Left wing? Right wing? or just green?

Martyn Williams

04 July 2011

It looks like left-wing, anti-capitalist environmentalists are in for a bad week. This weekend's papers had plenty of reviews of Mark Lynas' new book The God Species - and the book's controversial themes will probably fuel discussion programmes for a while.

 Lynas complains that the green movement has been hijacked by the left, and as such has headed down a dead end road.  Painting all 'greenies' as radicals with ideas that the general public will never accept is  an easy criticism, but is it really true?

 Here's why I don't think so.

 Our right-wing friends

 At Friends of the Earth we work with politicians from all parties to get the job done. For example, the first major campaign I ran at Friends of the Earth in 1999 involved working very closely with Conservative MP David Amess. David was not just an unashamed Thatcherite MP, but a virtual hate figure on the left after 1992 TV footage of him grinning as he won his Basildon seat signalled another five years of Conservative rule under John Major.

Or there is the Climate Change Act - much of which was the product of a very close working relationship between Friends of the Earth and leading Conservatives like Oliver Letwin, David Cameron, Greg Barker and Peter Ainsworth.  Of course politicians of other parties were involved as well - but there is no doubt that close and constructive working with the largest opposition party paid enormous dividends.

 Our market-driven philosophy

But do these occasional dalliances with the right just mask an underlying philosophy that remains anti-capitalist?  Not really.

We regularly campaign for market mechanisms like the feed-in tariff to encourage more people and businesses to invest in renewable energy systems. (That one was again in conjunction with Conservative MPs). Rather than central planning or diktat, we support a measure that goes with the grain of the market to encourage more energy is produced from clean, green sources.

Often we are arguing (just as industry does) against market distortion - such as our long running demand that VAT is cut on energy saving products. We've had some success here. But the fact remains that if you have a leaky loft, you pay just 5 per cent VAT on fuel you waste by doing nothing to fix it.  But if you go to B&Q to buy insulation to put it right you'll pay 20 per cent VAT.

The wider "polluter pays" principle underlying much of our thinking is based on the fact that pollution imposes costs on society we all pay to put right - whether dealing with the impacts of climate change or cleaning up river water to make it fit for drinking. This is an unashamedly market-based principle.

Are we communists?

So what makes the "lefty" charge stick? You could point the finger at our commitment to environmental justice - even though in other areas such as crime, justice is often seen as the preserve of the right wing.

Let's be clear, there are two reasons we want environmental justice.  One is fairly obvious - it is better than injustice.  But the second is because many environmental policies aim to solve long term, distant and diffuse problems - but if they are not implemented fairly they can have short term consequences that you notice straight away.  As we (thankfully) live in a democracy, these short-term effects can often cause politicians to get cold feet and scrap the whole policy.

So raising levies on energy prices to provide money to insulate the UK's heat-leaking homes is a good long-term policy because it will help people stay warm and stop energy waste that contributes to climate change.  But in the short-term, shocking media stories about people having to choose between heating and eating because of higher prices could cause the levy to be scrapped - and without the money no homes will not get improved.  So if we start off insisting fuel poverty is addressed alongside energy efficiency, is it because we are leftwing touchy-feely types trying to win better treatment for the poor?  Or are we rational rightwingers making sure the policy doesn't come to a premature halt?

 What works wins

Ultimately, our policies must be guided by what we think will work within our planet's environmental limits.  Of course, we are as capable as anyone of getting that wrong - but it has to be what we strive for.

So when assessing nuclear power, for example, clearly we have to be hard-headed about the risks of radiation and waste and set them against the risks of carbon emissions that could arise if the stations are not built. But we also have to drop the romantic view that the nuclear industry can deliver whatever it promises at the drop of a hat and on budget.  It has a history - right up to the present day in Finland - that suggests otherwise.

This is not addressed by those painting nuclear opponents as leftwing luddites. Nor is the fact there is actually significant leftwing support for the nuclear industry, not least from the last Government, and several unions. And it ignores the fact that Friends of the Earth's position is more nuanced than that. We have, for example, said we should continue research into safer ways of generating nuclear power, such as perhaps thorium reactors - because in future years we may need them (perhaps to provide the energy to take carbon out of the atmosphere).  

When we look at GM crops, we have to see beyond the hype of the manufacturers to the reality of what they are producing.  The infamously uprooted crop trials were not developing drought resistant crops to help feed the developing world. They were crops that could tolerate particular chemicals. It was the last Government's chief scientist - (advising a left-wing, pro-GM government, another example of that supposed left-right divide breaking down) who said the real aim of a GM crop manufacturer was to develop the most efficient crop possible.  "Efficient" meant that when it grew in a field, nothing else would grow there and compete with it and nothing would eat any of it except us. That's great for the profit line. But it's as much use to the wildlife and countryside loved by people of left and right as a field of concrete.

Who defines greens?

I actually agree with Mark Lynas that too much of the common view of 'greens' is that we are all left-leaning, anti-capitalist puritans who hate people enjoying themselves. I think that perception is one largely painted by our opponents rather than a true reflection of many 'greens' I've come across.

Why is Swampy labelled an environmentalist by the media but not Sir Stuart Rose? The former head of Marks and Spencer was responsible for their "Plan A" which will cut energy use by 25 per cent in stores in five years (almost twice the rate of carbon saving Friends of the Earth called for in its original Climate Change Bill).

Of course, the argument goes, we must have done something wrong, because we have let this negative portrayal happen.  That's a challenge - our media thrives on conflict, not consensus, which means the fact we agree far more with Mark Lynas than we disagree is ignored. But there is no use blaming our tools - we have to take the challenge head on.

If we can't do it, then let's hope a new environmental movement can form in the shape Mark Lynas wants: living within the planet's boundaries, but "happy with capitalism, which goes out there and says yes rather than no, and is rigorous about the way it treats science."

Because, despite being accused of being a lefty, I welcome competition. I'd even be secretly delighted to be put out of business by a new group who had the answers to the many problems we are still battling to solve.