‘The world my children will live in will be very different,” says Zac
Goldsmith, father of three, staring into the middle distance. “The way we
travel will change and the way we build and communicate. But I think the
changes will be good. I’m optimistic for the first time in my life.”
Two years ago the multi-millionaire former editor of the Ecologist magazine
considered his mission thus: to wake people up to climate change: “Now, that
has been done. There are sceptics but people know about the issues. Before
the last election I was asked why the environment was so low down the
agenda. You couldn’t say that now, it has completely changed.”
I had never met Goldsmith before but I had read plenty of descriptions of this
golden boy of the green movement. He is clever, rich and good-looking (his
sister is Jemima, former friend of Diana, Princess of Wales and ex-wife of
Imran Khan). I expected the former Etonian also to be languid – he was
expelled for possession of dope – but instead I am taken aback by his oomph.
Dressed in a sharp blue suit, he sucks furiously at roll-ups and shoots off
ideas so fast that I can barely keep up. We meet in a garden overshadowed by
Conservative HQ on Millbank, central London, to talk about the forthcoming
Quality of Life review that Goldsmith, Tory parliamentary candidate for
Richmond Park, Surrey, has prepared for David Cameron. His co-chairman on
the review was John Gummer, the former environment minister. They took
advice from a huge range of individuals and groups, from Greenpeace to EDF
Energy. “We cast the net wide,” says Goldsmith.
The full report will be published on Thursday, so this is something of a
warm-up. Goldsmith, although not yet a professional politician, sticks to
his brief with only minor wobbles and what he really wants to talk about is
energy. Many geologists believe that global oil supplies are approaching
peak volumes. Some say they have peaked already, that we will never produce
more oil than we do now. Meanwhile, global demand shoots up and up.
Pessimists predict severe and unending economic depression as demand exceeds
supply.
“Peak oil informs everything,” says Goldsmith. “People ought to know about
that, but they don’t. When it’s going to peak or if it’s happened already I
don’t know, but if oil ran out tomorrow we would be stuffed. We depend on it
for everything.”
Goldsmith’s review aims to tackle this grim situation by means of several
painless measures: “We have not imagined policy ideas that are going to be
repugnant to people.”
I nod, reassured. For instance, since much energy generated at power stations
is lost before it reaches our homes. Goldsmith and Gummer propose to
encourage a system of micro generation by introducing a “feed-in tariff”,
rewarding households and businesses that install renewables so they can
generate their own power.
“Under the German system anyone generating electricity from solar PV
[photovoltaic], wind or hydro is guaranteed a payment of four times the
market rate for 20 years. That reduces the time it takes to get the money
back and makes it a more attractive investment. Freiberg, in Bavaria, has
only 200,000 people but generates more solar power than the whole of
Britain.”
The report also has ideas for encouraging energy efficiency: “That is key.
It’s easy to raise standards on new homes but that is a tiny part of the
puzzle. You can get 33% savings with a little expenditure on a house. You
have a variety of ways to do that, but because this is likely to be
disruptive the best time to make those changes is when homes change
ownership.
“And that can be done by offering an incentive on stamp duty. When you sell
your house and you know you will get reduced stamp duty you will make the
necessary improvements. It’s a no-brainer.
“We should be incentivising the right decisions. We want to make this stuff
obvious without pissing people off. There has never been a greater appetite
for green solutions. We have to get it right or people will turn off.”
That is what is happening with biofuels, I suggest. “Biofuels have potential,
they can be good, but only secondary biofuels such as unwanted chip fat or
corn stalks or vegetable waste. Primary biofuels grown specifically for fuel
are terrible. If you covered every acre in the US you would produce 10% of
the fuel requirement and the carbon saving would be only 2% or 3%.” And
nowhere to grow food.
The economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment, Goldsmith
affirms, but too often people think it’s the other way round: “From the
point of view of the environment the market has been disastrous, because
carbon does not appear on bottom lines. But if you tax carbon effectively
you will change people’s behaviour.”
He tells me with palpable excitement about a huge construction company that
has reduced landfill enormously because executives feared they might soon be
hit by a huge landfill tax: “We have a big emphasis on the market in our
report and the role of the government is to understand the market. Without
government intervention we wouldn’t have fixed the hole in the ozone layer.”
He talks a lot about using the market, but how do his recommendations square
with John Redwood’s report on economic competitiveness? That called, among
other things, for expansion of the roads network.
