[music]

Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts,

radio, news. This year on Zero, we've

talked a lot about UK politics. It's not

just because I live in London, but

because what's happening in the UK is a

strong example of [music] both what's

going right and wrong with action on

climate.

>> [music]

>> The country which created the world's

first national legislation on climate

change no longer has a political

consensus on climate action.

And it's happening just as impacts of

climate change are becoming [music] not

just unignorable but unbearable.

In the UK, we've had one of the [music]

driest summers on record with London

receiving no [music] rain in the month

of July. the first time that's happened

in recorded history going back to 1871.

That's why I think how the UK handles

its climate politics has [music] lessons

for many.

This is zero. I am Akxhati [music]

and this week where next for climate

politics.

[music]

Joining me on Zero this week is Caroline

Lucas, formerly the leader of the UK's

Green Party and a longtime member of

Parliament. Recently, she hosted a

podcast series for The Rest is Politics

called When Nature Becomes a Security

Threat. Caroline, welcome to Zero.

>> Thank you so much for having me.

>> Now, you've done this for a long time,

but I want to start with a big picture.

How do you define your environmentalism?

>> Whoa, that is a big subject. Um, how do

I define my environmentalism? I I mean I

don't like the word environmentalism

because it immediately feels like it's

in a particular box in a particular

compartment. So I guess for me and for

the Green Party concern about the

environment of our own climate is

central to absolutely everything. So

it's absolutely linked to social justice

but it also runs right across the

economy, education, health, any other

subject you like to see. So I suppose I

would say that for me it really is

totally all-encompassing but at its

heart it absolutely has social justice

as well.

>> So now let me go to the other extreme of

a question that is much more focused on

one place. There was recently a wildfire

on the suffuk coast very close to

sizewell nuclear power plant. I heard

from somebody in the region who said

they've been working on raising

awareness about climate change for the

last 20 years of their life and they

were distraught about the fact that

climate impacts are now on their

footsteps. You've been doing it for 40

years, more than 40 years. Their

question which I want to ask you, what

has all this work been for? Well, I have

a great deal of sympathy with the person

who asked that question because it is

deeply frustrating that despite decades

of so many of us warning that the

climate is heating, that the impacts are

going to be incredibly serious, that the

sooner we act, the better chance that we

have of avoiding the worst. Those

messages in many respects do feel as if

they've fallen on deaf ears. I mean, if

we were to be charitable and we could

look at lots of the positive things that

have happened and, you know, certainly

there's been huge investments in

renewable energy, that's very positive.

