I certainly agree that the Greens need more people who are media savvy but I don’t think employing crass stereotypes on a blog is evidence of such abilities.

It all looks a bit Mandleson vs the Unions to me.

Surely Monboit represents a big problem in himself? He attracts derision, is prone to furious hyperbole and vapid political stunts which achieve nothing.

Sian’s blog is rather disastrous, that said, and represents one of the weaknesses of the Green movement; there can be no compromise on any issue. Ever. Compromise doesn’t mean backing Heathrow Runway Three, but it does involve showing that you’re not the sole arbiter of what is “green” and what is not “green” and that there are alternative approaches.

Sian’s comments were unhelpful, although I agree with her on nukes. Sian at present holds no particular position in the Green Party and Monbiot’s reaction showed an incredibly thin skin.

Monbiot is a self appointed “expert” with an ego to match. People are prone to write ill judged articles on bloggs, but being offended by an ex London Green Candidates comments, is pathetic.

Grow up posh boy!

Personally I think Sian Berry’s blog entry was a foot-in-mouth job. Monbiot, Lynas, Goodall, Tindale et al may or may not be your cup of tea, but what they’ve been doing recently has been laying out what they see as a political, economic and ecological case for supporting nuclear power in the face of climate change. I can’t say I’m convinced, personally, but I haven’t seen any of them resort to nasty, personal insults directed at other environmentalists. To me this revelaed not how ‘savvy’ Berry is as a politician but how immature.

The nuclear power issue is a complex one – but to me the real story here is not about ‘Old Guards’ or ‘new blood’ in a minor political party (Monbiot, Lynas and Tindale, by the way Don, are nothing to do with the Green Party). It’s about the importance of not simplifying a horribly complex issue. If you are serious about trying to mitigate climate change, it’s wise not to close any options down. What has interested me, watching this spat, is that a small group of very well-informed people concluding that nuclear power should be a part – and only a part – of the energy mix – should elicit such extreme reactions as that displayed by Berry.

The interesting question is surely: why? Sian Berry may be a slick campaigner in London, but she’s hardly got as much as a claim to expertise or experience on this issue as the former head of Greenpeace or a researcher of Goodall’s qualifications. When people like this come out with a position, would it not be wise to ask yourself why they have changed their minds, rather than insulting their ‘haircuts’ and sneering at them for being men? It seems to me that Berry here represents one of the worst tendencies of the green movement – an immovable, semi-religious stance based not on reason or argument or intelligent debate, but on ill-focused passion – so ill-focused that when called upon to explain it she can do nothing except shout ‘snooks to you and your stupid hair.’

Hectoring and shouting are certainly tiresome, and greens could do, in general, with exhibiting a lot less self-righteousness in their arguments and their positioning. But neither Sian Berry nor Don Paskini seem to have any real responses to the pro-nuclear stance exhibited by these named greens, other than to talk of political positioning or to throw out playground insults. This is a very serious issue which could do with being treated very seriously, by all sides.

Good piece. Here’s a shameless link to my post on this from Friday.
http://www.twodoctors.org/2009/03/comrade-aviators.html

What Paul said. That is all.

Also OHOC’s comment is a helpful key to the typical Green stance: “it does involve showing that you’re not the sole arbiter of what is “green” ”

In my experience, Greens see this (incorrectly in my view) as relinquishing their raison d’etre – hence the semi-religious fervour. It’s really borne of fear that they’ll lose their USP. They should have more confidence. Which again, leads us back to the playground insults of Berry’s response.

James – your post is an excellent example of just the kind of religious thinking I was talking about.

I particularly like the unilateral decision, made by yourself, that the former head of Greenpeace, the author of two award-winning books on climate change, and a longstanding environmental writer and campaigner of some reputation are henceforth ‘not environmentalists’ because they don’t take the same position as you on a particular energy source. That’s just the kind of thinking the green movement surely needs more of.

Sian via her Twitter feed had the following to say about this:

Oh dear I have very much wound up George Monbiot. I was deliberately playing rude so I guess I somewhat deserve this: http://is.gd/nQBM

http://twitter.com/sianberry/status/1347871408

I can’t make much sense of this. If the problem with Monbiot et al. is that they’re too narrow in their political focus, doesn’t a broadening out to include people who are in favour of nuclear power indicate the opposite? I know almost nothing about the internal politics of the Green party, so I’m probably missing something.

