Caroline Lucas Interview: The Green Movement Needs To Get Away From Doom And Gloom

The Huffington Post     Dina Rickman
First Posted: 07/07/11 07:08 Updated: 06/09/11 11:12

Shortly after making history, Caroline Lucas gave a speech on Glastonbury’s pyramid stage, called for drugs to be decriminalised and won the Spectator’s much-coveted parliamentarian of the year award.

It’s been a busy year for Britain’s first Green MP – and she’s not planning to slow down. Her next project is shaking up the green movement, who she admits have “failed a little bit” to engage the public.

Veteran climate activist Charles Secrett recently lamented the state of the green movement. Writing in the Guardian, he claimed “the momentum has again fizzled away” from environmental activism.

Even the left despair at Al Gore, the former figure head of climate activism. Lucas agrees there’s a problem. She says it’s time for greens to move the rhetoric away from “the doom and gloom and hairshirts.”

“Until recently I think the wider green movement and the green party included in it were too much focused, understandably, to waking people up to the climate crisis that would be rather than attracting people by painting a positive picture of what a zero carbon economy could look like. And I think fear isn’t a great motivating influence.”

For her, the green movement is about improving people’s lives – tackling the problem of fuel poverty, creating jobs and growth.

“Instead of just saying ‘we’ve got to act because climate change could be dreadful’, we’ve got to act because this could be a way of creating lots of jobs and also insulating lots of people’s homes and reducing their fuel bills so they’re not living in poverty and dying prematurely.

“I think we’ll have a much better job of doing it if we don’t always talk about the doom and gloom and hairshirts. The sense that the climate change agenda is one about doing without and giving things up is a very negative agenda. It turns people off.”

Sitting at a desk crowded with annotated print outs from bill sub-committees she speaks quickly, offering to help clarify quotes if my dictaphone can’t pick up it all up.

The sense of urgency is understandable. For Lucas, climate change has been relegated down the political agenda – and it’s up to her to tackle that within parliament as the most powerful representative of the green movement in the country.

“It’s just crazy”, Lucas says, that the Government aren’t instigating a 1930s style New Deal for green energy.

“We know climate change is happening, we know what is causing it, we know what we need to do to address it. What’s lacking isn’t the technical knowledge, it’s not even the money actually it just comes down to the political will to say ‘this is a priority’.”

She believe it comes down a Catch 22. Lucas thinks the politicians are waiting for the public pressure to act, whilst the public assume if it were serious the politicians would be acting already.

“That’s such a dangerous conclusion to draw because it is that serious and politicians aren’t doing something about it and they’re not doing anything about it because they don’t feel under the pressure from the public.”

She is scathing about the Coalition’s Green Investment Bank (a good idea turned into “another lost opportunity”) and scoffs when asked if they’re the greenest government ever.

“The government’s energy policy is like building a house on sand. If the architecture’s wrong it doesn’t matter how nice the rest of the house is…

“Too much, this government and indeed all governments still see climate change as its own subject over here, and then you’ve got the rest of business as usual over there.

“Whereas an awareness and a commitment to tackle climate change has to go through every single one of our policies. It’s not a bolt-on to business as usual. It’s an absolutely integral part of it, I think.”


The biggest issue in her brief right now? Nuclear. Despite Chris Huhne’s recent call for the UK to use more nuclear power to generate energy, the Liberal Democrat presence in the Coalition gives her hope.

“I think our best effort, our best chance in this parliament to try to halt the government's movements on nuclear power is around the issue of subsidies because they've said that nuclear won't go ahead if it needs public subsidy, which is a very disingenuous position because we know perfectly well that nuclear power always needs public subsidy.

“It always has done and it always will do. It's hard to think of any government just sitting on its hands while there's some equivalent of Fukushima [the nuclear plant in Japan that was affected by the tsunami]. They're not going to do that.

“So essentially the risks associated with nuclear have such high price tags that there will always be a public subsidy. There's a subsidy already when it comes to decommissioning. We know that half the DECC budget goes on nuclear one way or another.”

The coalition agreement declares that no public subsidies will be given to new nuclear power stations, a position which she believes will create another split between the two governing bodies “quite soon” - and Lucas thinks in the wake of Fukushima, the anti-nuclear lobby can win this fight.

“Who knows, this could be one that we'll win and we'll persuade the government that nuclear is not only unsafe, as everybody knows and uneconomic but it's also uneconomic. There are much better ways, much cheaper, faster, more effective ways of getting our emissions down than using nuclear." The “very public and dramatic” decisions Germany and Switzerland have made to phase out nuclear also give her hope.

But without nuclear energy or coal, where will the UK get its energy from? Lucas acknowledges that the answer is gas, but rejects the idea that the country will be dependent on supplies from Russia.

