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

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.

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.

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

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’

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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?

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.

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 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.

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.