Caroline Lucas begins her article at CiF by welcoming the increasing political consensus on the need to tackle climate change. She then goes on to attack the two parties who have been most vocal in supporting this recent consensus - the Lib Dems and the Conservatives.

To be fair to her, the vast majority of her criticism is directed at the Tories and, until such time as they put forward serious proposals (you may remember that the proposed Lib Dem-Conservative cooperation on the environment broke down over this issue) then her criticism rings entirely true. But what of her wider point? Her dismissal of Lib Dem environment proposals is based on the fact that Lib Dem councillors and MSPs have backed road-building and airport expansions:

But the Liberal Democrats' enthusiasm for "green" taxation at their conference in Brighton bore almost no relation to the reality of their elected councillors and MSPs backing more road-building and more airport expansion at every opportunity, making politically-expedient decisions at the local level at the expense of the very fight against climate change their party's leaders claim to be championing.

Does she have a point? In my view, no. There are two ways of looking at green politics, indeed of any political choice that has to be made. One, which I regard as being generally more compatible with a liberal view, is that we get to where we want to go by setting up processes to get there. The other says that we achieve change through taking decisions which enforce an outcome immediately. Lucas is looking at decisions, and ignoring the fact that the Lib Dem proposals are about creating a process.

The process of emissions reduction relies on incentives to do so. These incentives, applied principally through the tax system, will make polluters bear the cost of their pollution. It's not about banning cars, or reducing the number of roads to drive them on, or closing airports; it's about saying to people that they have a choice, but that the rewards for choosing a green option will outweigh the costs of pollution most of the time. Building new roads does not undermine this position; in fact, smart road building can cut journey times and distances, thus reducing emissions. Expansion of regional airports can reduce the need for connecting flights or long journeys to distant airports. Quite simply, the Lib Dems are consistently in favour of people choosing for themselves, and having the best range of choices at their disposal.

It's true that this lacks the simplistic appeal of 'less cars, fewer roads, less pollution', but it's also true that only such a process has a chance of succeeding. Lucas is favouring gesture politics over fully-rounded, thought-out ideas. Moreover, processes are about considering the effects over time, not just what will happen when we wake up tomorrow. By creating incentives rather than mandating short-term change, we can encourage positive behaviour as well as discourage negative behaviour. Taxes on pollution encourage the development of new technologies that can save households money by reducing their carbon emissions. These technologies do exist, and real cuts in emissions are achievable (see this post for some excellent examples).

But it seems that Lucas has heard this argument before, because she goes on to dismiss it. But she does so by throwing up a series of unconnected objections. Firstly:

The limitations of this approach are thrown into sharp relief in the light of increasing evidence that the era of cheap, abundant fossil fuel energy is about to end. A growing number of petroleum geologists believe that peak oil - the moment when global oil extraction peaks, and demand starts to outstrip supply - will be upon us very soon.

Secondly:

The argument is often made that we must have global growth in order to achieve poverty eradication. But, in truth, it's a very inefficient strategy. In 1990, 23% of the world's population was below the "$1-a-day" poverty line. But between 1990 and 2001, just 60 cents of every $100 of extra income generated by global growth reached the poorest. In other words, it took an extra $166 of production and consumption, with all the associated environmental damage, to generate each $1 of poverty reduction. If we are to get really serious about global poverty reduction, redistribution of income and wealth would be a far more effective method.

Finally:

Instead of attempting to support ever-increasing industrialised systems based on exponential growth, and then desperately trying to find the energy and materials to sustain them, we need to reverse the present paradigm, and make sufficiency, equity and sustainability our objectives, rather than ever-increasing economic growth.

On the point about peak oil, I am unsure what point she is trying to make. Should the oil begin to run out (as it eventually must), its price will increase dramatically and its use will decline until it runs out entirely. This will (and, following recent oil price rises, already does) cause individuals, companies and governments to look at alternative sources of energy. There's nothing here that anyone could disagree with.

On poverty eradication, surely nobody could argue with those figures? Well, I'm not going to argue with the fact that so many people live in such dire poverty is a terrible indictment of the state of global affairs. But the fact is that it is those countries which have made the greatest strides in economic growth which have succeeded in lifting their citizens out of poverty - India and China are often quoted as examples, but the economic story of the whole of Asia has been one of economic growth overcoming poverty.

Blaming economic growth for pollution is another failure to distinguish a process to tackle root causes from quick fix solutions. Yes, we could cut pollution if we cut economic growth. The Black Death, by decimating the population of Europe and devastating the Medieval economy, was responsible for such a fall in global CO2 that it is believed to have played a role in causing the Little Ice Age. I apologise if this seems like an unfair historical example to use, but it's worth remembering that real cuts in economic growth will have real consequences in falling living standards, unemployment and the slowing of the very technological progress we need to find new energy sources and rebuild our economy around low-emissions technology. What good is a Toyota Prius if nobody can afford to buy one? We need to protect and promote a vibrant, free economy; we also need to ensure that the economic incentives in place ensure that it is an economy built on clean energy.

