welcome the proposals brought up by the Tories, and as it seems like they will make up the next government in this country, hope they will carry through with these proposals. But it seems quite threatening to the left as this is being lapped up by the media and giving the impression that we can have not only an environmentally friendly capitalist society, but one with a right wing government in charge. Its a hard situation, because by the time the public see that these changes can't solve the environmental destruction caused by the capitalist system, the situation could be beyond repair.

I think we should be in a situation where the left are sucking in activists from the environmental movement, but I don't see it happening. And at the same time many people may be fooled by this.

Any thoughts?

[Cunning_plan]

Hi guys I'm new here :), 20 year old lefty from Bath studying environmental science, that aside...

The tories green energy plans have been scaring me for a long time. After looking into it a lot more... I think its crap. Anyone can make plans for 40 years time when chances are they'll be dead! The ideas suggested do not correlate very strongly with the major ideas being thrown around regarding green energy production and utilisation in the UK.

Whilst I agree changes need to be made to infrastructure and that some wind power needs to be utilised I just don't think electric plugs in the streets is the answer. The tories are following the traditional mentality of "science will find an answer". For the now the best chance for a green UK is to go nuclear. It drives me mad that due to CND's linking to the left most old school "green" people are anti nuclear often without much to back up their beliefs. Anyhow, I'm heading off on a tangent.

I think the tories nuclear plans sound good in theory but are flawed and skim around the major issues. They're simply skipping around the issues making demands they have no chance of fulfilling. Oh and I especially liked the credit crunch snub at labour and the offer of 25 year loans in the same section!

[ComradeOm]

I think we should be in a situation where the left are sucking in activists from the environmental movementUmm... why? Personally I'd prefer to see "the left" ignoring such distractions and focusing on its core constituents - that working class. If environmental activists are ready to join the Tories then surely this says a lot about both greens and the cause they espouse?

[Vanguard1917]

Umm... why? Personally I'd prefer to see "the left" ignoring such distractions and focusing on its core constituents - that working class. If environmental activists are ready to join the Tories then surely this says a lot about both greens and the cause they espouse?

I.e. the inherently conservative nature of the green movement...

[OneNamedNameLess]

Umm... why? Personally I'd prefer to see "the left" ignoring such distractions and focusing on its core constituents - that working class. If environmental activists are ready to join the Tories then surely this says a lot about both greens and the cause they espouse?

Well, the capitalist system is highly responsible for the state of the planet. I wouldn't go as far as saying that this is a distraction, with all due respect. The left dedicates a lot of time to movements such as anti-racism and sexism. Would you call this a distraction? It doesn't directly relate to the struggle of the working class.

In addition, the left can use climate change as another criticism of capitalism. This is not the sole reason why I am an environmentalist but we can use it to our advantage.

Implementing green energy plans could also decrease living costs therefore benefiting underprivileged families and simultaneously creating thousands of secure jobs. The destruction of the Amazon is creating major problems for it's indigenous inhabitants. I could ramble on all day about this. I hope you get my point.

The situation with the Tories is quite alarming. I believe they are attempting to entice the growing number of voters concerned about climate change. Anyway, despite Cameron's proposals, it's still between either Labour or Conservative which remains a major concern.

[bellyscratch]

I.e. the inherently conservative nature of the green movement...

sorry, but that is a ridiculous comment. I think you need to get with the times and adapt to the current political climate instead of dismissing the green movement as conservative

[Vanguard1917]

In addition, the left can use climate change as another criticism of capitalism. This is not the sole reason why I am an environmentalist but we can use it to our advantage.



One must ask, what are your other reasons for being an environmentalist? At the centre of the environmentalist movement is a great deal of hostility towards industrial development and the spectre of mass prosperity.

As Marxists, we do want measures to address climate change. For example, we would like to see far greater investment in things like nuclear power and, perhaps, hydroelectric power, so that we're not so reliant on the more polluting sources of energy like coal and oil, and so that we can produce an abundance of energy to fuel the massive industrial development which the world requires. Of course, environmentalists are often in the forefront of campaigns against such developments, and they call for measures to restrain economic development in general.

As Marxists, we can't see such a position as reconcilable with our demands for a far more developed and wealthy world. In fact, we see such a position as highly conservative and, in key aspects, reactionary.