I read Sian’s post. The bits about nuclear power itself were interesting. The rest was pointless guff about personality politics that is, frankly, pretty damn dull. Likewise, Monbiot’s “well now I’m not going to vote for you!” rant was unimpressive. One of Sian’s arguments was “I’m a qualified metallurgist therefore I understand nuclear power” which smacks slightly of credentialism, but I’m inclined to believe that she probably does have something to say about it that others less knowledgeable than herself don’t, which makes the diversion into sniping at Monbiot and co. for being too old or too male all the more frustrating. And her argument that the use of ‘scientific’ language is sexist is just daft; I’m sure she’s just as capable of making a scientific argument as Monbiot is. I, for one, would be interested to read it, as someone who is genuinely undecided on the merits (or otherwise) of nuclear power.

I have no particular views on nuclear power but I must register my opposition to those who assert that it, genetic modification, “green” cars, or whatever their particular wheeze is will allow us to magically solve environmental problems & resume the same old life living beyond our means. We have stopped doing so financially but not environmentally. It has not dawned on some that we are in a recession & general crisis.

What is necessary is to reduce the pressure we place on the earth by countering overpopulation & overconsumption, not simply shifting our debts from one credit card to another in the hope that they’ll go away. These processes are actually under way. They can be furthered by widening access to contraception, by promoting education (both of which diminish fertility rates), & such like.

It is actually quite easy to “sell” reducing consumption. Those who are becoming fiscally conservative, engaging in shite such as growing their own produce, & saving rather than blowing their money on tat, are not being coerced, they are exercising a free choice. Yes, it is economic pressure that it pushing them, but in a similar manner it is environmental pressure that is pushing us even if it isn’t so obvious. We are supporting those who wish to save money, be more productive & less alienated & in general have a more liveable life.

I have been cool to Sian Berry ever since her expression of support for Leaveninshame in London. I also find, with many Green Party members, that they are more about militant socialism than the environment. They will, for example, refuse to consider anti-immigration arguments, which are being supported by the wider green movement. I seriously doubt whether the Green Party shares my values.

What is fatal is to say “Look at this shiny nuclear power, it enables us to do exactly what we’ve always done without the least bit of change. Forget about all that sustainability toss, we’ve got some more energy on tap”. That is not to oppose nuclear per se, but its fetishists, just as I oppose the fetishists on the other side.

Good to see you round here, Paul Kingsnorth. Are you going to update your blog soon, like?

In what sense would you describe a nuclear power supporter as an environmentalist, given the impact nuclear has on the environment? Is Bellamy still an environmentalist despite denying climate change?

Paul, this reminds me of nothing more than the debates over GM crops. On our side, the anti side, we cited techical concerns over the instability of the genome and the use of retro-viruses, we talked about the spread of herbicide tolerance and antibiotic resistance, and we talked about the removal of control from farmers. We got called “emotional” by the companies pushing it, even as they floated spurious claims about being able to feed babies in Africa if only the nasty environmentalists wouldn’t scaremonger.

You’ve done what Monbiot did, ignored Siân’s actual arguments (quoted in my apparently religious document), set up a straw woman only interested in haircuts, and then attacked. Grow up.

“In what sense would you describe a nuclear power supporter as an environmentalist, given the impact nuclear has on the environment?”

I know literally nothing about this and I’m open to argument on the nuclear question – but I imagine it is that very impact that is in dispute between the pro- and anti-nuclear lobby, is it not? So for James to use it as a reason for calling the anti-lobby unenvironmental is not sound. It must first be proven that nuclear has a net more deletorious impact than any other form.

For all I know, Sian Berry may be perfectly capable of proving this. It’s a shame that she chose to detract attention from this capability with some oddly irrelevant feminist prejudice – mind you, to be honest I expect she knows that now as well.

@James – if you would like to argue about who is, or isn’t, an ‘environmentalist’, I would suggest that the first thing you do is explain to us what you mean by that term.

