I’d never have voted if I’d thought you weren’t going to do that!

I’d never have voted if I’d thought you weren’t going to do that!

If you’ve read through these pages I guess you’ve already realised that I don’t have a great deal of faith in our elected representatives but be assured I am not biased I mistrust all political persuasions equally – it’s called balance. It wasn’t always so – when I was young I was idealistic, optimistic about the future, I believed in the power of democracy, but the more I see of politicians the more I’m convinced that they’re not driven by any sense of improving the common good but rather by a sense of their own importance. The new Scottish Parliament at Holyrood stands testament to this, a monument to human vanity - £500 million is a great deal of money for a notionally ordinary group of people to spend on a venue for their committee meetings. I think perhaps the Scottish people might have preferred the money to be spent on coaching a winning football or rugby squad. Another problem with politicians is that their vision is limited to a maximum of five years – beyond this there seems to be a grey impenetrable mist – we call this an election.

A more understandable reason for failing to introduce much needed environmental legislation is conflicting priorities – any unpopular move by the government e.g. taxation of workplace parking – will inevitably excite the anger of the electorate – leading to a loss of votes at the election. These political hot potatoes are quickly dropped by cabinet being seen as contrary to the public good i.e. losing the election. Of course governments must prioritise spending and we all want to see a decent health service, social security and education system it’s just that the environment always seems to be at the end of the queue. For example recently I was invited to join a Scottish Executive Sustainability committee. The chairman described the remit of the group and after he had finished I asked, “So what your saying is that the Scottish Executive knows that there are lots of people out there doing lots of good things for the environment and that you want us to find out what those things are and who is involved and then we will report this to you and you will claim this as your environmental policy and it will cost the tax-payer nothing. Is that correct?” The civil servant nodded and uttered a very creditable “Yes”. Actually I don’t mind this too much we were starting to do something even though it was very much in the low cost / no cost category – at least it was on the agenda. Of course environmentalists have a deserved reputation for shouting very loudly about the threats to the world posed by global warming and the rest – but the point is if we didn’t shout, we can be absolutely sure that no-one would listen.

Of course I have been very hard on politicians here – inflammatory almost and of course these days that’s a very fashionable thing to do. I realise that you, dear readers, will have your own political opinions and far be it from me to try and influence these. All through this book I have been trying to provoke - if you’ve agreed with everything I’ve said then I think that would be remarkable – if I’ve stimulated you to think about the issues raised then that is enough – if I’ve changed you behaviour (assuming it’s for the better) then that would be great. In any event I think it’s probably fair to say that politicians, national, regional and local have failed to grasp the nettle posed by environmental degradation. They have chosen to nibble around the edges of our problems rather than meeting the challenge head-on. Unpopular legislation has been avoided – king-car still reigns supreme – while, in the main, easy, achievable, environmental targets have been dealt with efficiently.

Ken Livingstone (love him or hate him) has blazed a trail through a dangerous political minefield and seems to have emerged at the other side unscathed. Telling the people of London that they would have to stump up a fiver every time they took their car into the city was a dangerous gamble but he pulled it off. Should this now serve as a model for all our cities? Certainly I’m all in favour of congestion charges in St Andrews – a fiver per car would be a small price to pay to save the local population from breathing in the fumes from a thousand grid locked cars belching exhaust, unable to park. Indeed during the summer months the medieval town grinds to a standstill every time the sun comes out and we wonder why asthma is on the increase. Actually far better than congestion charges why don’t we pedestrianise the whole place? We could put café’s on the pavement and dance in the streets – and why not? The city is for people not for cars – we should take back control of our local environment. Of course, I hear you say, what’s to become of the humble traffic warden? Is he[1] to be left destitute? Well in my opinion a few traffic wardens’ jobs are a small price to pay. We all have to make sacrifices. Would pedestrianisation work? Well of course it would - if there was a political will, a decent park and ride scheme, suitable dispensations for mobility impaired and, student-powered rickshaws to transport heavy shopping bags from city centre back to out of town car parks – nothing is insurmountable.

