Suffragettes vs the fighter pilot tendency

11 March 2009

As I briefly emerge blinking from a frantic few weeks chasing deadlines in a dim flat, I feel the need to note some interesting developments in the world of activism.

Firstly, it's excellent to see that the vanguard is being populated largely by gloriously brilliant young women. My slightly younger self caused a minor media fillip a few years ago when I started putting fake parking tickets on 4x4s with my friends in the local green movement. I think this was because, at the time, the idea of a woman in her twenties having an idea then taking the lead on an issue was quite the novelty. The highlight was being called onto the Richard and Judy show to be called a ‘clever chicken' by Richard and asked by Judy why I didn't like ‘404s' - bless them both.

Nowadays though, if there's even the slightest hint of cleverness or media-savvy about a campaign, you can bet your life that one of a growing band of courageous, intelligent young woman is behind it. If it's not Tamsin Omond getting 2,000 suffragettes to mob parliament, then it's Ariane Sherine raising a saturation-level media budget for the Atheist Bus campaign with nothing more than a great idea and the guts to put it out there. And this week Leila Deen succeeded where George Osborne failed and out-spinned Mandelson with an inspired act of flan flinging.

The best quotes I saw about this were from Leila herself and her mother. I love the simple lack of bombast of this from Leila: "He's been actively pushing a high-carbon future through the third runway. I didn't want to let him stand up and talk about that, so last night I decided to make some custard, colour it green, and show how slimy I think he is."

While this non-sequiteur sums up the childish-but-important perfectness of the whole incident: "I'm proud she's got the courage of her convictions and she's prepared to take direct action for injustice. It's not easy, to know you run the risk of being arrested. When Leila usually makes custard it's quite lumpy, but this looked pretty smooth."

Meanwhile, though, the alpha males of the green movement are letting the side down badly and handing the nuclear industry great lumps of PR gold by ‘embracing' nuclear power with varying degrees of headline-grabbing enthusiasm.

Like the young women mentioned above, these chaps have a few physical and biographical characteristics in common, largely a tendency to be over 45 with the haircut of a WW2 fighter pilot and the experience to know better than play so crudely into the hands of an industry on the make.

George Monbiot made his name telling stories of romantics in market towns standing up to big out-of-town supermarket planning applications that were getting past local councils by claiming all kinds of benefits (jobs, prosperity, traffic diverted from the town centre) while patently being a sideshow to the real question of how to build sustainable communities. Mark Lynas, on the other hand, gained his reputation scrutinising every piece of climate science he could get his hands on to outline the effects of climate change to those of us without that amount of time on our hands. Stephen Tindale was in charge of Greenpeace when they launched their push for decentralised energy - a simple but important rethink of power supply that holds the key to doing without super-sized power producers altogether and making the most of waste heat from electricity production in regions and localities.

So it's gutting each time to hear them effectively giving up their respective fights and playing straight into the hands of those who would bamboozle the UK into signing off on a huge mistake.

Tindale, after spending some time at RWE, now says he reluctantly backs whichever big installations are least carbon heavy, Lynas is going on about the intensely unproven and unreliable fast-breeder reactor as the solution to the problems we have with uranium supply and nuclear waste. (In theory it can use reprocessed fuel from the current crop of reactors. However, almost all fast-breeder reactors built since the idea emerged nearly 60 years ago have spent more time switched off than on, thanks to coolant leaks and other problems with the technology, as well as political opposition, and there are also recurrent problems manufacturing and transporting the fuel).

Even though he only conditionally said he would support nuclear, and has set four in-practice-impossible conditions, Monbiot was quite mendacious in his ‘I don't care about nuclear' piece last year and subsequent TV appearances, trying to paint greens who didn't take such a complicatedly nuanced view as in some way superstitious and adhering to ‘rigid principles' as an act of faith rather than a reasoned policy position. Similarly, Tindale told the Sun last month: "Some people still argue against evolution, 150 years after Darwin's discovery", and Lynas is pushing the same buttons with this comment: "The Green lobby doesn't like the idea that the world can be saved by building nuclear power stations. It wants us to chop wood, go back to nature."

