Osborne's anti-green crusade is self-defeating

The Chancellor appears intent on strangling one sector of the economy that is growing.

On the very same day it emerged that our economy has worsened and shrunk in the worst double-dip recession for fifty years, one sector of the British economy that is bucking the trend, providing new growth and jobs, is now under siege from the Chancellor.

According to the CBI this month, green business accounted for more than a third of all UK growth last year. In a keynote speech a couple of weeks ago CBI chief John Cridland said:

The choice between going green and going for growth is a false choice. Green and growth do go together...  The UK’s low-carbon and environmental goods and services market is worth more than £120bn a year. That’s equivalent to more than eight per cent of GDP… It’s made up of some 50,000 firms, between them employing 940,000 people - two-thirds outside London and the South East – across many different sectors.

You would think the Treasury would be delighted by this story of green jobs and British business success. Certainly William Hague recognised the political and economic attractiveness of this sector. A few months ago he wrote privately to the Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues, “The low carbon economy is at the leading edge of a structural shift now taking place globally … we need to stay abreast of this, given our need for an export-led recovery and for inward investment in modern infrastructure and advanced manufacturing.” Hague continued, “I believe we should reframe our response to climate change as an imperative for growth.”

But instead of heeding this advice and welcoming new clean tech investment in the UK, the FT’s Jim Pickard revealed on Monday how George Osborne has been secretly demanding Lib Dem Energy Secretary Ed Davey ditch renewable energy programmes as well as essential 2030 goals aimed at driving investment into advanced energy technologies and reducing carbon emissions from electricity generation. The leaked letter exposed how in an attempt to woo a narrow minority of frustrated Tea Party Tory backbenchers, the Chancellor has been seeking to pull the rug from under Britain’s clean energy industries for petty party politicking.  

The chairman of the energy and climate change select committee, Conservative Tim Yeo told the BBC: “The Treasury has clearly intervened in the draft (energy) bill in a way that will put up bills to consumers and put off investors by increasing their risks.” He added, “Under the guise of reducing bills for consumers, the chancellor will actually be increasing consumers' bills…I don't know if the back-benchers realise this but surely the Treasury does - yet it keeps pressing on with an action that's clearly political to assuage MPs who don't like turbines in the countryside.” It may also have a lot to do with his cosy relationship with the gas lobby.

The same Osborne who in opposition pledged, “I see in this green recovery not just the fight against climate change, but the fight for jobs, the fight for new industry,” has instead been fighting to abandon the framework his own advisers says is required to make carbon emission reductions set out in the Climate Change Act, and axe the schemes designed to boost the wind industry.

He’s turned the green economy and almost a million jobs into a political football, but the Chancellor’s anti-green crusade extends beyond interfering with just the energy brief. His efforts to appease his more swivel-eyed backbenchers means Osborne has even had his people briefing against the Transport Secretary Justine Greening for her principled refusal to U-turn on the expansion of Heathrow airport.

After the failed woodland sell off, the furore over planning reforms that looked like a developers’ charter, the plans to shoot badgers and capture buzzards, the Green Bank that isn’t actually a Bank at all, the taxpayer hand-outs to the oil and gas industry – and now most important of all, the Chancellor’s attacks on our national climate change commitments, David Cameron’s huskies are long slayed. But when will Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats stand up and say enough?

George Osborne has a "cosy relationship with the gas lobby". Photograph: Getty Images.

Joss Garman is associate fellow on climate change and energy at the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR).

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Despite his “strong female leads”, Joss Whedon's feminism was never about real women

Many men in TV and film praised for their powerful women are still writing with the male gaze.

Kai Cole, the ex-wife of Joss Whedon, has written an essay alleging that the director isn’t quite the feminist he appears to be. Colour me unsurprised. There’s only so much good-guy posturing a feminist can take before she starts to become a little suspicious.

