I was listening to Adam Curtis being interviewed on the Adam Buxton podcast and it reminded me of why I think the green lobby are failing.

Curtis reckons it's failing because the climate advocates, led by science, are portraying a doomsday scenario without any hope for the future and no lauding of the side benefits of the restructuring of society that could take place to fix climate change.

This made me stop and listen, because I think the opposite.

To me, I think one of the main things holding back solutions to climate change is the way any climate advocacy is identified as being tied to a broader plot by the left to use climate change to enforce their principles. Similarly, "hair shirtism" (my name) which I see quite a lot on this forum, is an easy way to point out how fixing climate change will hurt the economy, make you poorer, less comfortable etc etc.

I think we need to stop preaching and show people how their lives can be better by fixing climate change. Not by abstract ideals or far off warnings of what calamaties may arise, but by showing here and now how building houses better (as an example) improve people's lives in a tangible, immediate way.

Posted By: gravelldTo me, I think one of the main things holding back solutions to climate change is the way any climate advocacy is identified as being tied to a broader plot by the left to use climate change to enforce their principles.

That's the reason I'm not voting green in this election. All the coverage of their policies seems to be about left wing social policies rather than about actual green issues.

The sad thing is that at the moment I've identified reasons not to vote for any of the parties standing in my constituency. There is one independent but I have no idea who he is or what policies he stands for!

As I see it (as a fairly cenre-right kind of guy), the green lobby are massively dominated by the left wing, anti capitalist movements. Much of the green party agenda is thinly diguised anti capitalist policies. I have no time for Greenpeace or FOE either.

The other big item is indeed the "hair shirtism" where the greens basically are telling us that we will all have to be poorer. Not travel. Not consume. Given that a pretty fundamental human desire is to better yourself, to improve your life, be wealthier than your parents, they are onto a real loser.

Posted By: Ed DaviesEg?

Suggestions energy prices should rise. Maybe eventually once energy use for domestics are trivial, but to avoid regressive damage to the poorest we have to fix the underlying problems first.

Suggestions people should get on their bike (!) instead of driving. Not realistic for most people.

Turning the thermostat down.

"Bathing in 5cm of water is good enough for me".

That kind of thing.

Posted By: gravelldSuggestions energy prices should rise. Maybe eventually once energy use for domestics are trivial, but to avoid regressive damage to the poorest we have to fix the underlying problems first.

It'd be funny if it wasn't so sad that when green/left peeps suggest using market mechanisms (energy prices) to motivate fixing problems the right wingers scream “think of the poor people”. Then when the green/lefties suggest that we need social policies to counteract that they scream “communist” indicating that's probably not what they were actually bothered about in the first place.

Posted By: Ed Davies1) Concentrate on environmental issues alone and be dismissed as one-issue cranks?

It worked for UKIP

Posted By: fostertomWould "unfettered free enterprise will solve this unexpected mess" policies be more palatable?

False dichotomy.

Posted By: Ed Davies

Posted By: gravelldSuggestions energy prices should rise. Maybe eventually once energy use for domestics are trivial, but to avoid regressive damage to the poorest we have to fix the underlying problems first.

It'd be funny if it wasn't so sad that when green/left peeps suggest using market mechanisms (energy prices) to motivate fixing problems the right wingers scream “think of the poor people”. Then when the green/lefties suggest that we need social policies to counteract that they scream “communist” indicating that's probably not what they were actually bothered about in the first place.

I'm not a right winger, just to be clear. I just believe in fixing problems at source, rather than have the market derive a de-optmised solution or government derive a solution with unintended consequences which then details the market and the right wingers start calling foul.

Yeah, helps if you're in a country full of one-issue cranks on the same issue.

Posted By: fostertomRadical 'parties' should keep out of mainstream politics, not get lured into where they have to compromise and deal, lose their way and end up being led by infantile power-brokers. It's happened so many times.

Again though, it worked for UKIP, didn't it? And if there's any backsliding you can bet it will work again, in spades.

Stay out, remain a think tank or pressure group - far more effective to change the zeitgeist.

Care to list a few examples of that working in practice then, Tom?