The green movement as it stands should receive the last rites. Its only hope is for a complete overhaul. Its mystic, utopian view of nature and its attachment to meaningless notions such as sustainable development or the precautionary principle should be done away with. It is time to move on.
Or so says Professor Anthony Giddens in his new book, The Politics of Climate Change. It is not that Giddens disputes that mankind is dangerously warming up the planet. The scientific evidence is overwhelming; the risk of a global calamity all too real.
It’s just that he has the chutzpah to acknowledge what is obvious. Despite the threat and the mounting evidence, there is no hope of mobilizing Western governments and the public into action by appeals to green utopianism or impossible demands to give up our current standard of living. There needs to be a new language, a focus on climate change alone, because that is what counts and is a practical route forward that makes sense to the mass of people. Otherwise, we really are lost.
Giddens curiously and paradoxically overlaps with other recent polemics against environmentalists. Yet Giddens is not a global-warming skeptic like Lawson, who disputes even the evidence of science. But he does understand Lawson’s impatience with some of the daffy thinking that surrounds the environmental debate and tries to replace it with some tougher ideas.
How, he asks, are we ever to mobilize public opinion about distant threats that inevitably feel not very real? By the time it is proven that the scientists were right, it will be too late to do anything. The inhabitants of Easter Island who destroyed their own ecosystem are a warning. Human beings are myopic. Now the same myopia is evident globally. We have to do better, not least to see off the siren-like arguments of the Nigel Lawsons.
The first problem is that the green movement is shot through with contradictory impulses. Prince Charles and the G20 protesters cannot realistically muster under the same intellectual and political banner. Charles has the conservatives’ reverential attitude toward the enduring and natural forces of nature. His love of nature is genuine, but it segues seamlessly into his view that monarchy is as much part of the natural order as the seasons. Nobody is trying to keep global temperature growth to below 2ºC to save the Windsors.
On the other wing of the green movement, the G20 protesters interpret climate change as proof of the evils of capitalism and the capitalist state. They say there needs to be a return to the local and a new radical left politics. The state should be broken down. Capitalism should be superseded by local co-operative enterprise and local political decision-making. Food should be organic. Trade should be constrained. Air travel and car use radically reduced. And so on.
The vast majority are unmoved. Worse, many mainstream environmental intellectuals drop rigor when it comes to the environment, climate change and risk. Under the precautionary principle, almost nothing should be done that endangers the climate, just in case the worst scientific warnings are right. The aim should be sustainable development — to grow economically in a way that passes the globe on to the next generation in the same condition in which we found it.
Giddens dismisses this thinking as wretchedly woolly. Are we really going to risk nothing? This is a refutation of our very risk-taking humanity. In any case, there is little chance of building a consensus over which risks matter and to what degree.
Instead, the percentage principle should rule — taking risks in proportion to the probable good and bad outcomes. Moreover, “sustainable” and “development” should not be used together so loosely. Development is a dynamic concept that necessarily depletes resources. Poor countries such as China or India can only develop unsustainably. They must burn coal. To ask the entire world to commit to sustainable development is to damn the less developed world to poverty. Those countries will never agree.
The dead end of the current debate is revealed in a sequence in the new film The Age of Stupid. Informed lobbyists are filmed successfully resisting planning permission for a wind farm, acknowledging as they do so that there does need to be action on global warming.
But similar lobbyists could have been filmed resisting planning permission for London-Heathrow airport’s third runway, this time using the same green arguments. The common thread is that homeowners don’t want development near them and deploy any useful argument to hand. Sometimes they are right, sometimes wrong.
For example, there are powerful arguments for a third runway: Heathrow’s capacity is pivotal to the vibrant knowledge economy in west London and surrounding counties. With the collapse of financial services, this is Britain’s economic future. Certainly, hundreds of thousands of residents in west London will suffer more flights, if from quieter aircraft, yet their interests must be offset by the interests of many more millions.
Climate change cannot be a political game, to be played as and when it suits particular protesters. Nations need to develop a vision of where they want to be in, say, 2025 in terms of carbon emissions, energy independence and wider economic structures. Then it needs to “back-cast” to today and make sure what it does is part of a wider plan that builds, step by step, toward that vision.
So if, as in the case of the UK, the government wants to build a third Heathrow runway, it must show how it intends to compensate for higher air traffic with radically lower carbon emissions elsewhere. It is called planning. It needs to come back into fashion — fast.
The best arguments to kill the “so what” factor over climate change are not scary tales from a far-distant future. It is to argue for investment in energy efficiency because it saves cash and makes strategic sense. Tidal and wind power along with nuclear energy emit less carbon, but they also free Western nations from dependence on Russia and radical Islamic oil-producing states.
Cars powered by electricity or hydrogen are cheaper. The less developed world will only follow suit if the West picks up the bill. But to persuade Western publics to make sacrifices requires more than terrifying them. It requires laying out concrete actions that collectively make sense now.
Greens and environmentalists will challenge Giddens’ book. It is true that as a result of their campaigning the culture is changing, but far too slowly. The danger is far too serious to be co-opted by the Left, nimbyists, G20 protesters, princes or utopian conservationists.
There needs to be a visionary plan that spells out where we want to be, and in which a series of feasible and justifiable actions is delivered by the state, which can then be backed by mainstream opinion. Otherwise our civilization will go the same way as that of Easter Island.
Congratulations to China’s working class — they have officially entered the “Livestock Feed 2.0” era. While others are still researching how to achieve healthy and balanced diets, China has already evolved to the point where it does not matter whether you are actually eating food, as long as you can swallow it. There is no need for cooking, chewing or making decisions — just tear open a package, add some hot water and in a short three minutes you have something that can keep you alive for at least another six hours. This is not science fiction — it is reality.
A foreign colleague of mine asked me recently, “What is a safe distance from potential People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Rocket Force’s (PLARF) Taiwan targets?” This article will answer this question and help people living in Taiwan have a deeper understanding of the threat. Why is it important to understand PLA/PLARF targeting strategy? According to RAND analysis, the PLA’s “systems destruction warfare” focuses on crippling an adversary’s operational system by targeting its networks, especially leadership, command and control (C2) nodes, sensors, and information hubs. Admiral Samuel Paparo, commander of US Indo-Pacific Command, noted in his 15 May 2025 Sedona Forum keynote speech that, as
In a world increasingly defined by unpredictability, two actors stand out as islands of stability: Europe and Taiwan. One, a sprawling union of democracies, but under immense pressure, grappling with a geopolitical reality it was not originally designed for. The other, a vibrant, resilient democracy thriving as a technological global leader, but living under a growing existential threat. In response to rising uncertainties, they are both seeking resilience and learning to better position themselves. It is now time they recognize each other not just as partners of convenience, but as strategic and indispensable lifelines. The US, long seen as the anchor
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) last week announced that the KMT was launching “Operation Patriot” in response to an unprecedented massive campaign to recall 31 KMT legislators. However, his action has also raised questions and doubts: Are these so-called “patriots” pledging allegiance to the country or to the party? While all KMT-proposed campaigns to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) lawmakers have failed, and a growing number of local KMT chapter personnel have been indicted for allegedly forging petition signatures, media reports said that at least 26 recall motions against KMT legislators have passed the second signature threshold
RSS