Having observed our recent elections, she told us that people back in NZ thought it quite funny that everyone here was getting worked up about a ‘hung’ parliament and a coalition – coalitions are the norm in New Zealand, as indeed they are in most democracies.

Her advice to Greens in the UK is to work for electoral reform above everything else.

Its a simple message, and one I believe the Green Party here should take to heart. Our one Green MP is a fantastic achievement, but could so easily be reversed at the next election. We gained less than 2% of the vote, and our 285000 voters are represented by our one MP. In European and London elections, we regularly get 10-15% of the vote, suggesting that we have a strong appeal, but people are reluctant to vote for us for Westminster because we’re very unlikely to win. Locally, we have about 10% of the council vote in Camden, and only one councillor elected this time.

If politics is the best way to achieve change then the first change must be a fair way of electing politicians.

Jeanette went on to talk about some of her thoughts on the way that New Zealand was tackling climate change, or not tackling climate change, with the new National (Tory) government being unusually sceptical and reluctant to implement carbon reduction measures. And then she said something which was very obvious, made complete sense, and which had never occured to me before. She said that we could have all the renewables in the world, all the efficiency measures, but it didn’t matter a jot unless the coal stays in the ground.

New Zealand has about 8.6 billion tonnes of economic reserves of low quality coal, and the state-owned coal company seems hell-bent on mining it and using it in whatever way they can. This means open-cast mining in Otago and Southland, selling it to China, plants to make urea from coal and syngas plants – all very very environmentally damaging, and suicidal on the carbon emissions front.

A somewhat uncertain statistic from UK Coal suggests that here we have a mere 400 million tonnes, but the reserves in Europe and worldwide are large.

As we build our renewables, putting up those thousands of turbines in the North Sea, investing millions, or billions, in wave and tidal systems, and subsidising the rooftop-owning half of the country to install solar photovoltaics, are we really replacing CO₂ emitting fuels, or are we just adding more generating capacity which will get absorbed by the future growth that’s so very important to our politicians?

It goes to the very heart of what Green politics are about, and where Green ideas differ from Socialist ones and the rest of the progressive left – growth is the problem, not the solution.

For me, those two messages – work for proportional representation, and remember that growth is not good – stood out. And hearing a pragmatic, inspirational politician who has a wealth of experience talk is a welcome tonic to all the political doom and gloom about. Now that she’s left parliament, I’m not sure what Jeanette will do next, but I am sure it will be at least as illustrious as what has gone before.

To me, Green philosophy starts with the fundamental ‘ecological’ idea that we humans are an intrinsic part of the eco-system, no more, or less, important than any other species. We do have a unique ability to modify it, which we need to be very careful about. Gilbert White’s detailed day to day observations of the environment around his parish of Selbourne at the end of the eighteenth century, were probably the first in English to start to see ecological systems as a whole, and the interdependence of organisms within them. He talks about trees, soils, births and deaths, rainfall, worms and all the minutiae of life.

The influence of EF Schumacher on Green thinking and the institutions he left us with can’t be underestimated. Small is Beautiful, and his ideas of appropriate technology and keeping economys to a scale that ordinary people can deal with underpins a lot of Green Party policy. In some ways, its problematic in an age of globalisation – the internet does a lot to promote localism but is a massive technology – but still very relevant. The charity he founded, Practical Action probably does more to promote sustainable societies than any green political movement ever has.
When I first came to the UK, it was the Schumacher Society which rekindled my interest in Green politics. The challenge Schumacher poses us in Britain today is how to apply his ideas at urban scales, and this is where many of the Briefings published by the Schumacher Society become useful. These are well-considered policy documents, looking at a range of issues – sustainable cities, democracy, carbon economics, health. They should be compulsory reading for anyone involved in forumulating Green Party policy.