Um, I think there's a a general

understanding now that the climate

crisis is real, but I think what we're

still lacking is the urgency that's

required to tackle it. So, yes, I do

feel frustrated. But I do feel angry

that so many people are going to be put

through so much pain unnecessarily

because if we'd started to act on this

agenda decades ago when so many of us

began raising it, then not only would it

have been a much cheaper thing to do, uh

we would now not be on the trajectory

that we are in terms of climate

catastrophe. So I think things are

pretty grim and I can't quite think of a

of a more positive way of putting it

than that, I'm afraid. But you have kept

at it for quite a bit longer than this

person. You know, you have been the

leader of the UK's Green Party for a

long time. You were the only member of

parliament for the Green Party between

2010 and 2024. You resigned from the

front line of politics that year. And

that year, the Green Party also had its

biggest ever hall in members of

parliament, winning four seats. And that

was under Zach Palansk's leadership, who

we've had on the podcast before. So just

as the Greens were gaining momentum, you

sort of stepped back from frontline

politics. Why

>> I stepped back from being an MP,

frankly, because I was absolutely

exhausted. And um at the time that I did

it, that was actually before uh Zach

became leader and before it was clear

that we were going to have four Green

MPs, now five. I mean, being the sole

representative of my party for 14 years,

I can't quite tell you what that was

like. I mean, it was a an extraordinary

privilege, of course, but it was also

utterly exhausting doing 80hour weeks

and, you know, beginning to wonder, am I

ever going to be joined, you know, by

others. Um, Clive Lewis, the Labour MP,

put it really well. He said, you know,

you must feel like like green MPs are

like buses. You've been stood at that

bus stop for so long, 2015, 2017, 2019,

waiting for more Green MPs to join and

and they didn't. And then just as you

started to walk away, then four come

together and of course [laughter] a

fifth more recently. Now, I hope those

things were not related. I I don't think

they were related, but yes, it was just

exhausting. And there was a sense as

well, I think, that I wanted to be able

to focus more on climate and nature. And

when I was the sole green MP, any sole

green MP, then of course you have to

cover absolutely everything, you know,

um you have to be in a 100 different

places at once. And as the climate and

nature crises become more and more

present in a sense, I wanted the time

and the space to be able to work on

those more exclusively as well. So I

guess that was that was also factored

into my decision-m.

>> Well, you were one of those rare

politicians who managed to increase

their vote share at every single

election. What was the secret behind

that?

>> Well, thank you for pointing that out.

Um, and it was so important to me that

we were able to do that because back in

2010 when I was first elected, you know,

the people of Brighton Pavilion were

taking a risk. This was a brand new

party in terms of of having

representation at Westminster. So to get

reelected in 2015 was just so important

as a kind of a sense of proof of concept

if you like. And I think the secret was

to make sure that we always put the

people of Brighton Pavilion first. and

also making sure that um you know I had

a fantastic team around me. I'm I'm I'm

very grateful to say and and they did

such a great job in terms of being that

kind of responsive MP when it came to

all of the constituency work as well. So

um I think it was that combination of

people enjoying seeing a different kind

of politics on the national stage and

feeling a certain pride that Brighton

had put me there. But also I think that

was the huge amount of work that so many

of my staff helped me do when it came to

all of the constituency work as well.

Your career 2010 to 2024 was at the same

time as the consensus on climate change

took root in the form of the 2008

climate change law and became part of

the legislative and thus action agenda

for the government throughout that

period even today.

And you also were just about walking

away from frontline politics as that

consensus was starting to break down cuz

today the left is for climate action

including the Green Party and Labor

Party and and the right is against net

zero and mostly against climate action.

True of the Conservative party, true of

reform and restore. What do you think

caused that rupture? Well, the first

thing I would say is that I think we

need to make a distinction between the

leaderships of those parties on the

right and far right and the people who

vote for them. And I think um there's

plenty of evidence to suggest that

actually many conservative voters, many

voters even for reform and and restore

actually are in favor of action on

climate. So I think we need to make a

distinction between what the leaderships

are saying and and what the voters are

thinking and to try to explain that

because obviously one would normally

assume that leaders are going to try and

reflect what they think their voters

want. I think it's been very convenient

for people like Nigel Farage to to make

a culture war out of out of climate

change to kind of address it as part of

of of the weaponization of what he sees

as kind of woke policy. And I think to

be honest that the green movement in its

widest sense have made it a bit too easy

for him to do that as well because I

think in some of the language that we've

adopted we have allowed it to sound as

if climate change is rather technocratic

and could be perceived to be top down

and and and elitist and and by that I

mean you know all of this language about

net zero or biodiversity net gain. I

mean what on earth do those those terms

mean? you know, it [laughter] it it

could not have been designed to be more

meaningless and to put more people off

if if if you tried. And so I feel and

and this is something that I'm working

very closely with a group called the

Climate Majority Project on. I I feel

that there's a job of work to be done in

particular right now. It's very timely

to be talking much more about climate

adaptation, which is not to say that

that decarbonization and and getting

emissions down is any less urgent.

Clearly, it is. It is vitally urgent.

But the advantage of addressing people

through the lens of climate adaptation

and climate resilience is that it means

that the actions that we're talking

about are much more meaningful in

people's everyday lives and their

communities. And so when you're talking,

for example, about how to help

communities become more resilient in the

face of floods or right now in the cases

of drought, when you're talking about

how to build stronger communities around

coming together to address those issues,

I think you've got a better chance of

being able to demonstrate to people that

this is an agenda that has immediate

benefits for them, that it is not

something that is imposed from the

outside, that it is something that is

meaningful, and that it is something

that can actually improve their everyday

lives. Now,

>> so is this the reason why when you made

this series for the rest is politics,

the title was when nature becomes a

security threat because you wanted to

reframe the polarization that has

happened on climate as a way of actually

bringing it back to real things that are

going to affect real people's lives

today.