“I appreciate that for a short time we will need some more gas… I don’t think we need to necessarily be getting it from Russia, and I don’t think we need to be particularly expanding it but I’m just foreseeing that we would need it, as a bridge, for another decade or so.”

Aside from the green issues, Lucas is also battling Parliament; calling for electronic voting and an end to the house sitting from 2pm until 10, or when debates end in the early hours.

In the past, she has called for “family friendly” hours in Parliament, arguing it’s time for Westminster to move away from the image of an “old boys’ club”, and that queuing for votes wastes up to six weeks of MPs’ time over the course of a Parliament.

Then there’s the voting system itself, an issue where she found an unlikely ally in right-wing Eurosceptic Tory MP Douglas Carswell.

She says the two had a “very good working relationship” as they tried to advocate PR. But that doesn’t mean she would be open to working within a Coalition. For Lucas, whilst she’d prefer a Lib Dem/Labour coalition, there’s more influence to be had outside, supporting policies on a case-by-case basis.

“For example in London our members of the London Assembly made their support for Ken Livingstone’s budget conditional on his agreeing to set up a living wage unit. Which is a really nice way of demonstrating win-win if you like.”

Still, there’s one government job Lucas could be open to. As a parting question, I ask if she’d like to be Energy Secretary. “Not unless they gave me a lot more power than they gave Chris Huhne”, she laughs.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST UK

Shortly after making history, Caroline Lucas gave a speech on Glastonbury’s pyramid stage, called for drugs to be decriminalised and won the Spectator’s much-coveted parliamentarian of the year aw...
Shortly after making history, Caroline Lucas gave a speech on Glastonbury’s pyramid stage, called for drugs to be decriminalised and won the Spectator’s much-coveted parliamentarian of the year aw...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 18
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
00:50 on 11/07/2011
I think that the Greens do need to accept nuclear power, But energy and other natural resources need to be nationalised first. To put essential services in shareholders' whims is insane.

Caroline is a good representative but the party needs good single messages on socioeconomic policies.
photo
MimiK
living in dramatic times
19:22 on 09/07/2011
When nature is "green," it is the sign of freshness, newness, fecundity, flourishing, abundance and vitality. The green movement needs to reinvent itself around green as FLOURISHING, green as fecund with novelty, creativity - and not just technological creativity, but social and political creativity as well. Reinvent itself around freshness against toxic, dead and dying and deadly old ideas and catastrophic business-as-usual. Green as the indicator in nature of new growth. Green as breaking through the ground, breaking new ground.

With all the detritus of the old needing to be cleared away to make room for a global salutary society dedicated to the common good of humanity and the vitality of the Earth commons.
01:05 on 09/07/2011
The problem is not so much with the Green Party in Britain; as Caroline Lucas is the only member in parliament - all others being defeated. It is herself that is so tiresome. She is known as motormouth for her constant fast talking and interruptions and shouting down other people. She also has no patience with any person or people that cannot agree with her and displays this constantly.
On this basis she must be quite lonely in Westminster.
She needs to reevaluate her position and status and try to get something done rather than try to cover too many issues and get nothing done.
19:15 on 08/07/2011
Greens will only be elected if they move away from being a single issue party. By engaging with topics such as growth, employment, education and the like, but weaving this into their green ethos, I can only see their support grow. It may even be necessary to hold policies that are often at odds with environmental orthodoxy, in order to be electable, whilst retaining traditional green views elsewhere.
21:03 on 08/07/2011
You know I heard this about orthodoxy and electability before. Tell me, do you think Winston Churchill was too one dimensional during WWII? If you compare what's coming down the environmental pipe with WWII, WWII was a walk in the park. Billions are going to die. The ocean is going to be a desert of jellyfish. Oh but we should talk about lollypops and sunshine. Please the inertia already in the system is bad enough but we're adding to it by pumping out way more greenhouse gases than the IPCC predicted. Do have a clue how bad this is????
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
22:10 on 08/07/2011
Hyperbole much?

You've been crying wolf since the'70's and it never ever happens!

No one believes it any more. And the really sad thing is that you might have a kernel of truth in your arguments, but you over sell it too much that it gets embarrassing
photo
Nec V20
Liberal with five knuckles to back it up
23:02 on 07/07/2011
She has it easy. I was a green Party member in Germany in the eighties and got elected to local government in the early nineties.

One of my boozing buddies back in the early eighties where he and I were classified as "terrorists" by the German Federal Government was Joschka Fischer.

Caroline Lucas is an empty shirt, probably relying more on her T&A than anything between her ears.
17:56 on 10/07/2011
I think you do her a massive disservice. She comes across as knowledgable and practical on television. I suspect the green's failures have more to do with being a one note party without a broad appeal than it's leader.