[bellyscratch]

Umm... why? Personally I'd prefer to see "the left" ignoring such distractions and focusing on its core constituents - that working class. If environmental activists are ready to join the Tories then surely this says a lot about both greens and the cause they espouse?

Don't really think I need to add much more to what Green Socialist said

[ComradeOm]

The situation with the Tories is quite alarming. I believe they are attempting to entice the growing number of voters concerned about climate changeI'm going to invert your post somewhat because this is the crux of the issue and was the real thrust behind my earlier post. Regardless of the role of environmentalism in relation to capitalism or communism, speaking practically it is simply not a major concern amongst the working class. There is a general goodwill towards people being "more green", and so forth, but I have yet to meet a single worker, certainly not on the factory floor, who would rank the environment over the more immediate and pressing economic and social concerns

Now in Ireland this readily apparent from voting patterns with our Green Party being almost entirely supported by the petite-bourgeoisie. From what I've read the situation, especially in this current economic climate, is not vastly different abroad and it is these middle class voters that Cameron is attempting to attract with this programme. Green policies are not central to proletarian interests, they are not necessarily contrary to capitalist interests, and so they can safely be adopted by the Tories. I don't mean to provide a tautology, but if the Conservatives can smoothly move into this area - and they've been positioning themselves as green for a while now - then its a fairly damning indictment of its supposedly progressive nature

In short, the odds are that anyone who votes Tory because of these environmental plans is not going to be a great loss to the labour (small 'l') movement. Workers will still vote and act according to their practical daily concerns and challenges. Its the latter that we would be paying attention to and not environmental activists


The left dedicates a lot of time to movements such as anti-racism and sexism. Would you call this a distraction? It doesn't directly relate to the struggle of the working classActually both those examples directly impact the working class, largely because historically it has borne the brunt of racist and sexist attitudes. Such campaigns produce concrete results that directly benefit proletarians - establishing that a black/female worker is still a worker, and no different from white/male colleges, is a hugely important prerequisite for united action. In contrast there's no real class basis for campaigning against climate change or the like. If there were then you would not see David Cameron endorsing it*

Don't get me wrong, I'm not particularly opposed to environmental causes as long as they do not detrimentally impact industrial growth but frankly its a peripheral concern, to me, when compared to the likes of workers' rights or organised labour. That's why I'm a communist and not an environmentalist

* You'll also note that on both racism and sexism the record of the Tories is very dodgy. Even today there are many of the Conservative old guard who find it much easier to endorse lowering their carbon footprint (even if they may not know what this is!) than a young black man or woman


In addition, the left can use climate change as another criticism of capitalism. This is not the sole reason why I am an environmentalist but we can use it to our advantageTo which the obvious riposte is that its a by-product of the fantastic industrial growth of the past two centuries. Indeed capitalists now take the environment very seriously indeed, thank you very much, as ably demonstrated by Mr Cameron ;)

The exploitation of wage labour is a uniquely working class criticism, and is central to the capitalist mode of production, the state of the environment is neither


-----

As an aside, has anyone noticed how the environment has almost completely fallen off the political radar since recession set in? :lol:

[OneNamedNameLess]

Yes I have.

The recession will inevitably force the country to become greener. People will have to reduce food waste, travel less, consumerism will decline and so on. The recession is a victory for environmentalists and we didn't even fight for it :D

[butterfly]

Comrade Om, I see where you're coming from (your explination is much clearer than VG's) however do you think working class support for the movement may increase as the effects become more evident?
As this is an occurance that will decrease the quality of life for billions over the coming decades...

[Vanguard1917]

Yes I have.

The recession will inevitably force the country to become greener. People will have to reduce food waste, travel less, consumerism will decline and so on.

And you feel these are positive consequences of recession? People becoming poorer is a good thing as far as the environment is concerned...

[butterfly]

Consumer culture may become less of a what has become a pseudo-necessity if economic circumstances are temporarily hampered.
People becoming poorer is by no means a positive occurrence and is not advocated nor supported by the large majority within the environmental movement, however it is factual that the recession is encouraging people to think twice about buying that new car.
On the other hand it can be considered a significant set-back as governments focus of the recovery of banks, rather than investing in large-scale technological transition.

