As google-using cheater tfahrner revealed below, the long excerpt in this post comes from a speech yesterday by U.K. Tory leader David Cameron. If you haven't yet, give it a read.
I couldn't believe it. If a U.S. politician gave this speech ... well, they'd be a Democrat, and the media would ignore it, and I'd probably never hear about it. But if I did, I'd faint. I can't really find a single thing to criticize. The focus on energy decentralization leaves me woozy. The refusal to give nuclear special dispensation makes me swoon. I mean, damn.
Of course, I don't know all that much about U.K. politics. Cameron could be a total gasbag for all I know. This could be an all-bark-no-bite kind of thing. And of course conservatives are out of power there and don't have the capacity to do much even if they wanted.
But the point -- as made at length by Mark Hertsgaard -- is that Britain's conservative party now recognizes concerted action on climate change is non-negotiable. Without it, the party is doomed:
The climate change debate in Europe is much less politicized than in the United States, and there is wide consensus that impacts are already being felt .... Public concern has grown so strong among elites and ordinary citizens that political parties have little choice but to respond. ... Just as Republicans in California cannot get elected if they are seen as weak on the environment, so conservatives in Northern Europe must at least look green if they hope to govern.
This is what Gore is trying to achieve in the U.S. -- not becoming president, but moving the public enough that the political parties can no longer give the issue second-tier status. He wants the parties to start competing to offer the best solutions to the problem.
Once that happens, it doesn't matter who's president, nobody will be able to get away with bullshit like this.
Comments
View as Flat
sdonner Posted 1:01 am
08 Jul 2006
Permalink
Kif Scheuer Posted 4:14 am
13 Jul 2006
What I got to wondering was what can we learn from how the conservatives in the UK came around?
-What was their tipping point?
-What groups made it happen?
-what roadblocks did they face and how did they overcome them?
-What can we adapt to the situation here?
-How much action is the UK taking with both sides on the same side of climate change?
-Is it enough?
-How long did it take the UK to go from intransigence (where we seem to be) to acceptance?
I realize they're not Republicans and it's not the US, and they're acting in a world where the US is still holding out on climate change, but let's suspend that for a moment.
I was really excited to see this post. "Wow! climate change as a political given, how great" I thought. But then I wondered is that enough?
For example, if we have ~10 years to make really sgnificant changes, and it took the UK 5 years to get from about where we are now to where they are now politically, but they still can't act decisively we are really in trouble.
Often it seems that lurking under climate change discussions is an assumption that once we have political acceptance the doors will open and we will move forward quickly. But this brief picture of UK conservative greenness makes me wonder if after mainstream politicians in the US accept climate change, we might enter a protracted period of political acceptance, with little action.
As the quote above says UK conservatives have to "look green" to govern, that doesn't mean they make effective policies.
Someone in this blog with more knowledge of UK conditions could shed some light on the utility of comparing what's happening there with our situation. But it seems to me there's food for thought in the comparison.
Permalink
JessicaR Posted 8:14 pm
17 Jul 2006
I am writing from openDemocracy - the independent online magazine for global news.
We stumbled upon your post yesterday, and thought it was interesting that David Cameron received such good press (we are based in London, UK). Many in our editorial team are quite suspicious of Cameron's motives when it comes to being 'green' - Maryann Bird posted a entry on our blog as a reply inspired by your post.
You can read it here.
Keep up the good work!
Jessica
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 8:37 pm
17 Jul 2006
It's nice that Cameron is riding his bicycle and putting a wind turbine on his house - symbolism is surprisingly important.
I don't share the concern about whether he is "really" green. The question is, how to use his desire to appear green so as to advance one's cause - for example, to get a fuel tax on the table, as Maryann suggests.
Wouldn't it be wonderful to have a competition between the parties to see who could be the greener?
--
BTW, my congratulations to OpenDemocracy for carrying Paul Rogers on international security. I've read him for years - one of the best commentators around.
Permalink