It’s not that I’ve any particular beef with Buffy the Vampire Slayer, nor that I think men shouldn’t speak out against sexism wherever possible. But I’ve long harboured a mistrust of male directors – Whedon, Woody Allen, Pedro Almodóvar – who gain a reputation of being “good at doing women”. Who are they, these magic woman-whisperers, who see through woman’s childlike, primitive exterior and coax out the inner complexity? How do they manage to present women, these blank, mysterious objects, as actual human beings?

True, these men are working against a backdrop of extreme sexism, in which film dialogue is dominated by males, while females become increasingly silent as they age. Perhaps one should be grateful to anyone who allows a female character to have some glimmer of an inner life, let alone exist beyond the age of 30.

All the same, I can’t help feeling this isn’t enough. We all know the joke about the male feminist who walks into a bar because it’s set so low. It’s all too easy to be “good at doing women” when all it takes is granting female characters the same desires and contradictions we’d grant to any other human being.

Women are not a specific type of puzzle for mankind to solve. The idea that it should take some noble, generous leap of imagination to empathise with us is an excuse men have been using to mistreat us for millennia. When responding to us as though we’re actual human beings – or at least, as though an interesting Real Woman subset of us are – becomes a USP, we should all be worried.

Whedon did go a little way to addressing this in his 2006 acceptance speech for an Equality Now award, in which he mocked the way in which he was constantly asked: “Why do you always write these strong women characters?”:

“Why aren't you asking a hundred other guys why they don't write strong women characters? I believe that what I'm doing should not be remarked upon, let alone honoured.”

If this sounds a little like a humblebrag, it can probably be excused. What’s harder to excuse is this idea that a man who boasts of surrounding himself with women like his mother – “an extraordinary, inspirational, tough, cool, sexy, funny woman” – is doing womankind a favour.

I’m glad you appreciate your mum, Joss, and that you apparently don’t feel threatened by other women like her. There’s a fine line, though, between valuing women and presenting them with a whole new list of impossible standards to live up to. This is why I could never quite buy into the liberatory potential of Buffy. There’s nothing impressive about a man failing to be intimidated by his own strong girl fantasy.

In E T A Hoffmann’s 1816 short story The Sandman, the hero Nathanael falls in love with Olimpia, a doll whom he believes to be a real woman. Once the truth is exposed, the men around him become concerned that they, too, may have unwittingly fallen for automata:

“Many lovers, to be quite convinced that they were not enamoured of wooden dolls, would request their mistresses to sing and dance a little out of time, to embroider and knit, and play with their lapdogs, while listening to reading, etc., and, above all, not merely to listen, but also sometimes to talk, in such a manner as presupposed actual thought and feeling.”

There’s something about the director who’s “good at doing women” that reminds me of this. There’s a recipe for dropping in just the right number of quirks, inconsistencies and imperfections to create a Real Woman Character, without making her so unsexy as to be instantly distinguishable from your Hollywood doll. It’s not that her actual thoughts and feelings matter; it’s all about where she’s positioned in relation to you.

As Sophia McDougall noted in her excellent essay on Strong Female Characters, male characters have complex personalities as a matter of course; female characters, meanwhile, are occasionally permitted to be strong, hence anomalous. The more nuance we see, the better. Even so, I’m tired of the veneration of men who fetishise Real Womanhood just as much as others fetishise the plastic variety.

According to Whedon’s ex-wife, the director’s declared feminist ideals never filtered through into real life. Whether this is true or not, this would be understandable. Real Women are not the same as real women. Equality isn’t a matter of men feeling “engaged and even attracted” to a more diverse range of females. It isn’t about the male gaze at all.

Whedon’s final response to the “why do you always write these strong women characters?” question – “because you’re still asking me that question” – has been seen by many as an explicitly feminist statement. But perhaps all it really meant was “because there’s still a gap in the market”. Because men will always find ways to benefit from other men’s sexism. If Real Women didn’t exist, some man out there would have to invent them. 

Glosswitch is a feminist mother of three who works in publishing.