[Vanguard1917]

Consumer culture may become less of a what has become a pseudo-necessity if economic circumstances are temporarily hampered.
People becoming poorer is by no means a positive occurrence and is not advocated nor supported by the large majority within the environmental movement, however it is factual that the recession is encouraging people to think twice about buying that new car.

And you feel that that is a good thing? Increased poverty, which is restraining people's ability to consume, is a positive phenomenon?

[butterfly]

Once again you are twisting my words.
I don't advocate increased poverty, an individuals quality of life is primary, and does not necessitate infinite levels of consumption.

[Vanguard1917]

Once again you are twisting my words.
I don't advocate increased poverty, an individuals quality of life is primary, and does not necessitate infinite levels of consumption.

I didn't say anything about 'infinite levels of consumption'. The reality is that working class people's ability to consume is restrained in a massive way by the poverty that they experience under the capitalist system. That's part of the reason why we want a better system.

If working people's ability to consume products, go on holidays and drive their cars is restricted by their increased poverty, then their quality of life has been reduced, while their 'impact on the environment' may have been reduced also.

Is this something to be seen as a positive development?

[butterfly]

I didn't think an individuals lack of private transport was an indication of poverty.
As a pointed out it is not a possitive occurance because
a. The govenment is caught up in bailing out big buisness rather than investing in reasearch and contruction.
b. A transition to reneables should be the priority for the environmental agenda. Focusing on a reduction in consumption can breed hostility (evidently) and has very little effect in contrast.
I would rather see working people with an abundant supply of renewable energy to enable more people to lead any lifestyle they wish.

The true victims are not those who cannot afford to buy another car, but those who struggle to provide for their families and I fear that this section of the population will increase with desertification, acidification, rising sea levels etc.

[Vanguard1917]

I didn't think an individuals lack of private transport was an indication of poverty.

Of course it is, if it's caused by a drop in working people's income.



As a pointed out it is not a possitive occurance because
a. The govenment is caught up in bailing out big buisness rather than investing in reasearch and contruction.
b. A transition to reneables should be the priority for the environmental agenda. Focusing on a reduction in consumption can breed hostility (evidently) and has very little effect in contrast.
I would rather see working people with an abundant supply of renewable energy to enable more people to lead any lifestyle they wish.

So you recognise that what 'Green Socialist' was saying, whether it was meant to be sarcastic or not, is nothing to be defended (see quote below)?



The recession will inevitably force the country to become greener. People will have to reduce food waste, travel less, consumerism will decline and so on. The recession is a victory for environmentalists and we didn't even fight for it :D


On the contrary, the recession will have a seriously negative impact on working people precisely because it will place even greater restrictions on their ability to consume.

Hopefully you realise that.

[butterfly]

It's great to see someone so aware of the current state of the environment and what this means to working class people in the long-term, but that approach is not something to be defended because I don't define the resulting long-term consequences of the recession as a victory in advancing the cause.
It is easy to interpret it in that way though.

[Lynx]

Meanwhile, householders would be entitled to improve the energy efficiency of their homes with cavity wall or roof insulation, paying back the cost over a period of up to 25 years.
Because consumers can expect immediate reductions of around £160 a year on gas and electricity bills, Tories expect that the repayments will be significantly outweighed by savings.
[...]
"We will offer real help for families struggling to make ends meet during Labour's recession. A Conservative government would enable every household to have up to £6,500 worth of insulation fitted in their house, at no up-front cost, which would mean instant reductions in energy bills and would dramatically cut the carbon footprint of every home in Britain."
Compared with the paltry incentives we have in much colder Canada, the above sounds like a dream come true.

[Vanguard1917]

It's great to see someone so aware of the current state of the environment .

LOL, is it? So aware that he's celebrating the poverty and austerity that recession is going produce for millions of working people?



and what this means to working class people in the long-term, but that approach is not something to be defended because I don't define the resulting long-term consequences of the recession as a victory in advancing the cause.
It is easy to interpret it in that way though


Oh right, so the reason you don't defend his view is because you don't feel that recession and poverty will advance environmentalism.

In other words, if recession and poverty did indeed have positive effects on the environment, you would feel different.

