Exclusive
Brown condemned by his green guru
Jonathon Porritt accuses PM of failing to understand the environment
Gordon Brown does not see the environment as important and spent years as Chancellor preventing British domestic action on climate change, the Government's chief environmental adviser says today.
In a remarkably frank interview with The Independent Jonathon Porritt says that during his time at the Treasury Mr Brown did not "get" climate change and saw the environment as "middle class stuff". Since Mr Brown became Prime Minister, Sir Jonathon thinks that the environment "is no more important to him now than it was when he was Chancellor". He criticises the Prime Minister in particular for backing the third runway at Heathrow, which he says was a "ludicrous decision, with no serious intellectual, economic rationale".
Asked why he thought Mr Brown was so keen on a third runway, Sir Jonathon said: "He's got some incredibly fixed ideas about some of these things. He genuinely feels that a successful competitive economy of the future has to be growing its aviation business in order to make UK plc more productive, and so on. And you can put the evidence about minimal economic benefit of a third runway in front of him – it won't go through the Brown brain." But, he says, over the past 18 months Mr Brown has come to understand the seriousness of the climate change issue specifically, and has taken a number of important steps, such as setting up the new Energy and Climate Change Department under Ed Miliband.
This has injected a "completely unprecedented level of energy" into the climate debate, Sir Jonathon says. He adds it is ironic to be leaving his post just at the moment when real changes in the system are starting to happen. He retires on Monday after nine years as chairman of the Sustainable Development Commission, the Government's main environmental advisory body.
Sir Jonathon says that while Tony Blair was trying to put the issue of global warming high on the international agenda, Mr Brown "held the levers of power domestically" and failed to deliver appropriate climate policy measures at home.
For Mr Blair to have Mr Brown in such a position was "a very unfortunate combination", he says, and it was "a tragedy" that Mr Blair was unable to match what Sir Jonathon calls his "inspirational" leadership on the climate issue internationally, with action taken in Britain. As a result, the gap between Mr Blair's rhetoric on climate change and the lack of actual measures taken to counter it in Britain became so great that environmentalists began to lose faith in him.
"Environment has never been Gordon Brown's strong suit," he says.
Sir Jonathon is a serious player in green thinking, and for nearly a decade at the head of the SDC has been the official "candid friend" to the Government on green matters, running a body which has tried to get the notion of sustainable development – environmental concern, in other words – embedded in every department and policy.
It has given him a uniquely intimate view of the Labour Government's environmental successes and failures, one of the most obvious of the latter being the lack of measures taken to counter climate change in Britain during the years between 2000 and 2007 when Tony Blair was proclaiming the seriousness of the threat.
"Tony Blair fully understood the risk of climate change, and whatever you may think about him, his commitment on that was completely genuine," he says. But, he goes on, the Blair-Brown partnership was the problem.
"It was a very unfortunate combination, with Tony Blair having the unquestioned leadership role globally, but not having the levers to make things happen domestically. And the sort of informal deal they [Blair and Brown] did, meant that far more of that went to the Treasury."
Although Mr Blair "got" climate change, Mr Brown, at that time, "absolutely didn't," Sir Jonathon says. "I rather suspect – although I'm sure he would deny this completely – that the environment was in many respects seen by Gordon Brown as part of that middle-class stuff going on over there, while we do the serious business of sorting out equity issues and entitlements, and how to make the economy really efficient."
Mr Brown, he says, is a man "of great intellectual strengths and integrity," but if you looked back into his personal history, his mentors, and his view of the world, the environment had not been part of the growth of his ideas. He did not see it as central.
But he had now changed his view on the climate issue not least because he could see its potential impact on areas which had always mattered to him, such as global poverty and Africa.
"I don't think he had thought terribly deeply about it when he became Prime Minister, but to be fair, he's now much better informed, and he's really got his head around these things," he says. "At the recent G8 meeting and the subsequent meeting with China and India he was playing an extremely significant role in the negotiations." Sir Jonathon says he wonders whether, if Mr Brown had to take the Heathrow third runway decision now rather than a year ago, he would still approve it. "He won't go back on it now because he's not that kind of politician. But I have watched how over the last 18 months his leadership on climate change has deepened."
Sir Jonathon is optimistic that the world community can reach a new deal at the Copenhagen climate conference in December to cut carbon emissions and check the progress of global warming before it becomes disastrous, although he thinks that over the coming years the world is in for some "serious shocks" either from climate change or resources such as food and water.
However, he believes they may be what is needed to galvanise action from governments and citizens and will not necessarily be terminal. He says that the dire predictions of James Lovelock, founder of the Gaia theory of the world as a single organism – "that the world is headed into some eco-hell-hole" – are too pessimistic. "Though I say that with some hesitation as I do have a huge amount of respect for that guy."
After he leaves the SDC on Monday he will spend most of his time working for the think-tank he founded with Sarah Parkin, Forum for The Future, and also for the Green Party.
At the forefront of green campaigning
*Sir Jonathon Porritt, 59 is the doyen of Britain's environmentalists, the first green campaigner to become nationally famous. He is a former director of Friends of the Earth.
*He is the son of Arthur Porritt, the New Zealand athlete and surgeon who won the 100 metres bronze medal in the famous "Chariots of Fire" race at the 1924 Olympics. His father also went on to become Lord Porritt and New Zealand's Governor-General.