This kind of thing boils my blood for two main reasons. One is that I was a metallurgy student and, as such, have been inside several nuclear power stations, here and abroad, without needing either smelling salts or an exorcism. My opposition to nuclear is based on the fact that - like letting a big supermarket drive your town's regeneration programme - it is such a distraction when there are so many other, less technically challenging, more job-heavy, cheaper, easier, quicker, etc etc projects out that would balance energy needs with production and cut carbon at the same time. It is emphatically not because I think it is inherently dangerous or filled with dark cunning and evil.

The second is that, combined with their deep voices and 1940s haircuts, this rhetoric from the alpha males frames the issue in a ‘practical expert versus excitable hysteric' narrative that is very hard to counteract if you are following one of them in a debate and are young and female. No matter how much science you can quote, you're never going to get people to think you are making sense in that context if you look like an MMR-shy mum.

But the most frustrating of all these examples is probably Chris Goodall, whose opinion piece in the Independent prompted the front page splash that put all the recent converts together to make it a news (they excluded Monbiot, who works for the Guardian).

Chris is Green Party candidate for Oxford West at the next general election and, as I understand it, his reason for backing nuclear goes something along the lines of ‘well, it's clear the government are only going to seriously support either big coal or big nuclear for their main energy push, so as my only concern is climate change, I'm prepared to choose the least worst of these two'.

Now, if you were a lobbyist, working on the government to influence their views in your direction, this would be an interesting position to take, and I would gladly have a debate with you about its merits. But in politics you're not just lobbying your MP, you're trying to get them sacked and offering yourself as a better alternative to replace them. Instead of accepting these ‘facts on the ground' and actively promoting your acceptance - and the choice you have made from a stacked deck - you should be putting a hell of a lot more effort into challenging such a blinkered view of energy policy.

With the election due in a year or less, any Green candidate who so meekly allows the rules of the game to be set by their opponent is clearly not up to the job - and I bet there are a lot of talented, intelligent young women in Oxford who could do it much better.

Comments:

First | Previous | Showing comments 11 to 20 of 30 | Next | Last

Allister
Posts: 35

helpful
Reply #20 on : Wed March 18, 2009, 21:49:58

I have a theory derived from getting busses as a child to and from town and school etc. I found that if on the way to the bus-stop I caught sight of the bus approaching, I tended to dilly dally wondering whether i could make it or not. When I ran immeadiately and at full pelt, I mostly always caught the thing, but if I argued with myself wasting time,then ran, I invariably missed it. I have found this lesson invaluable. The bus here is climate tipping points, the default state is missing the climate bus, we do nothing, we're screwed, we delay, we're screwed.

Nowadays I'm a phd student working on a renewable energy technology, I know full well that there is the technology pretty much there to provide all our energy needs renewably without resorting to nuclear. I would like nothing more than to be able to shut the reactors all down tomorrow. But here's the rub, It's going to take time to deploy these technologies: some need technical development, cross border cooperation is essential, renewables are going to have to be deployed on an enormous scale in the face of massive inertia in government, business, and still in public opinion.
So with nuclear power,the question is this: yes it's expensive, yes it's potentially dangerous, but given what we know about the reality of the constraints, can the required emission reductions be achieved through efficiency and large scale renewables alone, and IN TIME? we can't miss the bus...

In this case, to decry those who simply have a different assesment of the evidence, particularly whilst deriding their sex, age or appearance whatever it may be, is not particularly helpful, in fact it seems downright negative. If you think nuclear is unneccesary what is your alternate strategy?, and are you sure enough that it will work that you will gamble the stability and diversity of the whole planet?