“I have honestly not had time to read John Redwood’s report. I’ve been so busy
with this.” But he accepts there will be arguments: “I hope our ideas will
be powerful enough to win. But in terms of reducing the regulatory burden,
we’re saying the same thing. We have the highest regulatory burden at the
moment and the lowest standards in Europe.”
Goldsmith has put a lot of work into this report and exerted considerable
influence, despite being unelected. So why be an MP? And will he bow out if
Cameron ignores his recommenda-tions? “I’d be happy if only half of it was
accepted. I have done all kinds of campaigning and raised dosh and lobbied
and tried to identify the best campaigns. But because the Conservative party
were brutalised at the elections [not least by the wrecking tactics, in
1997, of his late father Sir James and his Referendum party] it started them
thinking about things from scratch. I am genuinely excited by the
opportunity David Cameron has opened up.”
Goldsmith originally put himself forward for East Hampshire, a safe seat, but
the night before the selection panel he changed his mind. “I didn’t know
East Hampshire. One of the problems with politics is that it’s not local
enough. People get parachuted in with no feeling for the place and it’s
wrong. I wrote to them telling them I couldn’t do it.”
Richmond Park, where he grew up, was different. He put himself up and was
accepted. The great thing about running for parliament, he says, is that he
can even effect change as he goes along. He has spoken to about 25 schools
and funded a ground-breaking postal ballot of residents to fight a proposed
supermarket.
On the subject of a referendum, does he think Gordon Brown will allow one on
the European constitu-tion? “There really does need to be one. It’s about
honesty. The new constitution is much the same as the old one. It’s
unbelievable political dishonesty. It upsets me almost as much as the
constitution itself.”
There remains something charmingly innocent about Goldsmith. Some of the
greatest dictators of all time used referendums to engineer outcomes they
wanted. Won’t Brown, if pushed, do the same?
“No, because a lot of organisations will be involved in setting the question.
The job of the opposition is to lobby for things to be done properly.” He
pauses. “I do hope you are wrong and Brown won’t fix it.”
What about nuclear power? “I make no secret of my position. If there is a
future for nuclear power it has to be without government subsidy. We make
clear that you must show you can afford the decommissioning and waste
disposal before you start. I’m happy with that.”
Time will tell whether his undoubted enthusiasm will translate into green
policies – and whether his political career will be more successful
than his father’s.
Nice to hear such optimism from a climate change advocate.
Social change usually takes several decades, so we can expect a lot of angst for a while.
But, after the hubhub dies down and we settle into lower impact lifestyles we will look back and wonder why the fuss.
We will also look back in wonderment at our extravagance and wasteful practices, like we now look back on the folly of chain smoking.
'Necessity is the mother of invention', as they say and dire necessity is calling for social change like never before.
I have every confidence humanity can rise to the challenge. This is not a time for whimping out.
Chris Harries, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
"...The economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment, Goldsmith affirms..."
Not quite. What he is really saying is that :
"The economy SHOULD BE a wholly owned subsidiary of the environmentALISTS"
These swine will not be happy until they have shoved their noses into every aspect of our lives, and the entire country has ground to a halt beneath the avalanche of inefficient taxes and regulations they impose.
Of course, little rich boy here won't care.
Freddy, London,
English have problem with european geografy, Freiberg/Bavaria exist twice, Zac means Freiburg/Breisgau, socalled Eco-Capital of Germany and is part of Baden-Würtemberg with a total other german accent.
thomas, Tullmaore, Ireland
There is nothing more important than progress towards reducing our impact on the environment (and towards peace). p.s. solar power does not require blue skies!
Rob S-R, London,
Yes indeed Zac, East Hampshire must seem like a strange and foreign land when compared to the likes of Richmond. You wouldn't want to expand your social world and life experience beyond the posher parts of London would you. Good grief.
Name Withheld, Paisley,
A shame he didn't inherit his father's brain instead of uncle Teddy's. Well, yet another reason for not to vote Conservative until they have got rid of Cameron and his friends.
peter, London,
Does Goldsmith live somewhere other than the UK.This summer would not have produced much Solar Power in the UK,perhaps he is thinking we all live in villas in the South of France.After all reading this article one wonders if he is on another planet.
Please leave us alone we dont want any Green Taxes its a con trick.
Bill Rees, Truro, Cornwall
this is not really a debate about going green...In a broader sense it is much more about how we adapt to and adopt to new technology .There is plenty out there that is tried, tested and proven, indeed insome cases the adoption of new technology actually enhances the quality of our lives...(weather compensaion on gas boilers,better insulation, more hot water)
alec morrow, London, UK