Finally, Lucas calls for a completely new economic order. It seems strange that, having spent most of her article making easy arguments, she only tacks her solution to the problem on as an afterthought, with little explanation of what it would mean. Sufficiency, equity and sustainability are all fine words. But who decides what is sufficient? Who decides what is equitable? Who decides what is sustainable? Clearly Caroline Lucas doesn't trust ordinary people to make those decisions. The only mention of people's economic liberty is the suggestion that it should be curtailed by a global programme of redistribution. It is here that the contradiction is worst; it would be hard to afford any kind of redistribution whilst simultaneously restricting economic growth.

So, whilst I share her concern for the environment, I don't share her beliefs about how to solve the problem. I take heart from the fact that the environmental agenda is increasingly taken up by the Lib Dems; it cannot be left in the hands of the Greens.

Iain Dale has a surprising interesting article in the New Statesman.

He suverys the Tories on the eve of one of the few Tory conferences in the last twenty years when the first prioirty of a large group of delgates has not been to "dump the leader".

Not that this instinct has entirely disappeared. The Cornerstone Group are certainly restive (not least their bashful "leader" Edward Leigh). Indeed Michael Howard has been wheeled out in the Times to try to keep the Right on board.

Dale argues that Cameron will only go so far in appeasing the right: If the price of getting the extra two million votes needed to win an election is to lose a few thousand "scorched earthers" on the right, it's a price he's only too happy to pay.

And he pinpoints one of the sources of friction between leadership and activists in conservative party. Cameron is consciously promoting himself in opposition to his party. Not for the first time it is a tactic reminiscent of Blair:

A cult of personality has been consciously engendered. He, not the party, is now the Conservative brand.

This is a dangerous tactic. Cameron is clearly a Conservative by caste and education. He is trying to distance himself from the policies that (let's not forget) expanded the appeal of the Tories under Thatcher, and are dear to the majority of their activists. Yet Cameron has no scalps to show the party and justify this denigratin of their history and traditions. The only "win" under his leadership has been the good local election results. But these were not quite as good as the spin suggested - and owed a massive amount to unrecosntucted right-wingers at local level. Opinion polls have improved. But given the Lib Dem crisis at the beginning of the year, and Labour's infighting and scandals, any leader would have achieved some upturn in the polls.

As a result, (as we reported from Brighton) "(Conservative) Membership is still on the slide".

Dale's conclusion is that the Tories still have it all to do. Without policies then can be all things to all men - and to most members. But as policies emerge, the level of Tory angst will rise - or voters will recoil and realise that they are "still the Conxervatives".

And so Conservatives "won't mind if Labour's leadership woes take the spotlight off them for the next six to nine months. It is this period that will determine the outcome of the whole Cameron project. After the glitz and headlines of the first ten months, it's where the legwork will be done."

Which cheered me up frankly. We have been a bit low on glitz and headlines (at least the right kind of headlines) for most of the year. But the headlines picked up at Conference. and we have started dong the legwork.

It wasn't a great debate, but it was a great result.

Vince Cable made the speech of the day, in that familiar low-key, reassuring style. Steve Webb and Paul Holmes contributed greatly to the result, and Malcolm Bruce once more persuaded me that we should be making much more use of his talents. On the 50p side of the debate, Evan Harris stood out.

The scale of support for the Tax commission proposals surprised me. Virtually no one voted for the Cantebury amendments, the Harris amendment got the support of about 15~% of the hall as far as I could see. So this was a triumph for the leaderswhip and a big step forward for Lib Dem economic policy.

As you would expect, Stephen Tall has already identified the relevant quote.

Sam Brittan wrote last week that:

While [the Liberal Democrat] party’s main attraction still lies in its greater commitment to personal freedom and due process than the Labour or Conservative megaliths, there is now at least a chance one might be able to vote for the party because of, rather than despite, its economic policies.

And that is how it feels to me. We haven't reached nirvana yet, but we are united and moving in the appropriate direction.

News that families will have to pay back tax credits despite government errors.

As a metaphor for this government - over-complex, interfering and inefficient - you couldn't do better. Tax credits are designed to help Gordon get elected, not to help those who need the most help.

The excellent Andy Mayer has produced a stark warning of the effects of Gordon Brown's PFI largesse. Very worrying.

There is a familiar feeling to many of the Tory tax proposals coming from the working group headed by Steve Norris.

