Reader TTS

Daniel Johnson laid out terms in yesterday’s leader why we should not just blindly jump on the Greta Thunberg bandwagon. It’s an argument I have a lot of time for as, traditionally, I loathe

‘causes’. However, I can’t help but think that this 16-year-old high-functioning firebrand from Sweden is a little bit heroic. I found her speech to the UN riveting; such passion and

bravery which can come naturally to the young when fervent. I loved the look of wrath which contorted her face when Trump entered the UN, no spin doctor can recreate that. I respect the fact

she sailed across the Atlantic to get to New York; even if the ‘stunt’ was not as carbon neutral as trumpeted. What I do find irksome though is this new breed of Champagne environmentalist

which clusters around her. It’s fine for them to shut down London in protest, but leave mountains of litter across the parks and roads of London. It’s fine for many of these hand ringers to

scream at power, but then hop on a long-haul flight across the world in the name of business or pleasure. Take a bow Emma Thompson, and much as I hate to say it, Prince Harry. We should be

grateful for Thunberg’s evangelical preaching. At least she walks the walk, unlike many of her disciples. But, more importantly, she’s pulling global attention to this climate change issue

which, it seems clear, will put society under massive stress by potentially destroying some of the economic and political certainties we enjoy without thinking. Political debate needs these

hair shirt wearers, but they don’t own the solution. If we are going to tackle climate change humanity has two ways of doing it. First: the Thunberg way. Governments should hold a gun to

society’s head and make us all switch off and power down. It’s about taking away individual decisions and passing the buck upward. The result of such a philosophy is a culture of individual

irresponsibility embodied by those climate change protesters flying in to trash London – the government should do as I say, not as I do. The second is for us to innovate and collaborate on a

person by person basis. Yes, these actions must be encouraged and by the state, but it is the individual’s responsibility to do what he or she can to salvage the planet. People say the free

market is not the solution. Well, it’s not going to be the whole answer, but it has got to be part of it. Take a quick personal example. My wife’s family farm has a 200-acre solar park,

which, on a sunny day, powers the electricity needed for 8,000 homes with beautiful green energy. I would love to tell you the wife and her family wanted to make a Thunberg-esque statement

in opening up this source of zero carbon power, but I’d be lying. It made sense for the farm because the solar energy system was given tax breaks, installed by an innovative business from

Germany, and called for by consumers in wider society. The result: a profitable line on the farm’s balance sheet and lots of green energy. It’s this type of collaboration between individual

consumer, innovative business, and government which creates change. A sixteen-year-old giving the great and the good of the world a good ear-bashing makes brilliant theatre. It also pushes

this issue up the political agenda. The world leaders at the UN and even Greta herself, however, are only a small cog in this ‘climate change emergency’ (or whatever you want to call it.)

What will make the difference is governments supporting the actions of individuals willing to make changes. In turn this will create markets, encourage innovators and, yes, generate profit.

This a green agenda for red meat lovers (…not that we can eat red meat.)