Strategist
Posts: 35

Re: Suffragettes vs the fighter pilot tendency
Reply #19 on : Wed March 18, 2009, 19:42:12

Well I guess my hope that this wouldn't get too personalised didn't come to pass! Clearly George can dish it out but isn't too keen on taking it, and to threaten not to vote Green ever again is very flouncy. Let's be charitable and call it an oldie's misunderstanding of what a personal blog post is. Obviously George is not responsible for his supporters, but I hope he's feeling a bit uncomfortable about the "silly woman", "daft woman" stuff that came out straight away in the comments. It's amazing to see this misogyny so close to the surface, just a scratch and out it comes.

Anyway I think all the comments that sprung to my mind are somewhere in those already appended to the Monbiot blog piece, namely that there are some important points in amongst the haircut abuse that he still needs to address.

There is a real and very sophisticated debate to be had between your position and George's, around opportunity cost and giving "Green PR gold" to a still dodgy nuclear lobby for free, amongst other things. I note you left a post retracting some of the personal stuff. George should be an RAF officer and a gentleman, accept that and retract some his own response on the personal side so that we can get on and have that debate.

Matt Sellwood
Posts: 35

Any chance of a constructive debate?
Reply #18 on : Wed March 18, 2009, 18:12:01

*sighs*

None of this is helping, on either side. I've just written something on this:

http://anglobuddhistcombine.blogspot.com/2009/03/worrying-sound-of-green-infighting.html

I know I'm not an 'important commentator' or anything - but if people could take a deep breath and calm down, it'd be really appreciated, by me at least.

Matt

gerda
Posts: 35

what if biggles is right
Reply #17 on : Wed March 18, 2009, 17:45:56

i know it is irritating, but any amount of macho posturing doesn't make monbiot, lynas et al wrong...

i have always opposed nuclear power because of its undeniable links with nuclear weapons, but we have really blown it now.
too late to be picky, we need everything, not just decentralised renewables, energy saving, even vast solar plants in the sahara will not do it.
there is no quick fix, nuclear, geoengineering, you name it, are not just a distraction, we will need them all.
if its nuclear the gov.s want, let them have it, they will soon see its not nearly enough.

maybe it sounds better from a sister? i'm over 45 but i do have a pony tail, and tits, (and A level physics, a degree in environmental studies, and 20 years practice living off grid).

oh, amazing capcha; genetic666.

Roly
Posts: 35

Prejudice is prejudice
Reply #16 on : Wed March 18, 2009, 17:33:13

No matter who it is aimed at. Maybe you were annoyed but sexist comments have no place in any political party I want to be part of. And your response that you're 'not really this sexist' doesn;t reassure. Just how sexist are you?

As for the nuclear argument. I agree with your points and I agree with the points made by the guys that have upset you so much. And given that this dumb, undemocratic govt has already made their decision means that for the next few years I'm just interested in the battles that are clear cut and winnable (coal power without CCS, runway 3 etc). But your comments and Monbiot's vitriolic response just hands ammunition to the numbnuts I battle regularly on comment boards and are desparate for a schism like this to rally them.

This is all pretty depressing.

Pooky
Posts: 35

Re: Suffragettes vs the fighter pilot tendency
Reply #15 on : Wed March 18, 2009, 11:42:51

Nice stuff. To summarise, then:

- Men are rubbish.
- People over 45 are rubbish.
- Arguments in favour of nuclear power are inherently sexist.
- Those arguments don't need to be responded to with counter-arguments, because they can be responded to so much better with ad hominem sneers based on peoples' appearance.
- Haircuts are jolly important.

Has George attacked you with such vehemence, Sian? (at least before now). Have Mark or Chris publicly savaged your looks or your age? I'm not aware of it. If not, how do you justify this?

Feeble stuff, really. I think George's response has you bang to rights.

Incidentally, Mark Lynas is under 40. Or are facts less important than character assassination?

