Thursday 6 September 2018

A strange shade of Green

The ins and outs of the Green Party don't usually interest me; but just lately they've had an eye-catching scandalette, plus a tiny fanfare as their new two-headed leadership was announced.  So I had a cursory look at their website and assorted pronouncements.

(Declaration of interest: notwithstanding my long-term engagement in the energy industry, as a fairly reactionary conservative I consider myself an enthusiast for what I consider *green*, am an active proponent of energy conservation, and an active opponent of crazy 'renewable' schemes such as biomass for electricity.  Energy industry?  "Civilisation is energy-intensive" - Lovelock.)

Well.  What has 'green' to do with the Greens?  Environmental concerns doesn't get any more airtime in this piece than do Brexit, or Windrush.  "we will always campaign with others to oppose Brexit, we think it’s time to say loudly and clearly that the Green party will never be part of any vapid centrist blob ... we proud to say migrants and refugees are welcome here".  Not much doubt - and no surprisies - over which side of centre they take up their stand.

But what green ground, exactly, do they stand on?  Anti-fracking, of course: and pro unicorns & fairy-dust.  But, to invoke one of my touchstones, nothing I can find on their entire rambling website (complete with Philosophical Bases in 50 numbered sections) suggests they have set their faces against the tree-burners at Drax.  This, by the way, is in clear contrast to FoE, Greenpeace, RSPB et al who have long since recognised the 'renewable biomass' nonsense for what it is.

The other one that always bears checking up is Nuclear.  They offer pro forma hostility: "fundamentally opposed to nuclear energy, which we consider to be expensive and dangerous"; but in contrast to (e.g.) many continental greens there is no hint of pressing for anything like Germany's policy and actual programme of rapid closure of nukes.  "Will be phased out" is all we get from our Greens.  

In this, they are much like FoE and Greenpeace UK, who similarly say that nukes are expensive (no, really?) and in the long run should go.   This actually puts them in opposition to many heavy-duty environmental activists who reckon the risks of fracking are nothing compared to those of nukes; want a German-style policy ASAP; and despair over the timidity of their leadership.

I suppose we should politely wish the new Green 'co-leaders' a happy time in office.  But if Windrushery is their idea of carving out a distinctive policy platform, there will still only be one Green MP ten years from now.



Bill Quango MP said...

One MP
Two Leaders
Three percent of the vote
Four candles.

Sebastian Weetabix said...

I find it disturbing the Malthusian maniacs even have one MP.

andrew said...

No - Fork handles !

CityUnslicker said...

Always weird how the greens, who have such a truly simple mission statement for their political brand, are always they party who can't agree on the narrative around it and end with the most inconsistent platform. Oh, the irony!

They all end up as splitters and traitors like all their lefty friends in the SWP etc.

Right wing greens are often the most sound people of all - well earthed you may say.

Anonymous said...

Any "green" party that is opposed to nuclear power is likely to be a front for the fossil fuel interests.

Nuclear power is the only real threat to their business, and they have been pushing a fear campaign against it since the 1940s.

Don Cox

Anonymous said...

But G.Monbiot suppots nukes, no?

Anonymous said...

G Monbiot is not a front for the fossil fuel interests. People who really want to preserve the environment don't oppose nuclear power, nor do they cover the environment with gigantic wind turbines.

Electro-Kevin said...

Anyone who purports to be green whilst opposed to population control/immigration control is really a communist in disguise.

You even get the celebrity-rich elite of some-are-more-equal-than-others.

They want us plebs riding bicycles and eating bowls of rice. They are half way there with the bikes and there is a push towards veganism.

CEGB said...

There is a clear explanation of UK energy source and use here

See Bio vis-a-vis Nuclear.

GridBot said...

CEGB - that's an excellent chart - thank you for sharing!

Charlie said...

E-K - I'm not sure that the rise in use of bicycles is thanks to anything the eco-loons have done. Have you tried to drive or get a train into a big city lately? It's miserable. Most people who choose to swing a leg over a bike (myself included) do it because it's not as crap as the (expensive) alternatives.

Electro-Kevin said...

Charlie - Traffic light phasing, yellow lines, congestion charging, tax, fuel duty... all designed to be off putting.

A bike is crap if you have to live more than half an hour away.

Electro-Kevin said...

Oh... forgot to mention bus lanes or worse... no bus lanes and stops in the middle of the road with the driver sorting out the 'Twirlies' and those without correct change.

Twirlies = Am I *too early* for my free travel ?

Anonymous said...

It's amazing how their biggest scandalette - that the author of their 2010 manifesto, a Keele University academic, was convicted of "grooming" under-age girls online - never seemed to be a big story.