According to the Observer:

Under the proposed new policy, road tax on top gas-guzzlers could rise by over £1,000, Norris said. While dramatic tax changes on airline fuel would take time, because they required international agreements, he said he was recommending an immediate increase in air passenger duty - up from £20 to as much as £100 for long-haul flights, and from £5 to £20 for European trips. He also proposed to halve council tax, cut VAT by 2.5 per cent and NI contributions by 3 per cent.

The mystery here is how proposals on VAT and NICs come to be made by the "transport policy review team".

It seems Gordon's favourite lady has found a new suitor. The Independent has an analysis of the financial position of each of the major parties garnered from their 2005 accounts:

Conservatives
2005 Operating Loss: £15m
31/12/05 Net Liabilities: £26m

Labour
2005 Operating Loss: £14.5m
31/12/05 Net Liabilities: £27.3m

Liberal Democrats
2005 Operating Loss: £0.2m
31/12/05 Net Assets: £0.3m

So, would you trust any organisation to run the country that spends far more than it can afford, and whose loans are unsecured?

There has recently been a very interesting debate in the Lib Dem blogosphere about the role of supermarkets. At the risk of over-simplifying, the debate is between those who see supermarkets as broadly a force for good and those who see them as broadly a force for ill. Neither side is absolute; nobody wants to see supermarkets violating rights and nor does anyone believe that they should be somehow abolished.

Stephen Tall started the ball rolling with this post. In his judgement, "[Supermarkets] are a creation of society’s aspirations to have a choice of quality foodstuffs available at reasonable cost whenever we need them." and, as such, are a good thing. Richard Huzzey disagrees, on the basis that he believes that supermarkets are in a near-monopoly position which places them at odds with consumer interests.

Edis Bevan takes a different tack, arguing that the problem with supermarkets is their relationship with their suppliers, the farmers, quoting from a Women's Institute report which claims that supermarkets are "destroying farming" in Britain with aggressive bargaining techniques. Joe Otten agrees that supermarkets may be bad for farmers, but offers a number of important caveats.

Personally, I think that not all of these arguments can be true. It cannot be true that supermarkets are a monopoly and competition between them is driving prices down to their lowest-ever levels. Monopolies only exist when there is no competition, either because there is only a single company operating in the market or because there is a cartel. The supermarket sector has been repeatedly investigated over the last decade and no evidence of a cartel has been found. If anything, competition is now fiercer than ever.

As consumers, we benefit from this. A family can now afford to feed itself for less than ever before and as basic food prices come down, a wider variety of food becomes more affordable too. The level of choice and affordability of food in a modern supermarket is unparalleled and is something that I think should be celebrated rather than lamented. It is important to recognise that it is the competetive process that has brought this situation about.

But if supermarkets do not present a monopoly to consumers, what about suppliers? This is an argument that puzzles me somewhat; there are a whole range of food outlets across the country which source their produce from British farmers. Any use of the term 'monopoly' is a red herring in this argument. I could simply say "there is no monopoly so there is no problem", but the fact remains that farmers are protesting about something.

The gist of the complaints appear to be that prices are being driven down to very low levels and that these price levels are making life difficult for farmers. I must admit, my initial reaction is one of little sympathy; nobody has a God-given right to be able to sell their goods and services at a price they like. Anyone who has ever been made redundant will know this, and any business which has had to cut prices and costs to stay competetive will know that asking the government to force their customers to pay more is not a case worth pursuing. Yet, when coming from farmers, this argument is taken seriously. Why? I could hazard some guesses, but I'd like to hear from people who know more about this, particularly those who support the farmers' case.

A final point: as a liberal, I believe very much in a decentralised economy with vigorous competition between as many different competitors as possible. For this reason, I think it's important that small shops do survive and compete with the big chains. It's also why I think regulation may do more harm than good. One of the bugbears of anti-supermarket campaigners is the ability of supermarkets to throw vast resources at solving problems like gaining planning permission. They complain of local councils being 'overwhelmed' by the legal efforts of supermarkets to gain permission to build. Often they call for planning permission to be made more difficult to acquire, more complex to complete and more costly.

Yet this ignores the realities of competition; the advantage supermarkets have in the field of regulation is that they can afford to deal with costly, lengthy and complex legal processes in a way that small shops can't. The big chains can afford to maintain teams of lawyers on permanent standby to fight their case wherever necessary, something unaffordable to a local shop. Raising the bar will simply mean that only the biggest chains can afford to jump over it. As is often the case, Big Government goes hand-in-hand with Big Business, to the detriment of the independent small business. We should be extremely wary of proposing any kind of regulation which may harm small businesses more than large; indeed, if we want to help small businesses the answer may be to regulate less.