It may be somewhat parochial to write about an issue raised by the recent UK government reshuffle, but on this occasion it raises some important points which are more generally applicable. David Cameron has made some very significant changes to his ministerial team in a move widely attributed to his political strategist Lynton Crosby (‘wizard of Oz’ or ‘evil genius’ depending on who you listen to). The aim is very clearly to reshape the cabinet in a more voter-friendly mould.
One of the key surprises in an uncharacteristically leak-free process was the removal of Michael Gove from the post of Education Secretary; he was one of the most ardently reformist and most effective ministers but had become deeply unpopular with educationalists, teachers and many parents. Despite his acknowledged personal politeness, he is not afraid to make enemies (picking unnecessary fights with some of his Cabinet colleagues may have contributed to his removal) and has referred to the educational establishment as ‘the Blob’.
This reference to an amorphous and pervasive threat, originally a B-movie subject, was picked up in an obviously heartfelt article from Owen Paterson, outgoing Environment Secretary, on the occasion of his own dismissal from office (Owen Paterson: I’m proud of standing up to the green lobby).
As he puts it in this Telegraph article “However, I leave the post with great misgivings about the power and irresponsibility of – to coin a phrase – the Green Blob. By this I mean the mutually supportive network of environmental pressure groups, renewable energy companies and some public officials who keep each other well supplied with lavish funds, scare stories and green tape. This tangled triangle of unelected busybodies claims to have the interests of the planet and the countryside at heart, but it is increasingly clear that it is focusing on the wrong issues and doing real harm while profiting handsomely.”
Now, his language may have been a bit intemperate (and he also takes a number of swipes at some thinly-disguised individuals later in the article) but he obviously feels deeply about this and his comments deserve at least some consideration. What his outburst has done is to highlight the deep philosophical divide between the mainstream environmentalist movement and its critics. For example, the Guardian carried a short factual article on his comments (I was sacked by David Cameron to appease the ‘green blob’ says Paterson) but he comes in for some strong personal attacks in the large number of comments left by readers.
Damian Carrington had a different take on the issue for this environment blog in the Independent: Paterson’s ‘green blob’ tirade reveals the right’s problem with climate change. According to this analysis “The ground zero of Paterson's meltdown is his denial of climate change. By definition, action on global warming requires communal action and that, to Paterson and a few other politicians from the right, sounds disturbingly like communism.” And there we have the crux of the matter: this polarised debate is now being seen largely as a political Left-Right clash: Guardian readers support the climate change orthodoxy while Telegraph readers question it.
Except that it is not nearly as simple as that. When it comes to both UK and European Establishments, there is an almost overwhelming acceptance of the green lobby’s case: essentially that environmental protection should be prioritised at least as highly as economic growth. Indeed, on the climate change issue, the argument is that economic growth should take second place.
These Establishments are not necessarily intrinsically Left-leaning, but they certainly buy into the environmentalist message. They include large numbers of senior business people, as well as politicians of all stripes and, inevitably our modern cultural icons (those who may not be sympathetic to the cause generally keep their heads down).
Such people are much better-off financially than the majority of their fellow citizens and it can be argued that it is good for them to have a social conscience and support causes which are for the broader benefit of society (although the recent spate of revelations about tax-avoidance schemes may put such apparent altruism in a different context). But this is a luxury which comes with success. The average person struggling to bring up a family and pay bills may choose to put economic growth higher up the priority list.
Whatever the reasons for all this, we have a continuing dialogue of the deaf in most cases. Supporters of the need to take decisive action now on emissions reduction are characterised as just another selfish political lobby group posing as self-appointed representatives of the people, while critics are labelled as ‘deniers’ motivated purely by short-term greed. This is unhelpful and takes no account of the many shades of opinion honestly held by many people but who may fear being shot down for deviating from the ‘correct’ line.
However, it seems clear (to me at least) that the environmental lobby has had the upper hand in most EU policymaking in recent decades. What many regard as excessive precaution is now built in to the entire system, leading for example to a bias against productive new agricultural technology and a hazard-based approvals regime for pesticides which will make highly productive farming more difficult at a time when global food demand continues to grow strongly.
In the UK, a strong pro-badger lobby has hobbled attempts to cull populations, ensuring that bovine TB remains a major problem for farmers and also disadvantaging other wildlife species such as hedgehogs. Meanwhile, far from being protected, badgers are regarded as vermin in other European countries.
Wildlife is important, but so are humans. We have to accept that many actions we take have an impact on the environment, but that the judgement as to whether this is good or bad is for us to make. Decisions on environmental matters must be rational ones, balancing habitat protection against the health of the rural economy. Mr Paterson’s remarks about the influence of the ‘Green Blob’ have an element of truth in them which we should not ignore.
This is the last Scientific Alliance newsletter until September. I wish all our readers a quiet and restful summer break.
Martin Livermore
The Scientific Alliance
St John’s Innovation Centre
Cowley Road
Cambridge CB4 0WS
____________________________________________________