Caroline Lucas: Grotesque profiteering that has to stop
Monday, 8 September 2008
I've become the first Leader of the Green Party at a time when progressive leadership has never been more urgent. We face the interconnected challenges of recession, soaring oil prices and climate change, but the leadership of the establishment parties has been so timid as to actually deepen the crisis.
When the fuel crisis started to bite, a strong leader would have set their sights on achieving energy independence. Instead, our prime minister went running to the profiteers-in-chief to beg for just enough more oil to keep us dependent. Just three of these companies – BP, Centrica, and Shell – together made £1000 profit every second over the first 6 months of this year. Every penny that the oil price inches up, is a new surge of cash from the pockets of working families, students, the elderly and the disabled, directly into the bank accounts of the world's petro-giants.
And the burden falls heaviest on working families, students, the elderly and the disabled. For every 10 per cent that the price of fuel rises, another 400,000 people are plunged into fuel poverty. We urgently need to introduce a windfall tax on the grotesque profits that companies are making from the growing energy crisis.
The energy giants like to throw their hands up – market conditions, global movements, nothing to do with us. And they are getting away with it, because this spineless government lacks the political courage to introduce a tougher regulatory regime.
But this money, pulled from your pocket by the basic need to stay warm, doesn't disappear into thin air. It disappears into the wallets of the men – and they are almost all men – at the top of the global pyramid of injustice whose corporations are robbing from the poor to give to the rich and they know it. It's about time they learned that in a progressive democracy, there is no place for robber barons. The money reclaimed from oil giants' pockets through a windfall tax should be immediately invested in getting us out of the mess they put us in.
When the world faced economic depression back in the early 1930s, it was President Roosevelt's New Deal that got people back to work with a massive investment in infrastructure. Today we stand on the brink of a crisis which is both economic and environmental. We need a Green New Deal in response.
A Green New Deal would rein in the economic gambling, and reunite finance with real resources and work. It would provide secure investments for pensions and savings, using that capital to kick-start a massive public and private works programme to cut energy use and create high-quality jobs.
The core would be a 21st-century project to make the nation's buildings truly energy efficient, starting with providing free insulation to every home as Green councillors are already doing so successfully in Huddersfield. Second, we know we need massive investment in renewable energy to secure our energy supplies for the future, protect ourselves against oil price fluctuations, reinvigourate our manufacturing sector and combat climate change.
The Green New Deal is one of the most hopeful ideas in British Politics today, and over the next two years, the Green Party will be putting it at the heart of our policy development. We can beat – and turn back – the rising price of heating your home, the cost of living and the threat to our livelihoods. A Green New Deal means making that happen, not wishing it will. That's what we need from our leaders.
The writer is leader of the Green Party
-
Print Article
-
Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2008 Independent News and Media Limited

Comments
21 Comments
Windfall taxes are a great idea! If anyone gets a pay raise that is larger the cost of living, the excess money should be double taxed. Right?
Posted by James Lange | 09.09.08, 03:30 GMT
Why didn't you mention this during your last appearance on Question Time? Instead, you just moaned about the lack of public trans.
Posted by joe turner | 08.09.08, 17:44 GMT
What a pathetic whingeing article. The greens one moment propose "green" taxes to make fuel more expensive to reduce our consumption, but as soon as the market does it they are whingeing about how expesive and immoral it is.
It tells me everything I need to know about greens & environmentalists.
Posted by dimenegineer | 08.09.08, 17:00 GMT
Ms Lucas should maybe do her research. Given the large taxes that are paid by all the oil companies the government gets the majority of the profits of oil exploration and energy selling. It is therefore the government she should be lambasting and advising them to ring fence the cash for green causes. Unfortunately for the Green party the UK voters would rather prefer policing, schools and hospitals.
Posted by John | 08.09.08, 15:15 GMT
Ms Lucas, Since the evening you appeared on Question Time, I have wondered about your criticism of Gordon Brown. In the US in June 2008, Americans drove ten billion miles less, used 800 fewer barrles of oil per day(with all this means to lack of pollution). The traffic death rate dropped considerably. In two states the death rate was at WWII levels, when no one had a car and gasoline was rationed. Something similar has happened in the UK, but instead of congratulation the PM for his refusal to drop the tax on fuel and contributing to cleaner air, you joined the other panalists in crit him. You also claimed that public trans is in a poor state in the UK...another false generalisation. My county has an outstanding pub trans system, one to be proud of. In other counties, including London and the SE, progress in being made in creating an efficient system.
Big business is the culprit, not the govt. Greedy, self serving and incompetent.
Posted by Paul Ganz | 08.09.08, 13:10 GMT
Rashid - I'm with you there!
There needs to be a level of governmental responsibility as well as personal one. If they, for example, subsidised solar panels for individual homes and other such renewable energy forms the way they do in Holland and other countries in Europe, created a way we could sell the energy back to the grid that would incentivise people to install such devices in their homes.
There are many things we could do, but we do need incentives, otherwise, much as I despair, you're right, people won't change their lifestyles!
Posted by Sara | 08.09.08, 12:58 GMT
technomist
what do you think a government is for? If we all behaved fairly towards each other then government would be irrelevant. Government is about restraint, more or less, to enable more fairness between people. Our present society is making life, all over the world, less fair so it needs more government intervention. More education is the ideal intervention but it doesn't work if people stay greedy.
Posted by peter | 08.09.08, 12:56 GMT
Sara
What concerns me is we hear of cars, with excellent levels of fuel economy - 100mpg+, yet these never seem to make it in to mainstream production?
Why not?
Why can't we have public transport whose purpose is to serve the public, not make huge profits for shareholders.
A "revolution" can be non-dramatic and not make huge impacts on people's lives. Put a revolution of renationalising public transport and pure integration, could go a huge way.
Posted by Rashid | 08.09.08, 12:42 GMT
Good idea, Rashid - sounds very much like what I just said!
One thing I don't think I'll ever get is that there seems to be no harm in people considering the efficiency of the way they live in order to make less go further (using less plastic bags, wasting less food, eating slightly less meat and food in general, turning off lights, including government subsidised renewable power sources that people can install in thewir own homes...) - but there is, of course, harm in the alternative (continuing the way we are, consuming too much, wasting, using all the oil etc). And those who want to continue this way are ruining it for people that dont.
Maybe we should try and change the way we act as a test and see if anythign changes enviromentally? Maybe the globality of the media could be out to good use for once...? But I guess that would involve people who want to continue to overconsume to change their lives, something that is not going to happen. Now who's getting their own way?
Posted by Sara | 08.09.08, 12:27 GMT
The 'Green' solutions always seem to involve huge and dramatic top-down state action and state engineering projects (like when did the state ever do those efficiently), and yet they are also opposed to the huge alternative existing organizations of people and resources that could be capable of carrying them out. They don't want our present peaceful mechanisms - policies working along with the mechanisms of the market - for encouraging this. Like student union politicians everywhere, 'something' sweeping must be done, and it involves making some tough rules for the enlightened ones to impose on people whether they like it or not. The people, be they those at the top or the ordinary public, are not to benefit personally themselves by being wealthier for agreeing to any of this (wealth and the freedom to use it is per se a bad idea to "Greens"). The 'Green' promise is nothing but rhetoric presaging sacrifice for a utopian vision. This most reminds me of Pol Pot.
Posted by technomist | 08.09.08, 12:20 GMT
21 Comments