Greens believe they occupy the moral high ground of politics. But their policies deny the poor the chance to succeed
A confession: I voted for the Green party in 1979 — one of fewer than 40,000 people in the whole country who did so. It was then called the Ecology party and I knew the local candidate in Oxford, which is some excuse. But mainly I wanted to save the planet, and thought the greater good should trump self-interest. I was definitely on the moral high ground. Or was I? Hold that thought.
The latest opinion polls show that the Green party is doing to the Liberal Democrats what Ukip is doing to the Conservatives, and could even relegate the Lib Dems to fifth place in next year’s general election in terms of vote share. Peter Kellner of YouGov has analysed today’s typical Green voter and found that she is almost a mirror image of the Ukip voter. Where Ukip voters are older, maler, more working-class, less educated and more religious than the average voter, Green voters are younger, femaler, posher, much better educated and less religious than the average voter.
In Downton Abbey terms, Greens are a lady upstairs in the dining room; kippers are a footman downstairs in the servants’ hall. Indeed, my experience of fanatical Greens at conferences and anti-fracking demos is that many are often very grand indeed, disproportionately hailing (when male) from Eton, Stowe and Westminster, shopping (especially when female) at the most expensive of organic shops, and speaking (when of either sex) in the countiest of accents. (A bit like me, in fact.)
Despite these social and economic advantages, eco-toffs put their self-interest to one side and campaign selflessly for the greater Gaian good, worry about the effect that climate change will have on future generations and yearn for a more holistic version of economic growth.
But is greenery really quite so selfless? Take climate change. The “synthesis report” of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, published yesterday, warns of an increased “likelihood” of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts if emissions continue. But when you cut through the spin, the IPCC is actually saying that there is a range of possibilities, from no net harm at all (scenario RCP 2.6) through two middling scenarios to one where gathering harm from mid-century onwards culminates in potentially dire consequences by 2100 (scenario RCP 8.5).
This latter scenario makes wildly unrealistic assumptions about population, coal use, trade, methane emissions and other things; RCP 2.6 is equally unrealistic in the other direction. So let’s focus on the two middle scenarios, known as RCP 4.5 and RCP 6. In these more realistic economic projections, if you use the latest and best estimates of the climate’s “sensitivity” to carbon dioxide (starkly lower than the out-of-date ones still used by the IPCC), the most probable outcome is that the world will be respectively just 0.8 and 1.2 degrees Celsius warmer than today by the last decades of this century.
Most of that warming will be at night, in winter and in northern latitudes, so tropical daytime warming will be less. Again, on the best evidence available, it is unlikely that this amount of warming, especially if it is slow, will have done more harm than good. The chances are, therefore, that climate change will not cause significant harm in the lives of our children and grandchildren.
The OECD economic models behind the two scenarios project that the average person alive in 2100 will be earning an astonishing four to seven times as much money — corrected for inflation — as they do today. That’s a 300 to 600 per cent increase in real pay. This should enable posterity to buy quite a bit of protection for itself and the planet against any climate change that does show up. So we are being asked to make sacrifices today to prevent the possibility of what may turn out to be pretty small harm to very wealthy people in the future.
By contrast, the cost of climate policies falls heavily on today’s poor. Subsidies for renewable energy have been trousered mostly by the rich and raised costs of heating and transport disproportionately for the poor. Subsidies for biofuels have raised food prices by diverting food into fuel, tipping millions into malnutrition and killing about 190,000 people a year. The refusal of many rich countries to fund aid for coal-fired electricity in Africa and Asia rather than renewable projects (and in passing I declare a financial interest in coal mining) leaves more than a billion people without access to electricity and contributes to 3.5 million deaths a year from indoor air pollution caused by cooking over open fires of wood and dung.
Greens think this harm is a price worth paying to stop the warming. They want (other) people to bear such sacrifices today so that the people of 2100, who will be up to seven times as rich, do not have to face the prospect of living in a world that is perhaps 0.8 to 1.2 degrees warmer. And this is the moral high ground?