>> Yes, [clears throat]

exactly that. It was about trying to

make it more more direct, more

meaningful to demonstrate as well,

frankly, that this is not just an agenda

that is the um [snorts] the the the

realm of of Greenpeace or Friends of the

Earth or the Green Party that we've

actually had a suppressed report, the

Joint Intelligence Committee report that

was produced by MI5, by MI6, by GCHQ.

You know, these are basically key

security chiefs, uh, intelligence chiefs

in the UK who are themselves saying that

this is the that the climate collapse

and nature collapse are one of the

greatest challenges that we face in

terms of national security, right up

there with cyber attacks or terrorism or

anything else. And so it felt to me that

it was an important way of being able to

demonstrate that that this is a widely

shared agenda. This isn't some kind of

niche concern. This is a concern of the

people whose job it is to try to protect

us and keep the country safe. You know,

one of the guests you spoke to was a

retired Army general, Richard Nji, who

we also had on the show, who talked

about how

he saw climate change play out on the

battlefield where, at least in his uh

regiment, the people hurt during the

Iraq war weren't hurt because of the

war, but because of the temperatures

that they were experiencing and how they

were adapting or dealing with it. This

is only going to happen more and more

and more. Now the urgency to act on

climate change is something that has

always been part of the conversation

around climate change. At what point do

we go how much more can we make this

case? How much stronger can we make this

case for people to take it seriously?

Like at what point do you think there is

an inevitability to action? Well, if you

had described the situation that we find

ourselves in today, if you had described

that to me some years ago, I would have

said, "Well, surely this is it." You

know, this is it. We are in the

widespread drought, the the um second

drought, I think, in in three or four

years. We've got farmers who are telling

us that they are desperate about

harvests and that our own food security

could be at risk. We've got the joint

intelligence committee, our key security

chiefs in the country telling us that

this is a massive problem. Um, and yet

at the same time there's a live

conversation going on about whether or

not we should have more drilling in the

North Sea. I mean, honestly, you could

not make this up. I think when people

look back at this moment in history,

they they will just not understand how

we could have had such I mean, to call

it cognitive dissonance is is is pretty

generous. I mean, it is just total

madness to be talking about getting yet

more oil and gas from the North Sea or

indeed anywhere else when we know that

existing reserves already contain far

more than enough to take us well over

1.5 degrees of of global heating. So, to

answer your question, I mean, it's a

question I ask myself regularly, you

know, what what more can the natural

world throw at us before we finally wake

up? And I suppose the way I answer it

right now comes back to my to my earlier

answer around around adaptation, around

trying to make local communities more

resilient, about working at a local

level and demonstrating that this is an

agenda that is about making people's

lives better. that it is about for

example all of the jobs you could get by

properly insulating people's homes which

keep them warmer in the winter and

cooler in the summer and all of the kind

of co- benefits that we know come from

the kinds of measures that we need to to

put in place. You brought up the Nazi

and you know I get the scientific case

for why you shouldn't be drilling in the

Nazi and in a way the debate on the Nazi

has become such a focal point for the

opposition to the Nazi versus the

supporters of Nazi that it takes up it

feels to me far too much political

oxygen. There are so many other

important things that need to be talked

about. the the stuff you've mentioned on

adaptation, the sort of successes you

can have in reducing energy prices by

going towards clean energy. There is so

much to be done and yet whether it was

Kier Armor or now Andy Bernham who

apparently is considering drilling in

the North Sea that debate is just taking

too much space, isn't it? I don't think

it is because I think it's a signal as

well as the literal amount of oil and

gas that that might be left in the North

Sea. And as you know, it's a declining

basin and it's not really going to make

a huge amount of difference uh in well,

it won't make any difference when it

comes to fuel bills uh or or indeed to

to to energy security. But I think I

think it's um it it matters and the

reason that it's got such kind of toemic

resonance if you like is partly because

of the message that it sends out to the

rest of the world that uh a country like

the UK the sixth richest in the in the

world is is still thinking that more and

more oil and gas is the way to go. So

that in a sense gives a license to many

other countries to do the same. I think

it does also send out contradictory

signals to investors and undermines

confidence and capital that are needed

to power our uh UK clean power goals.