Mark Lynas’s position is that nuclear power is considerably less damaging – by a very, very large margin – to the natural environment than several degrees of climate change would be, and that if, therefore, a judicious use of nuclear as part of an energy mix (which would include renewables) would help prevent the worst imp[act of climate change, then it should be considered. I would point out that he has done the scientific legwork to back up this position, I believe the positions of Monbiot, Goodall etc are much the same as this.

It seems to me to be a resonable argument – one which, if you or Sian or Don disagree with, you would need to explain which part of their argument is wrong and why. You haven’t done that. Sian’s argument, such as it is – that nuclear would be a ‘distraction’ from better technologies and doesn’t work anyway – isn’t backed up by any evidence or facts or serious argument that I can find. That’s not to say that she’s wrong, but it is to say that if she, or you, want to get into insulting other greens, trying to excommunicate them, slagging off their appearance, age or gender or, indeed, telling them to ‘grow up’ rather than arguing your case, you are certainly not going to succeed in making green politics seem very appealing to the non-aligned. And you won’t succeed in convincing the various fence-sitters, including myself, that nukes are the disaster you claim them to be.

@asquith – mea culpa. Soon!

Surely Monbiot has always been a patrician Tory at heart?

Would that be Sian Berry, enemy of the consumer society, who has an iPod ;)?

The serious point is that the Greens will always have limited potential as long as they’re perceived as calling for a reduction in our standard of living.

seems to me that Berry here represents one of the worst tendencies of the green movement – an immovable, semi-religious stance based not on reason or argument or intelligent debate, but on ill-focused passion – so ill-focused that when called upon to explain it she can do nothing except shout ’snooks to you and your stupid hair.’

The blog post was light hearted – anyone who thinks that was a ‘mean attack’ needs to get a sense of humour or grow a pair because far worse is said in comment pieces, let alone in the comments underneath. This is partly why Monbiot comes across as a such a tool in response (a guy I had enormous respect for, until very recently).

Yes, there is a debate to be had about nuclear energy. But I’m not convinced Monbiot is having a good one especially since we’re mostly presented a choice between coal and nuclear.

I’m not convinced on Nuclear at all. But not only was Sian Berry’s strategy stuff quite good, I thought, but anyone who takes offence at that blog post really needs to grow up a bit. Honestly, it was mild at best.

Seems pretty silly to me on both their parts to have such a public spat. There’s space for both of their points of view, they have no need to attack each other (and certainly not in public).

On the subject of nuclear power, it seems obvious to me that all renewables would be the best option, followed by a mix of nuclear and renewables, and that both of these options are much, much better than the alternatives. And I think they all agree on this. So why not just say it? Do they think the stupid masses can’t understand it?

Here’s Huw Richards on the true cost of Nuclear Power:

http://www.greenworld.org.uk/page131/page138/page138.html

I am open minded on Nuclear Power but inclined more to the anti side of the argument. I think a lot of Green Party members get annoyed with journalists who are not official Green Party spokes people being taken as such by the media.

I was convinced of the anti-nuclear argument by ‘Edge of Darkness’ in the 80′s. Ironic, seeing as that series borrowed James Lovelock’s Gaia Hypothesis and Lovelock was in favour of nuclear power as a cleaner alternative to coal. I think I was persuaded more by a suspicion that the nuclear industry was a cover for the nuclear arms industry.

These days Lovelock has criticized his earlier work as un-Darwinian but retains a belief in the possibilities of clean nuclear power.

I’m honestly not sure, and I’d like to think others would be willing to entertain a little uncertainty.

It’s quite exhilerating.

Like Shatterface, I was unable to support civil nuclear power in the 1980s and 1990s, owing to the connection with nuclear arms and the questionable people running the industry. Note that the industry still has its own police force, armed and publicly accountable only via the Department of Trade and Industry (or whatever it calls itself this week), Having witnessed this police force in action against four students (with passes to enter a nuclear power plant) who were taking scrapbook photos of themselves on a public road, I know that I wouldn’t mess with them.

As a technology, nuclear power needs to be considered more seriously. But only as long as politicians look hard at the people operating the industry.