*Educated at Eton and Oxford, Porritt is in theory doubly-titled – he is "Hon" as the son of a life peer, and also Sir Jonathon Porritt, Bart, having inherited the baronetcy which was also awarded to his father. But he makes little of any of this and is a very different creature from the aristo-greens and celebrity-greens who pop up from time to time on Britain's environmental scene.
*He does not own a car, but has two bikes – one for home in Cheltenham and one for work in London.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited


Reduce your global impact.
Comments
Porritt himself is a dogged supporter of agrofuels and shows great contempt for grass-roots activists who question this.
It is very difficult for a man to understand something when his salary and position are dependent on him not understanding it.
As for Tony B Liar, well the monumental hyposcisy of the man is almost impossible to put into words, but effectively on Mondays he pointed out that climate change was the biggest hrtreat to continuation of life on this planet and on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays and Fridays implemented policies that exacerbated the problem.
For
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/suppor
Against
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/pl
Note that many of the names in the "For" petition look a bit unlikely. Number 10 quickly remove the spam names from the other list, to keep it as short as they can. However, the ratio against Mr Brown is huge!
There is still time for you to vote here, so make the most of it.
Also, if you agree with this petition, please tell others about it, and tell them to spread the word as well. This is the way to get it really moving.
Consquently anything Porritt says must be treated with circumspection.
What utter tosh
Surely if a politician wanted to get elected he merely has to state the truth, as he/she sees it, and then put forward policys accordigly. Given that we want honesty this person and their party, would be elected.
Therefore Blair, Brown, Cameron, (Berlescon!!!???) etc etc. would have no chance and would probably seek a career path elswhere but they don't they all lie and they all get elected.
The reason is that we (that is you including obviously the vast majority of contibutors to these threads) don't want the truth or won't face up to it.
A classic example is given by Georgesign himself wher he states his disbelief in man made Global Warming (MMGW) in unequivecal terms. I am a scientiest but not in that field so i cannot evaluate the basic data. However i can say that the settled scientific opinion is that it is real and a serious threat.
So let me put it this way. Let us asume that the chances that MMGW is real and also that of the worst case scenario consequences coming about is 1%.
Then consider the earth as an aircraft. If you are told before boarding that the ground crew chief thinks that unless some serious maintenace is made there is a 1% chance that the aircraft will crash and a lot of you will be killed but the chief steward reckons all is OK, would you board that aircraft or would you demand that the work be done?
Now Georgesign and all MMGW doubters over to you What is the rational thing to do? Fix the problem, even though it may not be neccessary or take such a massive risk. To put it in perspective a greater chance of death or serious injury than a soldier on the front line in Afghanistan.
I await your response with interest it should be fascinating and entirely predictable.
Which brings me back to my first point. YOU don't want the truth you just want and YOU can't face up to the hard choices running a country brings. Thus all politicians lie because they have no choice and because you know it you hold them in contempt BUT you would never vote for one that told the truth. So in short YOU are the real problem not them!
I am, like yourself, Scientifically-trained and I find it difficult to get an unbiased view of AGW from either side of the Debate. What I am certain about is that the Science is not settled and never will be in the sense of a logical proof - we can only wait for the Model Predictions to agree with reality as a "proof" that they are correct. They seem to give a good fit from the seventies until the late nineties but not so good since then. This may be a short term blip but it may foreshadow a serious Model error as some Scientists claim - many Solar Scientists in the nineties claimed the Models underestimated Solar Input effects, some Scientists now claim that they do not include some Multi-Decadal Oscillations in sea currents.
Your aircaft analogy is incomplete. As stated, I would not get on the Plane. What, however, is the decision if my not getting on the Plane would lead to my life being badly damaged economically and socially? If we agree AGW and adopt some of the more extreme Green solutions we will all have to accept not only a dimution in lifestyle but dramatic changes to the extent of reducing population (who chooses the victims?) and, probably, in lifespan.
I agree that any Politician who tells the Truth is likely to be doomed electorally.
1. There is NO dangerous sea rise. NONE.
2. Temperature rises since 1976 are predominantly due to proponderance of El Nino, NOT seeohtwo. Understanding why THAT changes on an interdecadal scale is now key, NOT seeohtwo.
3. Oceanic parameters are the key to 'climate change', NOT seeohtwo.
4. Oceanic parameters are linked to solar parameters amongst others.
5. Clear cyclicities in climate on decadal, interdecadal, centuries and millenial scale are indisputable. NOTHING since 1976 is abnormal. NOTHING.
It is a shame that Mr Porritt does not return to the scientific FACTS.
It is a shame he does not realise that NOW is the time to promote sustainability and FORGET seeohtwo.
There's only one problem. Wall Street and The City now make money trading carbon credits.
Would Mr Porritt like to address THAT sacred cow, please?
This month new research is published in The Journal of Geophysical Research ,114, D14104, (McLean, de Freitas and Carter) demonstrating yet again that CO2 is a minor bit player in climate change. The dominant effect is provided by that large lump of water called the Pacific Ocean.
Our government is populated by those who do not understand science, and is being led astray by those equally as ignorant, allowing the warmist camp cream off billions of pounds.
I remain amazed that the simple fact of no global warming now for several years has not yet reached our government!?