Dismissing her as T & A is disrespectful, and simply untrue as well.
photo
MIKEBC
Old school Roosevelt democrat
18:56 on 07/07/2011
Looks like she lost her wig.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TheSarge
Armed Crawdad BodyGuard
18:48 on 07/07/2011
Bouncing around a different theory every week doesn't help the cause much either. People are looking for a final answer to climate change, there is also far to much politically biased commentary.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
17:51 on 07/07/2011
IMO, it only takes a relatively small amount of time to begin with a good (as in beneficial) concept that is in all likelihood necessary and promises to be productive and have "Madison Ave." glom on to the theme or a thread of the philosophy in order to spin their international ad campaigns, sell enough product to generate profit through interest and feigned intent, and then leave the mere mention of the cause (in this case, the Green Party) laying on the ground of confusion and misconception, and used up like a 3 day Vegas companion.
We've seen this before folks. It's the life's blood of the Idiocracy.
15:00 on 07/07/2011
What I really take from this piece, and from internal party discussions, is that the Green Party's branding and public-perception is faltering.

As altwebid says, our policies are actually almost bang-on for the traditional Labour/left vote, and there are many points of focus other than the environment. We're still seen as a single-issue party, which however important that issue is, will struggle to garner more "mainstream" voters.

Having said that, party member numbers are up, and we have our first MP. It just frustrates me that the Green vote being in line with the current political atmosphere, isn't communicated nearly half as much as it should be.
14:21 on 07/07/2011
The Green Party needs rebranding.
They are everything that traditional Labour voters want, but unfortunately the message isn't getting across and they are not taken seriously as a political force.
They need to try and stay untainted by the political class and change the name.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
15:58 on 09/07/2011
No they are not.
Labour voters want jobs and a better standard of living. That's not on the Green agenda (not in a believable way anyway).
It's not that people don't know who the Greens are, it's that they just don't share their priorities.
12:20 on 07/07/2011
I am concerned about climate change, and I'm not against nuclear energy per se. But I am against the way the nuclear energy industry in this country is presently run. It is an irresponsible money sink at the moment, and I have no faith in the powers that be to prevent a disaster on Japan's scale.

The problem with nuclear is that it is complicated and expensive to implement properly. It isn't a silver bullet, and proponents often declare it so. It's probably necessary, but that doesn't mean we need to be enthusiastic about it either. Even those countries that mostly use nuclear have energy problems.

Micro generation also has a long way to go (the solar industry is going leaps and bounds since the feed-in tariff scheme). We need more people to take responsibility for their own energy use, and that it not going to work if we stick only with a centrally provided, 'the government will look after us' approach.

We need innovative research and better ways to reclaim energy where it is wasted most - our homes, our cars, our offices. To have that happen, we will need to be enthusiastic about it though - high tech industry, increased research into energy efficiency, as well as fusion power.

What Greens need to do is to stop engaging in the 'deniers vs believers' argument. It's pointless trying to win over the Jeremy Clarkson's of the world with logical, scientific argument. The better way is to start building Tesla
12:03 on 07/07/2011
I’m not convinced the Greens have a coherent vision of a sustainable happy Britain yet, if they have it isn’t being communicated. Much work required.

I suspect I’m not the only one who sees little difference in practice (not rhetoric) between the 3 main parties. This presents an opportunity for the Greens. The Green Party needs to clearly distinguish itself from “Them”.

Points of agreement with the general public are needed. Frankly fuel taxes, immigration, the EU etc are a vote losing turn-off.

How about:

- Banks and the “banksters”
- Unemployment
- Corruption amongst politicians
- Lack of democracy

Credible plans are required to tackle any problems identified.

Alternatively the Greens could wait for a major economic collapse and help pick up the pieces afterwards; shock doctrine style.
Dogmudgeon
Saepe in Errore, Nunquam in Dubito
10:01 on 07/07/2011
Are you sure this interview wasn't from The Onion, or Improv Everywhere? First, the title asserts that "The Green Movement Needs To Get Away From Doom And Gloom", then spends the second half of the interview talking gloom and doom about the favorite whipping boy of the Middle-Aged (formerly New) Left, nuclear energy.

After making numerous baseless assertions about The Devil's Lightning, Ms. Lucas then admits that the Great Green Hope is Natural Gas, a strong generator of greenhouse gases, itself (methane) having 20 times the heat-trapping effect of carbon dioxide. But don't worry -- it's only a "bridge fuel". Nor should we worry about depending on Russia, because ... just because.

But for a moment, forget about the anti-nuke crusade. The Green Party is supporting generating energy from the fastest-growing source of carbonization in the world, and dismissing the political power behind it, which joins Vladimir Putin with T. Boone Pickens. Am I the only one who finds this just a little bit strange?
photo
planetjeffy
On the other hand, you have different fingers.
07:32 on 07/07/2011
Climate change is not a great message for clean energy. It is better to focus on $ savings and clean air for your children. Also, the foreign policy aspects of not sending money to terrorists every time you fill up is a good message. These are basic concepts everyone understands.