Now. Where was I? What I was going to suggest was that you guys[2] now go ahead and tell the government what to do to save the planet. I think ten key things would be about right – ten is a good number in these cases – its traditional – just like Wales provides an excellent measure of the amount of rainforest being burnt down at any one time. You might want to classify these as no cost / low cost / investment targets but in this case I think it would be more useful if you used the following headings:

Global
National
Regional
Local

Once you have written down your top-ten tips on what the government should be doing about the environment please feel free to sent them off to all your elected representatives:

Community Councillor
Regional Councillor
Member of the Scottish Parliament + list MSP’s
Member of the Westminster Parliament
Member of the European Parliament
The President of the United States[3]

Quite a lot aren’t there? You can find their contact details in your local paper – I realise this’ll cost you a lot in postage but believe me it’ll be worth it, they’ll be really glad to hear from you.

Now it’s my turn – I’m going to write down my wish list – I’ve been quite careful here and tried to avoid issues that are already being effectively addressed like the ozone hole, biodiversity in Scotland and kerbside recycling. Of course we could do better in these areas but at least we are doing something. So, here we go.

Cancel the third world debt. Give everyone a drink of fresh clean water, adequate sanitation and housing, access to rudimentary healthcare and primary education. Now, throughout this book, I’ve tried to convince you that global poverty is, in fact, an environmental issue. I hope I’ve been successful. If I haven’t then I certainly think I’ve failed. It seems to me that we in the developed western economies should make every effort to make friends with the rest of the world – think of the savings on security and “defence” – the so called “Peace Dividend”. We should put an end to the great global “resource grab” where the rich get richer and poor countries are asset stripped into even greater poverty. As long as we persist with this “them and us” mentality we can never hope to achieve peace. A twentieth century philosopher once said, “You can’t reason with a starving man”. Over half the world is starving. The solution to our environmental and resource problems requires world stability: the undeveloped nations should be helped to create sustainable / viable economies while the affluent west should seek “smart” solutions to its impending resource crisis.
Ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to set a target of 0% economic growth for the foreseeable future – or indeed set a negative target in line with declining population. From an early stage in our country’s history economic growth has formed the cornerstone of government policy. The idea is basically this: each year the country produces more stuff – the workers get more money for themselves – this allows the workers to buy even more stuff. This is extremely wasteful of resources and clearly requires a growth in the availability of raw materials – this is impossible. To allow growth in the use of renewables might, of course be an option and overcome the problem for a while but even this idea presupposes that consumption is, by definition, a good thing. Well is it? I think we need to move away from a consumer-led society, where wealth, happiness and social status are measured solely in terms of material possessions, to a more responsible, sustainable and socially inclusive, system. Economists have called this a “Conservation Society” as opposed to a “Consumer Society”. A pretty radical idea don’t you think? I have visions of you thinking of a bearded, idealistic, middle-aged, man whose formative years were spent in the Swinging Sixties – peace and love – would love to have an earring stud. A Conservation Society is, however, not such a stupid idea, as it might at first seem, it merely challenges our deeply ingrained beliefs. In our new world, the economy would run by conserving resources rather than using them. There would be no waste; no net use of virgin materials, households and business would be at least environmentally neutral if not environmentally beneficial. Would it lead to mass unemployment? I don’t think so. Jobs would be transferred from the production sector into service and conservation industries. The process has already begun – let’s give it a little kick.
Already the EC Government has responded well to the need to reduce the quantity of waste going to landfill and this is being translated into action at the community level – this is to be commended. As far as global warming is concerned – there has been a singular dragging of feet. Sign up to Kyoto? Yes, OK[4]. Action on the streets? I’m afraid not. That is not to say that nothing is happening but rather that we are moving towards renewable energy while failing to address the root-cause of the problem – waste. Adoption of strategies to generate renewable energy does not envisage any fall in overall consumption but rather business as usual – this puts the cart before the horse. The problem is not generation capacity but the extent to which we waste energy through poor design. This should be tackled at the planning stage by minimum energy conservation standards for houses, offices, factories, shops, cars, lorries and buses. Of course we need cheap affordable houses and of