How about a human-centred view, one which considers the terrible effects that recession is going to have on human beings, precisely as a result of the further restrictions which it's going to place on their ability to consume?

[ComradeOm]

Comrade Om, I see where you're coming from (your explination is much clearer than VG's) however do you think working class support for the movement may increase as the effects become more evident?Just to clarify that on the issue of class basis of green politics, based on past discussions at least, I'm largely in agreement with VG. Barring some scientific breakthrough, any meaningful measures to limit environmental damage caused by industry are inevitably going to add to product costs and thus be detrimental to economic growth. Now, the professional class remains largely unaffected by this and the bourgeoisie can often move factories to developing nations, but obviously your average worker cannot follow suit and move to India or China. It is thus the working class that shoulders the burden of any economic measures designed to improve the environment. And this is the class that can least afford it!*

So, no. It is going to take a major environmental catastrophe – a real clear, present, and immediate danger – for environmental concerns to entrench themselves amongst the working class. I don't see that ever happening, in the foreseeable future at least, certainly not when supported by neo-Malthusian arguments that demand a drop in living standards. The causes, concerns, and priorities of labour and the environment are just very different and at times mutually exclusive

*Its worth noting that in Ireland the tradition Green response to such an obvious issue has been to waffle on about the country becoming a "post-industrial society", or even worse, a "information economy". That is a society where all that inconveniently dirty manufacturing has been minimised or eliminated entirely and everyone is working in an eco-friendly office job. Today, with foreign capital streams drying up and the housing market effectively dead, we are seeing this dream collapse in dramatic and, for the workers, extremely costly fashion. Needless to say, the environment is the last thing on most peoples' minds these days

[Vanguard1917]

So, no. It is going to take a major environmental catastrophe – a real clear, present, and immediate danger – for environmental concerns to entrench themselves amongst the working class. I don't see that ever happening, in the foreseeable future at least, certainly not when supported by neo-Malthusian arguments that demand a drop in living standards. The causes, concerns, and priorities of labour and the environment are just very different and at times mutually exclusive

According to the general environmentalist conception of environmental wellbeing -- which is essentially that of an environment which is as free from human interference as possible -- then you're right: the interests of humanity and those of 'nature' can, according to such a definition, be nothing other than mutually exclusive.

However, if we take a human-centred view and argue that the wellbeing of our material surroundings should be evaluated according to how well suited they are for human inhabitation, then economic development is not 'bad' for the environment in the way that greens claim it is. Indeed, we could argue that our natural environment has never before in human history been better suited for human inhabitation than it is today, in key part thanks to economic development. Where industrial, technological and scientific progress has taken place, humanity is objectively better equipped to deal with natural threats than ever before. Poor societies, on the other hand, where industy is basically non-existent, where social infrastructure is weak, and where the 'human carbon footprint' is most minimal, are places where humanity is most vulnerable to the destructive aspects of nature.

That's why, in contrast to the backward-looking, misanthropic policy of environmentalist ideology, we need to insist that the only long-term solution to environmental problems can be further progress, social and economic.

Our position is therefore a forward-looking one with radical implications. Theirs is one in which we merely need to restrain ourselves and lower our ambitions for a richer, more developed world. Hence the inherently conservative nature of their movement and outlook. Its class base, which you described well, is both a reflection and a cause of this.

[butterfly]

LOL, is it? So aware that he's celebrating the poverty and austerity that recession is going produce for millions of working people?

That's your interpretation. See you seem to define poverty and austerity as not owning what would currently be considered to be for a privileged minority from a global perspective.
A minority that will only shrink with our failure to combat Climate Change.


Oh right, so the reason you don't defend his view is because you don't feel that recession and poverty will advance environmentalism.

Yes basically...or revolution for that matter. You seem to think the former would like to see poverty, when actually the movement is centred on fighting against the likelihood of an increase in these devastating circumstances.


In other words, if recession and poverty did indeed have positive effects on the environment, you would feel different.

Once again, twisting my words. It would be great if you'd put such devotion into portraying the bourgeoisie in such a light, then we might be getting somewhere.


