The chancellor's conversion to green politics has been very half-hearted, he argues, and his "joyless" obsession with economic growth counterproductive.
"Gordon Brown is the finest opponent the Green Party could have. He's the antithesis of green politics.
"If something is good for corporations, if something is good for business, that's good for Gordon Brown.
"We have got to look at it the other way round, what's good for people, what's good for the environment.
"He's got this dour, puritan politics. I looked at the pre-Budget report and I think we will actually look back to Blair - Blair has been terrible - but Blair will look better than Brown, if Brown ever becomes prime minister."
More from my BBC interview here
8 comments:
Excellent interview on BBC, well done Derek!
I will check out your interview Derek, sounds well interesting.
You may be interested to follow up on Yafa Partner's / Ealing Green Party's case in Ealing, which has been running for over 8 years against Tesco (against their first ever 'Express' store and the ensuing pollution problems, involving Jenny Jones and John Whitelegg. Case now being dealt with by Atkins & Co and Cherie Blair.
Brian Outten
And you're the economist??
It's not a corporate agenda its a Tax agenda. GB wants every human endeavour farmed out to someone else so that it involves a financial transaction that a) contributes to the illusion of economic growth and b) can be taxed!
How do you tax someone who generates their own electricity, grows their own food, brings up their own children?
Start talking Tax and how we are all being conned and you might start to engage with the masses.
I haven't had the chance to congratulate you and Sian on your election btw, Derek, so congratulations!
Well, I think taxes are part of it, but the central thing is the neo-liberal agenda.
Look at the Stern Review for example, the target of 450ppm CO2e that most scientists would be advocating as the minimum if we wan to avoid the worst effects of climate change is almost immediately rejected, essentially because of the likely impact on return on investment, ie growth.
Instead, Stern goes for 550ppm, which is starting to take us into very risky territory, essentially because he thinks he can make a semi-plausible case for profitable business opportunities outweighing the economic costs. Stern also makes it very clear that he's much happier penalising consumer behaviour than he is investing in mitigation.
The whole document is written with reference not to what we need to do about climate change so much as what one can persuade the City to let us do about climate change, and only if it's profitable.
Great interview.
As a (Zen) Buddhist I appreciate your point of view of the link between sustainability and Buddhism. Gassho.
Gassho, thanks for your kind words
The danger of course is to witter on and on about zen and not actually sit, looking forward to zazen at london bridge tomorrow
http://www.zeninlondon.org/ if any one is interested,
incidentally
have you seen the nice Marx statement about Zen
For my own part right glad I am to have got rid of all company, even that of my books. I have taken a private lodging which fronts the sea […] but the air is wonderfully pure and reinvigorating, and you have here at the same time sea air and mountain air. I have become myself a sort of walking stick, running up and down the whole day, and keeping my mind in that state of nothingness which Buddhaism considers the climax of human bliss. (Marx 1987: 241-242)
see Marx, K. (1987) Marx and Engels Collected Work. Volume 42. New York: International Publishers.
Been struggling with sitting myself. Pulled the zazen buton out of the closet last week. It needed airing.
No, I didn't know Marx was even aware of Buddhism. Must look more into it. Thank you.
Post a Comment