course new stringent building regulations will increase costs significantly – but we need to take the long view – energy saving standards built in at the design stage will pay for themselves easily within the life expectancy of the property. The same goes for any other piece of energy consuming equipment from an electric toothbrush to an airport. Of course it could be argued that this notion of energy efficiency by design is contrary to the principle of consumer choice: some consumers will wish to exercise their right to purchase cheap energy-haemorrhaging houses simple because they’re cheap; some will want to own big gas-guzzling Sports Utility Vehicles because they’re big, shiny and you can drive them over a muddy field (not that many SUV owners do ever drive across muddy fields for fear of getting their car dirty). However to permit a few selfish individuals to pollute the planet to the harm of other planet users surely infringes the rights of the majority of the worlds’ population.
Abolish Road Tax! It’s a bit controversial this one but the argument goes something like this. At present all road users pay a flat rate of road tax irrespective of how far they drive so an old lady who uses her Austin Metro twice a week to go to the supermarket or meet her friends in town for coffee pays the same as the sales executive with the BMW 5-series who drives 50,000 miles a year – this is patently unfair. Some road users, criminals some would say, do not bother to pay road tax at all, placing a heavier burden of taxation on the rest of us – this too is unfair. What about the Chancellor though and his precious revenue? The money that makes things like schools, hospitals and old age pensions possible. Well that’s the clever bit – we simply triple the price of fuel – this will satisfy the exchequer. Road users will pay according to the distance they travel and it’s impossible to cheat. What could be fairer? There’s just one slight problem – I’m sure you’ve spotted it. What about the people living in the countryside? How are they going to get to work? See a dentist or go clubbing on a Friday night? I must admit this is a bit of a problem but I think there is a precedent here. In order to attract people to come and live and work in London it has been traditional to apply an increment to salaries called the London Weighting Allowance. This money was to be used to offset the cost of living and, presumably, render life in the capital more tolerable. It has always been my contention that this was money wasted – if people don’t want to live and work in London why force them? Why not move the civil service out to Middlesbrough and Bank of England to Bridlington? Why not leave London to the tourists? Or better still create a virtual London on the World Wide Web so that no one actually ever has to visit. In any event it seems to me that living in the countryside is actually more expensive than our national capital. When holidaying in Achiltibuie, for example, the cost of fuel and groceries is extortionate and choice limited. A trip to the hairdressers is forty miles and a visit to the vet, doctor or dentist involves a round trip of over 200 miles. So I’m sure you see where I’m coming from. Abolish Road Tax. Treble the price of fuel. Abolish London weighting. Introduce an Achiltibuie Remoteness Tax Credit scheme. What could be simpler? The benefits? Consumers would buy energy efficient vehicles. Commuters would car-share or use public transport or, heaven forbid, walk to work. Working from home would become the norm. Manufacturers would design more energy efficient cars. Out of town shopping malls and Eurotels would cease to be planted on green field sites close to obscure motorway intersections. Our public transport infrastructure would get a much-needed boost. Country dwellers would feel cared for / cherished for a change. Our derelict inner cities might be reclaimed for the use of the people. It’s a win / win situation.
Make the polluter pay. We pay lip service only to this concept. The true cost of pollution is difficult to estimate and no consistent effort at applying an ecological approach to cost /damage accounting appears to be made. It seems inconceivable to me that during the first decade of the twenty first century we can’t drive an oil tanker laden with oil from point A to point B without bumping into something. With a maritime history going back thousands of years we have not yet learned rudimentary boat safety. Even as I write this oiled birds are being washed up on the beaches of the Firth of Forth – the culprits will probably never be found – even if the ship is identified – those responsible will have covered their tracks by a labyrinthine system of flags of convenience and sub-contractors to sub-contractors – and, even if the authorities surmount this hurdle and those responsible are brought to book – lawyers, at vast expense to both sides, will argue the legal niceties of the case amongst themselves until the disaster is completely forgotten by the public at large and those responsible have retired or died – and, only in the unlikely event of those responsible being found liable, will a financial penalty be applied. This will be a nominal sum and will in no way reflect the damage caused – it will act as no deterrent – it will be far cheaper to pay the fine than it would be for the company to bring their equipment up to an acceptable standard. This is a polluter’s charter. Financial penalties should be prohibitive - consummate with the damage done and the ability of the company to pay – perhaps 10% of annual turnover for a first offence and a doubling of the penalty for each subsequent incident – let’s put a realistic value on a clean / pollution free environment. Our aim should be “Zero Tolerance”.
