Your location: Home > Publications > New Ground > No. 66

Why Sperm Counts

New Ground 66
Spring 2004

Yes, the personal is political. Joanna Collins and Rebecca Willis say Labour’s next electoral campaign must show how the environment connects with everyday issues.

Political parties on the lookout for ways to awaken an environmental vote next election need look no further than recent shock news on sperm counts. Tabloids and broadsheets alike headlined tidings that these may have fallen almost a third in the last 15 years. Sexual abnormalities have been reported for years in river fish and polar bears, linked to chemicals in the environment that mimic sex hormones. But now the man in the street has reason to be concerned. Fertile ground for political campaigning perhaps?

Too many politicians point to opinion polls and focus groups for evidence that ‘the environment’ is sliding down the list of people’s priorities and is unworthy of a campaigning focus. Granted, it seems eclipsed by rising concern about health, crime, transport and public services in general.

But this is an illusion. Look behind those categories and you will find environmental concerns are not so marginal. Current debates on health, crime and transport are all about running to stand still: NHS spending to keep up with waiting lists, road building to keep up with congestion, more police to deter vandalism and violence.

Environmental solutions are about prevention before cure for problems blighting everyday life. Attractive living environments boost self-esteem and reduce crime; walking and cycling cut both congestion and obesity; less-intensive farming yields tastier food and fewer health scares.

Treating the voting public as just unprincipled consumers would be a mistake; they are citizens, too. The latest Eurobarometer survey reveals that 32% of Britons are very worried about the environment. But knowledge of problems far outstrips awareness of solutions. The mandate for action on the environment could emerge strongly if politicians communicated more clearly about available solutions and how these could also contribute to familiar issues such as health. The significance of ‘the environment’ in daily lives is not always apparent.

Conviction and leadership will reap rewards. And, counter-intuitively, when it comes to policies, carrots are not always more popular than sticks. The gap between those voicing concern about the environment and those opting for green goods or behaviour seems to show that people really don’t give a damn.

But, more plausibly, it indicates that people are put off acting for fear that no-one else will bother. Awareness-raising will not tackle this, but a sanction on inaction will guarantee collective action. Hence the 90% vote for the plastic-bag tax in Ireland.

So what sort of commitments should there be in the emerging manifestos?

This government has committed the nation to reducing carbon emissions by 60% before mid-century. The anticipated GDP loss from the carbon cuts would mean postponing the level of prosperity due in January 2050 to some time between April and October of that year – hardly an insurmountable political obstacle. But the smooth transition to energy efficiency and renewable generation will not happen if we leave energy prices at an all-time low. The Energy White Paper acknowledges that prices must rise. The first dose of leadership required of the parties will be to win public support for energy pricing that reflects the need for climate security.

But do most people give a thought to what feeds their boilers and DVD players? At present, there is no connection in people’s minds between flicking a switch at home and the coal-guzzling power station that supplies the energy. Far-sighted parties will look to reconnect people to their power by bringing energy generation into homes and buildings. All large new commercial and residential developments should be required to generate energy on-site, through technologies like combined heat and power and solar thermal. New micro wind turbines coming to market need only cost householders a few hundred pounds to achieve 25% energy savings. Incentives are needed to bring down payback times on micro-generation technologies. When householders and businesses generate their own power, the incentive for more efficient use will be that much stronger.

The public has little confidence in chemicals and fears both their impact on the environment and the effects of long-term exposure to toxic and persistent chemicals in everyday use. Little is known about the effects of the vast majority of chemicals and politicians would be ill-advised to dismiss concern. The sensible approach is precaution, reducing the hazard wherever possible. Substitution with safer alternatives is essential, and Westminster needs to push for this in the European chemicals policy, REACH, that may be agreed under a UK Presidency in 2005. In the interim, the UK could act itself – like implementing a charge for chemicals of concern. This would encourage industry to push innovation in safer directions.

The UK languishes at the bottom of recycling league tables, and spending per household on waste management is lower than our EU neighbours. No surprise, then, that most waste is still sent to big holes in the ground and fledgling recycling and reuse industries are struggling to get a foothold. This is an environmental disaster and a public relations nightmare. Studies show that people want to recycle, but the facilities are not in place. Why not replace the waste charge in council tax with variable charging, where householders are charged per bag for non-sorted waste, but helped to recycle for free? And why not tax plastic bags? In Ireland, it has helped to connect people to environmental messages; they get a reminder every time they visit a shop.

The one environmental issue to hit the headlines during this parliament was the bad-news story of genetic modification – and not because the government wished it there. If politicians want to avoid such controversies, they must think about how to handle the environmental and social effects of new technologies more openly. With GM, people objected to what they saw as an overly cosy, closed relationship between biotech companies and government, reflected, for example, in public money for R&D without the public scrutiny to go with it. The public debate on GM was a brave step, but too little, too late. Manifestos next time round could promise to open up innovation, involving people in robust debate about new technologies, like nano-technology, at the design stage, not when products hit the supermarket shelves. A three-way relationship between scientists, government and public would help to build support for the best new ideas, and weed out the worst before the damage is done.

Joanna Collins is the policy officer and
Rebecca Willis is the former director of Green Alliance.