I'm no fan of nuclear power, but the Green Party's response to these arguments so far has been all heat and no light, This takes the biscuit. You're going to prove their case for them very easily at this rate.

vakibs
Posts: 35

please contact Dr Jasmina Vujic
Reply #14 on : Wed March 18, 2009, 10:43:24

<i> (In theory it can use reprocessed fuel from the current crop of reactors. However, almost all fast-breeder reactors built since the idea emerged nearly 60 years ago have spent more time switched off than on, thanks to coolant leaks and other problems with the technology, as well as political opposition, and there are also recurrent problems manufacturing and transporting the fuel).</i>

Do you have any expertise to evaluate the problems on fast breeder reactors ? Or why they failed ?

Can you please request a trained nuclear engineer or physicist (somebody who has to risk his reputation in his / her academic circle) to do this evaluation ?

I can recommend you the brilliant nuclear physicist at the University of Berkeley (<a href="http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/people/faculty/vujic.htm">Dr. Jasmina Vujic</a>) if you wish to seek any information on this field.

Danny
Posts: 35

Well said!
Reply #13 on : Wed March 18, 2009, 08:57:05

I've pasted a comment below from Monbiot's website which hits the nail on the head!

Who do you believe? The Head of the Sustainable Development Commission (ex-Director of Foe, Founder of Forum for the Future) Jonathan Porrit, who says the Green Party has been right all along OR a journalist who sells newspaper columns (see http://www.greenparty.org.uk/ for Porritt's comments). There are far more geniune 'leading' Greens who get on with doing things (rather than just writing books) that have come out in support of the Green Party.

Blog Comment:

"Been googling your own name?

Because I can't think of any other way you'd have found this article. However, now you've got it on the front page of the environment section, loads more people will see it, and because of the comment you've attached to it, it'll give loads of CC deniers slightly more bile towards the Green party (and therefore any environmentalists by proxy).

Well done. Utterly over-the-top defensive attitude that will do an awful lot more harm than good, both to the Green movement and to the feminist movement (where comments above have already employed antifeminist language)

I really cannot understand why you published this, especially here. There's a comment section on the bottom of her article if you want to respond there. Very very disappointed."

pete best
Posts: 35

Nuclear or personalities I wonder
Reply #12 on : Wed March 18, 2009, 07:41:20

Sian, this is a good peice and a very good articulate argument but let me say this If I may. When it comes to energy provision we are not heading anywhere as yet are we, not here in the UK or globally, in fact we are using more fossil fuels than ever and that limits the entire argument for any non fossil fuel energy source unless it meets the following criteria:

1/ It is economically viable (it will not cost the earth - lol)
2/ It is politically viable (it will not upset the present lobbying groups and finanical interest of the world as it is). This is the one that Lynas, Monbiot etc probably understand best as why they see Nuclear power as a necessary evil. Its time for you to understand the same for these guys are an old hand in this and bless em, they know the reality of politics.
3/ It can keep our capatalist lifestyles safe ad sound, and thump the tub of progress and prosperity. For greens want a lifestyle that is not as racy as the vast majority do. Cars are cool whatever they run on, so is the Personal Computer, Flat screen TV, holidays abroad and travelling etc etc etc. So is cheap food, meals out, takeaways, supermarkets (your favourite) and clothes from cheap places. Its a shame but a reality.

I personally reckon that Nuclear is not required but the men here have not given up on alternatives to nuclear but they know the situation scientifically and in that regard we need something quick and renewables are not coming quick, not even burying coal effulent is coming quickly (CCS. So its nuclear or a little of something else.

4.5 billion tonnes of oil used every year, the equivilent in coal and half that in gas. Weigh in with your alternatives that can meet the criteria and solve the crisis. Desertec can do it but it probably does not meet the citeria.

Richard
Posts: 35

George Monbiot
Reply #11 on : Wed March 18, 2009, 06:51:37

George is not happy with you!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/mar/18/nuclear-power-climate-change

First | Previous | Showing comments 11 to 20 of 30 | Next | Last