And then there’s the deep ecology end of the spectrum, for which you should read Arne Naess’ Ecology, Community and Lifestyle. I’ve always been a bit uncertain about this – as a philosophy its attractive, but as a guide for living life in London today, or for political parties, its more difficult. Naess believes that a fundamental change in the way we think and act is needed to allow us to live within our environment, and that political parties are not the way to achieve that except in fairly singular circumstances as campaigning organisations (eg a party to campaign against nuclear power) and doesn’t think its useful in bipartisan systems like the US or, probably, the UK.

Jonathan Porritt’s Seeing Green is a British classic, and Caroline Lucas cites it as an early influence. On specific points its perhaps a little dated – I don’t know that many Greens would advocate coal as a transition fuel from oil and gas to renewables now – but worth a read.

I also mentioned Dryzek’s The Politics of the Earth, which I reviewed on here a few years ago. It looks at different ways of discussing environmental politics including descriptions of most of the major strands of Green (and not-so-green) though. Its real value is in showing ways of engaging with various constituencies on Green issues.

Jim – my copy of Small is Beautiful seems to have been recycled somewhere, but you’re welcome to borrow any of the others.

====

I’m having great fun this morning, being distracted from my essay by the growing Guardian Gagging Order Scandal.  In a beautifully nuanced piece on the front page, the Guardian explained that it had been served an injunction preventing it from reporting anything about a question due to be asked in Parliament this week.  It didn’t actually say ‘Bloggers – to your marks!’ but it may as well have.

I read the paper in a cafe at about 9.30am.  By the time I got on the computer at 10.15, three facebook friends had already posted the article along with another article in the Spectator explaining what the fuss was all about and giving the question, and a quick check on a couple of blogs revealed a link to the offending report, which seems likely to be the subject of the question.

This appears to be a sad story of an international corporation dumping, quite literally, on the very poor of a developing nation in pursuit of profit.   They’ve offered to pay compensation, but the whole thing is likely to become a criminal matter, and clearly the company don’t want the evidence of their wrong-doing to get out into the public sphere.  This scandal has been brewing for some months and the Guardian has done sterling work in shining a light in some very dark places.

The new scandal is   that a respected newspaper could be prevented from publishing a question to go before parliament.   Parliament, for all it’s faults, is public, and citizens have the right to know what goes on there.  This horrendous injunction is yet another nail in the coffin of our moribund parliamentary democracy, and the reform of British libel laws must be a top priority for any parliament with self-respect.

This time, the injunction clearly hasn’t worked.  As I write,  #trafigura is one of the most popular tags on twitter, and three of the top four tags relate to this scandal.  Thousands of people, many of whom will never have heard of Trafigura or its unpleasant ways now know about it.

I’d guess that, next time, the injunction will be stronger, and articles like the one this morning will become more difficult to write.  Our media laws need a rapid (though well thought out) rewrite to strengthen consideration of the public interest, and, while we’re on the subject, the fair comment defense against libel.

This rather unfortunate policy says:

ST252 A pledge will be introduced by which all scientists and technologists will promise to respect the Earth and life upon it

It’s the only such pledge in the manifesto.  At no point do we ever say that politicians, civil servants, lawyers or financiers should have this sort of pledge.

As a technologist, with a science degree, I’m happy to be bound by the code of conduct of my professional society, the British Computer Society, but I would seriously object to a future Green government forcing this on me.   I certainly don’t object to the the words themselves, but by singling out scientists and technologists, the Green Party is saying something about how it sees people in those fields.

It’s an attitude we need to overcome if the Greens are to move forward as a viable alternative to other parties.  I know it loses us votes, and makes it very hard to combat the accusation that we are anti-science.

We could argue that it is technology which has got us into this position, and there’s some truth in that.  That’s a naive analysis though, which ignores the choices society has made, and the influence of our political and economic systems since the start of the industrial revolution.

If we are to create a society that is just, sustainable and community based, and meet the challenges posed by climate change, we need to respect and make use of science and technology.  It is science which shows us how climate change is happening, and technology will have a huge role to play in overcoming, or at least adapting to it.

This is a policy which needs to be removed.

I saw this fabulous response by the Climate Campers to the Metropolitan Police’s request to know where they’re doing the camp this week on the Daily Maybe.