Introduce tax breaks and interest free loans and grants to companies / families / individuals who wish to introduce “Green” technology. These might include: Tax-deductible public transport travel passes; Interest free loans on high specification energy saving devices e.g. solar water heaters, condensing boilers; Tax breaks for companies introducing home working; VAT exemption for “Green” and re-cycled products. I realise that this sort of thing happens already but generally this is an ad hoc affair and little is done to publicise promotions / grants loans. There are great opportunities going begging here.
Cut the amount of packaging waste associated with our shopping – particularly our groceries. Either by a punitive tax – a plastic bag tax – or by incentives. When I buy a cucumber I don’t need it to be entirely encapsulated within a thick, clinging-plastic, sheath – it’s the cucumber I want – the only purpose of the covering is to accelerate rotting. Why are all my apples individually labelled to identify them – I know they’re apples – that’s why I bought them – I don’t need a label to tell me they’re apples – I know what an apple looks like! I’m not stupid! Why is my topside of roast beef packaged in a plastic box the size of a small semi-detached house? Does it need room to move about? Is there some slight chance of the meat spontaneously reviving and suffocating? There used to be a joke that there was more energy in the Cornflakes cardboard box than there was in the cornflakes. It’s no joke. Every Wednesday I put out my bin – it’s much less full than it was ten years ago. All of the paper, glass, aluminium, plastic bottles and compostible waste has been segregated and disposed of responsibly. The residue in my landfill bin is entirely made up of supermarket packaging waste. Of course I am being unduly grumpy here – I could if I chose decide to do my weekly shopping up-town, assuming I could park. Then I would be free to fill my rucksack with unwrapped fruit and vegetables, meat and fish and all the other essentials of modern life – sometimes I do actually do this. But that’s not the point - I want you to do it too and everyone else as well for that matter. Only then will we rid ourselves of the evils of packaging.
Provide every single primary school kid in Britain with a positive environmental experience in the countryside. Let them get their hands dirty, their feet wet, their knees grazed. Give them a net and a jam-jar – take them to a stream. Camp out overnight – giggle and talk till two in the morning – feel wet grass under bare feet – hold a frog in small hands. What have we lost? Simple pleasures remembered for a lifetime - now denied. Health and safety legislation, a society all to ready to resort to litigation to settle disputes, teachers lacking the confidence to move into an outdoor living classroom and the belief that the world is an infinitely more dangerous place than it was forty years ago – all conspire to deny our children access to the natural environment. How did this society of fear come about? How did the world come to be populated by paedophiles, terrorists and muggers? Well, of course, it didn’t. Only in the fevered imaginations of the tabloid-reading public are these ideas commonplace. The reality is that Britain is just as safe now as it ever was – little has changed – only our perceptions. So, go on all you local authorities, get those kids back out into the countryside where they can breath. Make it easy for teachers to arrange field trips, away days and camps. Appoint environmental specialists to help teachers within the education authorities. Make this happen and the future may be safe.
Adopt your local environment / green-space – take a pride in where you live. Ask your local community Council to get a hold of some money and volunteers – landscape the traffic islands – reclaim brown-field wastelands – embellish roadside verges…….

Well that’s 8½ things the government ought to do – I could go on to ten or eleven or more but I’ve gone on far too long already. You know what we need to do – I don’t need to tell you – your elected representatives know what they need to do but they will only take action if you tell them to. You see, environmentalism is not difficult or complicated, it just needs a little commitment, some personal sacrifice and a little environmental awareness. Anyway, I feel I’ve almost finished the book – it’s time to go out and look at the world out there – to enjoy it – appreciate it – taste it.



[1] Of course I realise that not all traffic wardens are men – indeed many of my friends are female traffic wardens – I use the word “he” merely for convenience not to indicate a particular gender.
[2] I’m using the word “guys” here in its broadest possible context as an inclusive term to include all of my female readers as well as the males.
[3] I realise George W Bush is not really your very own elected representative – indeed it is questionable whether he was actually elected at all and, as such, is anyone’s elected representative - however as the most powerful man in the world I’m absolutely sure he’d be delighted with your help and advice. Believe me – he needs it.
[4] Not the USA incidentally