How about a human-centred view, one which considers the terrible effects that recession is going to have on human beings, precisely as a result of the further restrictions which it's going to place on their ability to consume?
Human centred:lol: You need to reflect on where your priorities lie, assuming that you value science on any level.
And please once you know what you're talking about offer an alternative to neo-Malthusians.

Climate change and environmental damage are placing restrictions on our ability to consume, the prospect of revolution, capacity for progress and general quality of life.
You have said that you don't see revolution occurring in your lifetime so why don't you display some concern for the human being you're fighting for.

[butterfly]

Barring some scientific breakthrough, any meaningful measures to limit environmental damage caused by industry are inevitably going to add to product costs and thus be detrimental to economic growth.
The renewable energy sector is constantly improving and becoming more cost efficient. This is a small price to pay for future prosperity.


Now, the professional class remains largely unaffected by this and the bourgeoisie can often move factories to developing nations, but obviously your average worker cannot follow suit and move to India or China. It is thus the working class that shoulders the burden of any economic measures designed to improve the environment. And this is the class that can least afford it!*
This is the scenario one may envisage as environmental catastrophe tears through communities least equip to deal with the effects whilst the bourgeoisie remains largely unaffected.


So, no. It is going to take a major environmental catastrophe – a real clear, present, and immediate danger – for environmental concerns to entrench themselves amongst the working class.
The environmental catastrophe is Climate Change, how it manifests itself in the future is highly debatable, however it does present the real, clear, present and immediate danger you describe.


So, no. It is going to take a major environmental catastrophe – a real clear, present, and immediate danger – for environmental concerns to entrench themselves amongst the working class. I don't see that ever happening, in the foreseeable future at least, certainly not when supported by neo-Malthusian arguments that demand a drop in living standards. The causes, concerns, and priorities of labour and the environment are just very different and at times mutually exclusive

The consequences will affect labour to a great extent. This is by no means to be determined by any neo-Malthusian action against the working class but, for example, lack of fertile soil.
They are by no means mutually exclusive.

[Vanguard1917]

That's your interpretation.

Not really an interpretation at all. Green Socialist said that 'the recession is a victory for environmentalists', and he welcomed the fact that 'People will have to reduce food waste, travel less, consumerism will decline and so on'.

In other words, people will be poorer as a result of recession and this is a 'victory' for environmentalism.



See you seem to define poverty and austerity as not owning what would currently be considered to be for a privileged minority from a global perspective.


Yes, a reduction in one's abiltity to consume goods and services is obviously a key part of the definition of increased poverty, at least from a materialist POV. You are, of course, free to form your own notion of what poverty is.

Socialists want a world where everyone is wealthier, where there is mass prosperity, so that the world as a whole can enjoy increased living standards.

Greens, like yourself, on the other hand, feel that even the immensely modest levels of mass consumption in the West are already too high, and some even welcome recession on the grounds that it will bring about mass austerity.



Once again, twisting my words.


In what way?



Climate change and environmental damage are placing restrictions on our ability to consume, the prospect of revolution, capacity for progress and general quality of life.



In what way?



You have said that you don't see revolution occurring in your lifetime


No i haven't. Making things up now?



Human centred:lol: You need to reflect on where your priorities lie, assuming that you value science on any level.
And please once you know what you're talking about offer an alternative to neo-Malthusians.



What exactly are you talking about?



The renewable energy sector is constantly improving and becoming more cost efficient.


Obviously it's not cost efficient enough, otherwise it would have long replaced non-renewable sources, which are, at the moment, clearly superior in terms of their ability to produce energy in an efficient way.

And you haven't really addressed ComradeOm's point, have you?



This is the scenario one may envisage as environmental catastrophe tears through communities least equip to deal with the effects


And the reason that such 'communities' are poorly equipped to deal with natural threats is their poverty and lack of economic and social development.

[Coggeh]

Obviously it's not cost efficient enough, otherwise it would have long replaced non-renewable sources, which are, at the moment, clearly superior in terms of their ability to produce energy in an efficient way.

Sorry to interupt the debate you had going , I don't even really delieve in Humans causing climate change but what you said is still untrue .

The fact that renewable energy isn't advanced enough isn't why we don't see it.For example just look at what GM did to the electric car ? and why they did it.

The drive in capitalism for short term profit is completely disturbing the advancement and the implementing of the renewable energy.