So, so I think it does really matter and

it kind of gives you a sense of of

whether or not Andy Burnham is going to

be the kind of prime minister who will

face down the fossil fuel vested

interests that are pushing him to try to

to get him to give them a green light.

And I think to that extent it it is a

useful litmus test as to what kind of of

climate leadership he's going to show.

With the way things are going, given the

kind of response that we need to have on

climate, do you envision there being

strict responses coming in just like the

COVID lockdown because, you know, we've

had failed harvest or such extreme heat

waves that people can't go out like

there is a a way in which

environmentalists have been blamed for

being too alarmist. But then when the

reality becomes so extreme, governments

do need to act and we've seen them do so

in co Do you see a response of that kind

coming to climate at some point?

>> I very much hope it doesn't have to, but

I certainly wouldn't rule it out. And

one of the reasons I wouldn't rule it

out is partly to do with that joint

intelligence committee report which did

talk about, you know, very serious food

shortages, for example, as a result not

just of of of current droughts but as a

result of ecosystem collapse around the

world. So, you know, could we envisage a

situation where once again we have to

look at food rationing? Yes, I think we

could be looking at something like that.

I hope we're not, but I certainly would

not rule measures like that out. I think

the best way of of protecting

communities and trying to ensure that

some of the more draconian policies

don't need to be brought through it is

absolutely about that locally

community-based adaptation and

resilience. If we can get that right,

then that is our best hope of protecting

people from some of the worst that is to

come.

After the break, more of my conversation

with Caroline Lucas. If you're enjoying

this episode of Zero, please take a

moment to rate and review the show on

whichever platform you're listening on.

Recently, listener Cha wrote, "A great

episode, insightful, realist, and

essential listen." Thanks, Cha.

Now there is a perception of the green

party which holds back many people from

joining it that it is considered to be

sort of anti-conumption anti-tech does

not really want to build things you know

not just an opposition to nuclear which

uh there are historical reasons for but

opposition to transmission

In one way, some people put Green Party

as being nimi, not in my backyard

people. Do you think the Green Party is

a nimi party? [laughter]

>> Um, I think there's so much to actually

push back on about about what you've uh

just said. I mean, we're not against

technology. We're just in favor of the

right technology in the right place. And

you mentioned nuclear power, and nuclear

power is very clearly the wrong

technology at the wrong time. I mean,

it's slow. It's massively costly and

won't help us to get to where we need to

be in terms of extra energy and in terms

of getting our our emissions down,

anything like fast enough. In terms of

of of nimi, in terms of of planning

laws, I think we we we care about

everyone's backyard and we want to make

sure that we've got the right housing in

the right place. Um, and therefore that

we have a proper debate over

development. um and and make sure that

we're we're hearing people's concerns,

but also recognizing that we do have a

housing crisis in this country. So, yes,

let's start building on brownfield

sites. Let's not uh listen only to the

house builders who again have a vested

interest in in in building straight away

on on green belt. They already have

thousands and thousands of of housing

starts that they could be putting in

place if they chose to, but it's kind of

lucrative for them to wait until the

prices go higher. So I think you know

there are all sorts of of of reasons why

we want to challenge the existing system

but I think simply to label that nimi is

is is is slightly missing the point.

>> There is a form of environmentalism that

is growing on the left uh which is going

against the nimi philosophy. This is

sort of showing up in the abundance

agenda in the US for example and the

creation of what are now called the

yimies which is yes in my backyard

please build more please. What do you

make of that reaction to the NIMI

problem that may not be a green problem

but certainly is a problem?