Daft quote from Sian Berry wrt Monbiot: “and the experience to know better than play so crudely into the hands of an industry on the make.”

So none of the existing alternative energy suppliers, all privately owned of course, are “on the make”? Is it only right to provide energy by sustainable means, as approved by Sian Berry, if the suppliers operate at break even? Nobody is allowed to make a profit?

The difficulty I have with this whole approach is that it turns the issues into personal feuds – and I think we should avoid that where we can.

I certainly don’t agree with the statement “Someone like Chris Goodall isn’t up to the job of being their parliamentary candidate, ” because Chris by all accounts is an articulate and hard working Green.

I think he’s wrong on this issue – but if we can’t have any disagreements then we can’t have democracy and as he is with the Greens on pretty much everything else I’m opposed to turning him into a pariah when we could be having the discussion about the issues.

Nuclear power isn’t about him, the other “big beasts” or Sian Berry – and they don’t claim it is – but if we start framing the discussion in this way that’s what it becomes.

It seems to me that democracy without dissent is a misnomer, and that applies just as much as when I’m in the majority (in the Green Party) as when I’m the dissenter. If we can’t work with people with whom we disagree on some issues then essentially we’re more suited to religious fundamentalism than politics.

Slightly OT but there’s a story in todays Metro about Conservative lead Broadland District Council spending £30,000 a time on a spyplane using thermal imaging equipment to check which homes are inadequately insulated.

Now I don’t know whether this will save the environment more than it damages it but there are also civil liberties issues here and Broadland’s Lib Dem group leader has reportedly defended the move with the words ‘Cameras are everywhere – people have to accept it’

*Despairs*

“‘Cameras are everywhere – people have to accept it’”

Perhaps this was aimed at the police? Nah, I’m just being silly, aren’t I?

@Sunny -

Doubtless it was intended to be a ‘light-hearted’ blog post that got picked up by Monbiot and blown rather out of proportion due to his Graun blog. Doubtless Sian is rather annoyed by all this … but then if her insults were ‘light hearted’ I guess George’s were supposed to be too, so we shouldn’t be complaining about them either. If it was me Sian had insulted I would be inclined to give as good as I got too!

I’m not convinced about nuclear either – but neither am I convinced by the standard green line that renewables can keep us in the style to which we have become accustomed. personally I don;t think anything can, but it’s worth exploring all the options with an open mind – something not all greens are good at. And speaking as someone who has been involved in the green movement for fifteen years or so, we really need to rein in the tedious tendency to, as Jim says, ‘get religious’ when sacred cows are threatened. I can spot this a mile off, and it’s lurking not very far at all underneath Sian’s ‘light hearted’ post.

Jim should blow his own trumpet more – here is his interview with Chris Goodall :
http://jimjay.blogspot.com/2009/03/going-nuclear-in-discussion-with-chris.html

Like all parties us Greens are partial to the odd row. I am open but sceptical about the use of nuclear power. Sunny’s comments are pretty much spot on.

This is a pretty shallow article. I would paraphrase it as “I don’t understand the issue they disagree on, but Sian is right and Chris is wrong.” And “Sian represents new blood and reaching out and Chris doesn’t” – which is particularly odd as it is Chris that is reaching outside the normal constituency, and Sian that is pursuing a purist dogma.

I never thought I would say this, but Paul Kingsnorth is talking complete sense.

Greens are too used to being the arbiters of what is considered environmental. But really, nobody gets to be the arbiter, it is an empirical question, and nature bites us when we get it wrong. When people have empirical evidence for a position, it is difficult to examine and test that evidence, and easy to imagine that they have lost their political values, and have taken up lying in support of the enemy.

http://joeotten.blogspot.com/2009/02/greenpartywatch-gp-candidate-faces-axe.html

http://joeotten.blogspot.com/2007/03/science-and-politics.html

From what I’ve read about nuclear power, it seems that if we swapped nuclear for fossil fuels, yes, we’d reduce carbon emissions, but for only 25-50 years, until the fissile materials ran out, and then we’d be worse off than before, with a clean-up period of hundreds if not thousands of years. Seems pretty daft to me.