If you, like me, are busy at work on Wednesday, not really into camping and perhaps a little nervous, then  send them a donation to help all the costs that come with being the most successful climate change protest group around.  Think of it as a carbon offset programme!

I grew up 12000 miles away, untraumatised by the Thatcher era in the way of many British lefties.  I saw the miner’s strike and the Falklands War on telly, but I was fifteen, and lived in a warmer ocean.  Tories are something of a mystery to me.

First, it has to be Ann Widdecombe.  She stands up for what she believes in.  She’s strong, no-nonsense, and full of integrity.  In a blunt, and sometimes harsh way, she cares.   We wouldn’t see eye to eye on many things, but I respect her.

I was impressed by Dominic Grieve at the Convention on Modern Liberty.  He made good points about the plans for id cards, and anti-terrorist legislation.  He seems fairly consistent on that at least.

Phillip Blond might be interesting to watch.  Red Toryism could be a radical alternative to free-market, big state Labour.   The localism he advocates sounds almost Green, but within an Anglican, rather than socialist/ liberal context, so potentially  difficult for minorities and women.  He’s food for thought, though perhaps not for fully digesting.

This is getting tricky.  Cameron, Osbourne et al really do not do it for me and the muppet  mayor is just a classical irritant.

Did you know Nancy Astor was a Tory?  Me either, but as the first woman to sit in the House of Commons, she gets my vote.

And for my fifth and final favourite, I give you Sir Peter Viggers, without whose duck house, the general hilarity of the nation would have been far less this summer.

So, if I’m a tourist, a bit lost, and press the button marked ‘Information’ to ask where to go, my photo is sent to the police??? I wonder what happens next? A posse of armed goons appear and shoot me for having the audacity to hope that the Victoria Line is actually working this weekend? More likely, my mugshot just ends up on some database somewhere, as the government attempts to track every citizen’s every move, swamping itself so utterly in spurious data that the real criminals slip underneath the chaos.

Certainly, this threatening announcement is hardly going to encourage anyone to use the facility.  If there’s an emergency, it may even deter someone from raising the alarm.

There is no indication on the help point itself that this will happen, which is surely not legal.

I wonder what they do with it, and how long they keep it. It will be interesting to see if, and how, Transport for London, answer that question.

There are lots of Liberal Democrats, Tories, and even a few Greens, but very few Labour types.  I guess that’s not a surprise.   Sir David Varney, the Prime Minister’s adviser on Public Service Transformation, and an advocate of inter-departmental data-sharing, is a brave man just for turning up and being willing to appear on a panel.

Helena Kennedy talked about the problem of the politicisation of criminal justice, turning it into a contest of toughness.  It always amazes me that politicians feel they have a right to comment on specific cases here, though at least that obnoxious business of the Home Secretary setting the tariff in high-profile cases has disappeared.

I went to the Tory panel in the morning, partly to see Phillip Blond, and partly out of sheer curiosity about the party which will probably be the government soon, and about which I know almost nothing.  Apparently they see the essential difference on liberty between themselves and Liberals to be that they believe people are born with freedoms, whereas Liberals believe people take liberties from a state which grants them.  Not sure about that, but its an interesting thought.  If its true, I may just be a Tory.  Surely not??

Sadly Phillip Blond, of Red Toryism fame, didn’t get much chance to speak.  His ideas of communitarianism are interesting, though I’d hate to be reliant on my local community if, for instance, it thought women should live ‘traditional lives’, or didn’t like gay people too much.  And I’ve not seen anything from him that explains how we get from here to his ideal.

Phillip Pullman is a delightful speaker, though the climate change deniers in the comments to the blogged transcript I’ve linked to just go to show that this issue attracts a very wide spectrum.   His virtues a nation needs sound right, particularly the courage to act kindly when afraid.   Fear of terrorist attack, of being seen to be weak, of failure, has made our government very unkind lately.  I love the idea of modesty for a nation and the thought that ‘a modest kingdom would have to think for a moment or two whether or not it was a republic, because its royal family would be small, and its members would be allowed to spend most their time in useful and interesting careers as well as being royal, and because their love affairs would remain their own business; and people would always be glad to see them cycling past.’  This reminds me why I wasn’t much of a republican when in New Zealand, but have become more so since coming to the UK.  In New Zealand, the monarchy is far away and holds little interest for most people, and having a head of state that is little more than a nice theory works well for a small country.  The country can get on with its business without having to worry about all the paraphenalia that goes with monarchy, unelected chambers, odd bits of unlikely privilege floating around.