>> I mean, I just think that these labels

aren't terribly helpful. I I think it's

much more helpful to talk about what

kind of economy that we want and how the

economy is a kind of subset of the wider

environment, the planet and and and not

the other way around. And so when it

comes to the abundance agenda, you you

know, I'm I'm all for abundance when it

comes to, you know, hedonism and having

a good time and so forth. But if that

somehow means that we just ignore the

fact that there are limits to ongoing

everinccreasing economic growth, then I

would have deep concerns about it. I

mean yes of course we all know that the

economic development can be made more um

efficient and and it's right that it

should be but at the end of the day

there's nowhere on earth that has

totally decoupled production from from

emissions and therefore there are some

parameters within which uh development

needs to take place and and not exceed

and and you will know better than I that

you know all of those models that look

at whether or not we're overshooting uh

the kind of safe space when it comes to,

you know, waste production or various

different emissions from from from

different kinds of of sources. You know,

we are pushing those planetary

boundaries in a in a way that is totally

unsustainable right now. We are we are

well, you know, bursting outside of

those planetary boundaries on on many on

many counts. And therefore it is right

that we look at how we bring our

emissions back down into a way that uh

is is fair and guarantees that everybody

can live in a way that is that is

decent. I mean it comes back to Kate

Rayworth and her famous donut, you know,

to make sure that nobody falls down in

the middle. In other words, in that

space where they don't have enough, but

at the same time making sure that the

rest of us are not kind of pushing so

widely at the at the outer limits of

that donut that we're exceeding those

planetary boundaries.

>> Yeah, I I want to come back to planetary

boundaries, but there was one way maybe

in which I can make the example

specific. So given I don't know if we in

the fourth or the fifth heat wave of

this summer uh here in the UK there is a

conversation around air conditioning and

some people are calling for there being

deregulation because currently lots and

lots of planning laws stop people from

building um or putting an air

conditioner in their apartment. I'm in

one of those uh apartments, a new build

where, you know, regulations will stop

me from having a a condenser unit that

goes outside my my flat. How do you deal

with the question about whether the UK

should get more air conditioners and do

so through deregulation

for adaptation reasons? It sort of

combines all these questions of

building, about adapting, about the cost

of adaptation. Do you think the UK

should get more air conditioners as a

part of a deregulatory agenda?

>> I don't think it should be as part of a

deregulatory agenda as if it's some kind

of um you know logical consequence from

deregulation. I think it should be based

on an agenda of of need and and it's

very clear that if you're talking about

hospitals or increasingly school

classrooms then places like that

definitely need air conditioning. I mean

it was outrageous really that we had to

close schools um during this most recent

heat wave because we haven't built them

in such a way that is uh that is

resilient to to to to more and more

heat. So I absolutely agree that kind of

retrospectively, yes, we need to be

looking at where those air conditions

are are vital for for life and for for

things like kids being able to learn.

But at the same time, we have got to

change the way we build going forward.

We can't simply think that we can

retrofit our way out of this. that that

we need to have much better planning

laws about planning and and and building

in a way that keeps properties uh cooler

in the summer and and warmer in in the

winter. Um you know I heard your your

conversation with Dale Vince just

recently where you know you were

pointing out to him that that heat pumps

can also become uh you know coolers and

and and that seems a positive thing too

to the extent that we can make sure that

some of the poorest families can also

get access to those because we know that

is often poorer families who are going

to be in places where it's going to be

much harder even if they could afford it

frankly to be able to to to have access

to to air conditioning. If I could just

say one more thing which would be that

it feels to me that a really important

missing part of this conversation would

be about how we have community areas

that are cooler. And so just as you know

when very in very cold spells then you

know libraries and other public spaces

will open their doors to people to keep

warm you know we absolutely need to have

an adaptation strategy that is based on

places where people can come to keep

cool as well. And so going back to your

your conversation about planetary

boundaries and the donut economics uh

gate rayorth formulation part of that

formulation is of course don't let

people fall in the middle in the whole

but the other one is that there are

these boundaries that we must respect.

