Robust scientific research into climate change and our impact on the environment needs to be marshalled in support of sound decision-making.ģ. Secondly, in addition to being informed by the views of stakeholders, we need to take decisions informed by the best available scientific evidence. Genuine engagement is about people with different opinions working together to find out what they have in common, and to move towards a shared solution to a problem.Ģ. We need to get away from sham "consultations", where a very small number of not very different options are presented, and where the preferred option is more or less a foregone conclusion. Already existing engagement models, such as Citizen's Juries, can help us here. One corollary seems to be to remember that the principle of subsidiarity doesn't simply mean decisions made at the most local level, but decisions made at the most appropriate level - and that means that we need to explore ways of hearing the voices of the wider, global community.
How do we weigh the views of local residents against the need to protect the interests of others elsewhere (in time or space) who could be negatively affected by what appears to be a local decision, but which has more global consequences? But the climate crisis makes matters more complex. Where there's a local community involved, that's relatively straightforward. To gain such an understanding, we need involved dialogue with those who are likely to be affected. Good decisions won't be made in the abstract, but rather through a thorough understanding of the specific and concrete effects of any proposed development or initiative. Firstly, any decision must be informed by genuine engagement with those affected.
Instead, I believe we need to be guided by a set of principles:ġ. The case I'll make is that there are neither generalised, off-the-peg answers to be applied in all circumstances, nor technocratic fixes, such as cost-benefit analyses, that will make such difficult decisions for us. So I was delighted when CPRE asked me to speak on this topic, and I'll do my best to explore some of the tensions between different environmental benefits in a number of contexts, and to set out some guiding principles that might help us navigate a considered course between them.Ĭlearly, in all of these areas, we face some difficult decisions and, in some instances, we'll have to confront the reality that we can't achieve a win-win solution. The aspect of that challenge that I've been asked to address today is a very particular one: how can we reconcile competing environmental objectives.Īs Green politicians and activists, it can sometimes feel that we are so busy fighting against those who want to put the interests of business and profit ahead of the environment, that we see that as our primary challenge - allowing the ways in which different environmental objectives can in fact sometimes themselves be in competition with each other to fall into the background.
LUCAS SPEECH CENTRAL IDEA HOW TO
That pretty much sums up the same challenge that faces us today - how to reconcile the need for development, without compromising the integrity and beauty of the countryside. Our desire is that they should be comely, and shall conform to modern requirements without injuring the ancient beauty of the land." "We have got to have new roads and bridges, new suburbs, new villages and perhaps new towns. As long ago as the 1920s, CPRE's very first President, Lord Crawford, put it very well, when he acknowledged: That has never meant pickling it in aspic, refusing to allow it to change. I'd like to start by paying tribute to CPRE for the critical role it plays, not only in actively protecting our environment, but also in contributing to the vital debate over how we develop broader agreement about the value we place on the countryside, and how we best maintain and improve it. Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to speak this evening. Lecture to the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE)Ĭaroline Lucas' speech: Reconciling Environmental Goods, London, 9 July 2009
0 kommentar(er)