The Bloggers summit panel included Ben Goldacre, who is always worth listening to for good sense and entertainment.   Perhaps he could sort out Public Service Transformation.  Or at least become Minister for Health.

Written constitutions keep coming up.  I’m not so sure about that.  Who would write it?  How would we get to agree it?  Britain in 2009 is hardly the US in 1776, or even South Africa in 1996.  I suspect it would be good if we had one, but getting from here to there doesn’t seem likely.  And it didn’t stop the Americans from introducing the Patriot Act, now did it?

There are a lot of people here that I normally wouldn’t have anything much to do with.  In some ways that’s interesting, but some of them are rather further to the right than I’m comfortable with.  Still,  that’s the point, isn’t it.

The final panel, on ‘How Do We Secure Modern Liberty’ was interesting, but didn’t seem to get very far.  The LibDems are putting up a bill to repeal all the obnoxious legislation, and the Tories claim they’ll do similar if they get in next time – I hope someone has that on tape.  Will Hutton thinks we should all keep arguing, which seems about all that can be done.  There were lots of yellow cards around, encouraging people to pledge action, but few ideas on what that action might be.

Some thoughts on action:

Familiarise yourself with, and protest against the dodgy bits of, the Coroners and Justice Bill, and the new communications bill when (and if) it is published.

Don’t register your oyster card.  Why do they need to know where you’re travelling?

Get an email account somewhere other than your isp.  The new communications bill is going to struggle to convince google to release records of gmail transactions, I suspect.

Get a good understanding of how to use the internet in privacy.  There are some good tips on Spy Blog (bottom left) and Global Voices published a good guide for bloggers.  Do remember that nothing is infallible though.

It might be worthwhile if a large number of ostensibly random people started doing the sorts of things that are now stupidly illegal such as photographing policemen to waste time and hopefully convince police and the government that there are better ways of dealing with their fears

Consider the No2ID pledge, but remember that you’ll probably not be able to renew your passport

Some things really scare me:

• The way draconian legislation justified by the need to combat terrorism invariably gets used to investigate far less dangerous pursuits.
• The thought of the fact that I once googled ‘gay goat’ without thinking too hard getting onto a government database, or of some low-paid outsourced worker having access to a log of my emails.
• The notion of a national id database run by a government who’s only contribution to freedom of information seems to be their ability to release it onto trains and into rubbish bins
• Draconian policing of peaceful demonstrations,  creating a climate of fear.

The last few years have seen a steady erosion of the valuable right of a British person to go about their lawful business in privacy and without interference by the authorities, while at the same time, government activity seems to be more and more hidden.  And somehow, the voices of protest are few and far between.  Noone really seems to be too concerned.

And so, I’ll be attending The Convention on Modern Liberty, being held in Bloomsbury on 28 Feb.  Hopefully, it will be more than a talkshop gathering of the usual suspects, and some action will come out of it.

I admire and am very grateful to those women who opened so many doors for us.  They had the courage of their convictions, they stood up for themselves and their more nervous sisters, and the world is a better place for their action.

Reading reports of Plane Stupid’s activities at Stansted this week, bringing the airport to a halt to make an important point in a strong but non-violent way, I am equally full of gratitude and admiration.  If we’re going to do anything about global warming it will be because of people like this, prepared to go to the edge, push harder than the rest of us at home with our nice low-wattage light bulbs.  People protesting at the edge open up space for the rest of us, creating the sense of public urgency so lacking in the global warming debate.

I am quite scared of being arrested.  Cowards like me could at least send them a donation – they’ll be needing help with the legal fees.