Now on respecting those boundaries, it

inevitably raises a question about

whether there should should be degrowth,

whether whether we should not be just

chasing economic growth. Where do you

stand on degrowth? And do you think

degrowth agenda can ever win an

election?

>> I I mean I I share your skepticism if if

you mean, you know, can I imagine people

kind of marching through the streets

with placards saying, "What do we want?

Degrowth, when do we want it now?" I I

don't think it's going to be um a a

popular uh slogan if you like, but I do

absolutely think that there needs to be

limits to the amount of indiscriminate

economic growth that is going on. Again,

I I I still feel slightly resistant to

to to labels, particularly when you call

it degrowth, because I think as soon as

you do that, you're talking about you're

raising the issue of growth and then

you're trying to negate it. You're not

talking about anything that's very

positive. I don't think degrowth in

itself sounds like something that people

are going to aspire to. Whereas if we

talked about thriving communities,

irrespective of whether or not they're

growing, that it feels to me is

somewhere where people can feel

attracted, they can be interested, they

can think, well, what would a thriving

community really look like? And it

probably wouldn't necessarily be look

looking like, you know, maximizing every

last drop of GDP because we know that

gross domestic product GDP can rise, you

know, as high as you like. But it

doesn't necessarily mean that it's

reaching those people who who need

greater uh income and and and prosperity

in order to thrive. So I think let's

talk about what we do want which is

thriving communities within a framework

which does not bust through our

planetary boundaries rather than have

these labels which I think for most

people don't really mean anything and

even if they do they don't sound

terribly attractive. So at the moment

you have in Andy Bernham a prime

minister who's probably more on the left

than there has been a prime minister in

the recent few decades in the UK.

>> That's quite a low bar. But yes, you're

right. [laughter]

>> True. [gasps]

But even Andy Bernham, you know, is now

starting to talk about drilling in the

North Sea is having to talk about the

bond markets. um is having to worry

about these things because of the

financial situation that he finds the

country in which now he is the leader.

And that financial situation is of real

debt to real investors. Which is why the

bond markets show up as this powerful

force even though they seem wonky and

don't seem like they connect to real

people's lives. they do because it's the

money that the government has borrowed

from the market to allow for the

services that the government must

provide to its citizens. Um, and the

bond markets are one of the places where

the strongest push for economic growth

comes from because yes, if you do have

economic growth, your ability to pay

back the debt and invest in the things

that the government must invest in

becomes easier. I take your point about

making the message about thriving

communities. I think that's a much

better positive frame in which the

things that the government needs to do

regardless of economic growth can fit

in. But in a financial situation

as it is for the UK and this is not just

a UK problem, it's a problem for many

many other countries. How do you make

that case? How do you make the case for

investment when you can't even borrow to

provide the services that you need to

provide today?

>> Well, I think I would challenge that

slightly. I mean, I think there's a huge

difference between borrowing to give

people massive tax cuts, which of course

was the the Liz Truss approach, which um

very soon kind of hit the buffers, and

borrowing to invest in in the green

economy, for example, which we know is

just about the fastest area of the

economy that is growing and therefore

people can feel confident that there are

going to be positive returns on that

investment. So, I think it does depend

on what you're investing in. Um and I

think as well when it comes to um

finances and so forth, you'll you'll

know that one of the headline um uh

proposals from from from Zach from from

Zack Palansky is absolutely around a

wealth tax and he is by no means alone

in saying that we should be looking at

measures like that. So I I think you

know if the political will is there

there are ways of doing wealth taxes. I

should kind of put it in the plural

because I think, you know, there are all

kinds of different ways of of of doing

it. But there would be ways of doing it

that would be perfectly fine for the

bond markets because what they want

essentially is certainty. They want um

clear uh guidelines of of as what a

government is is planning to do. Um and

and I think there's a way that we could

do that in a way that would raise the

money that we need and allow us as well

to borrow to a certain extent if it is

for investment in that kind of green

economy.

>> So looking forward now we do have this

broken political consensus in the UK for

the very first time. Yes, the general

election might be a few years away, but

there's a real risk that there's a party

on the right. One of those three gets

elected or a combination of them and the

climate agenda falls off at least

politically from the governing class if

not from the mindset of people. How do

you stop that from happening or do you

work towards trying to bring the right

back into the fold of a political

consensus? Our responsibility is to

demonstrate to those people that might

feel tempted to vote for parties on on

the on the right or even the far right

that there are other ways of expressing

their frustration and indeed of choosing

parties that can make and will make a

difference without voting for a party

like reform which I would say is is is

you know uh very anti-immigration can be

very racist and so forth. I think as

well it pushes the agenda of electoral

reform and and and cleaning up politics.

And if I had one message other than the

the green message for Andy Bernham, it

would be please use this opportunity

that you have to clean up politics to

change the voting system so that we

don't ever have a situation again where

a government can can be formed by by a

party that has just 29% of the vote or

something like that. That is what could

hand the keys to Nigel Farage at the

next election. Um, and while he's at it,

let's make sure that we get those

donations, those those private donations

out of politics. Let's make sure that we

do reform the House of Lords. You know,

there is a whole package there of

cleaning up politics, which I think

would help those people that are

currently tempted to vote for other

parties to believe that actually there

is a party that cares about making sure

that we bring integrity back to to to

politics and the political system as

well as making sure that we don't have a

situation where Yeah. where we could

have a farright government elected on

29% of the vote.

>> Do you think politics today is more

divisive, more aggressive, and a place

where it's much harder to cross the

aisle than in your 40 years being in

politics? I I think that um

that on the face of it, the last few

years, the rise of social media, uh the

rise of parties like reform has meant

that there has been a much more coarse

and aggressive language that gets used

around politics, um which I think turns

a lot of people off and indeed puts off

a lot of people who might otherwise want

to get involved themselves in in the

political process. I think underneath

that there are still those strong

relationships which um which make

politics a place where where you know

you want to try to get involved and you

want to make difference happen. So I

don't want to sound so negative such

that you know it's going to put off even

more people. It's it's self-evident that

the discourse has become harsher and

more aggressive. But I think as well

that you know there is all to play for

in terms of of of promoting a different

kind of politics. And again at a local

level it can often feel very different.

>> Now we have a global audience and we're

lucky to have one. What would be your

lessons from 40 years of green politics

that other parts of the world can learn

from?

>> I think one of the lessons would be to

make sure that you talk in a way that is

accessible and meaningful and easily

relatable. That sounds very obvious but

I think sometimes particularly within

those green debates we have lapsed into

a very kind of technocratic language

that has just put many many people off.

So I think doing that demonstrating very

early on whose side you're on by the

kinds of policies that you promote and

showing that you're alongside so-called

ordinary people. It's not a phrase I

like. I think making sure that power is

taken away from Westminster and all

credit I mean I'm saying Westminster in

the UK situation obviously but but

basically devolution and

decentralization and credit to Andy Bham

on that he does seem to be serious for

example about giving more powers to may

hopefully down to to regions and

localities as well. I think the bottom

line is that people want to feel that

they have agency and that is the big

lesson from Brexit from u you know from

so much of the kind of swing to the to

the right is that people don't feel that

they have any agency over the decisions

that are made about their lives and I

think we need to trust people a heck of

a lot more give people power back trust

them to use it well and put that within

that wider framework of the government

doing the right thing as well. Thank

you, Caroline.

>> Thank you so much.

>> And thank you for listening to Zero.

Caroline's series for the rest is

politics, where nature becomes a

security threat is out [music] now and

linked in the show notes. Now for the

sound of the week.

That is the sound of a controlled

explosion [music] carried out by the

Romanian Navy in the Danube. The Navy is

trying to redirect water flow to help

cool a nuclear power plant as dry

conditions continue across Europe. If

you like this episode, please take a

moment to rate and review the show on

Apple Podcast, YouTube, and Spotify.

This episode was produced by Oscar Boyd.

Special thanks to Olivia Rudgard, Moses

Andam, Summer Maxwell, and Amanda

[music] Hurley. I am Axed Rati. Back

soon.