Greening Oxford
The Green campaign in Oxford, although not at the polls, has been gaining ground recently. They've staged two major demonstrations; the first a rally of cyclists preventing motorists from crossing Magdalen roundabout, and the second a rain-swept parade of students campaigning against eco-unfriendly 'brown' electricity.
On a more local level, several colleges have mounted promotions for the use of environmentally-friendly sources of fuel and for greater awareness on the issue. It would be very unsympathetic to attack the basic sentiments behind these campaigns; after all, they are essentially trying to work towards a better life for us all. However, they are not the best representatives of the cause. I find that it is best to treat such groups with a degree of suspicion; as John Lydon once said: "Never trust a hippy."
For example, not too long ago I was crossing the High Street when I was almost run over by what first appeared to be a rapidly moving pile of rags; on closer inspection I realised that it was, in fact, an old lady on a bike. As her wizened visage flew by, I noticed she was wearing a fluorescent jacket proudly emblazoned across this was the phrase: 'ONE LESS CAR.' Certainly, I could not dispute that; however, the thought did cross my mind that this was little recompense for an equivalent increase in supercilious idiots.
This is the problem with environmental activists: they are all so patronising. If I were forced to choose between an Oxford where the fumes threatened to asphyxiate me daily and the buildings were quickly disintegrating due to acid rain exposure, and one in which the atmosphere was peachy but the place was ruled by irritating eco-weenies, I know which one I'd go for. Nevertheless, a great many ordinary people also champion the cause, and they generally deserve support. It is easy to laugh at student politics - its pettiness, its dullness and above all its self-importance - however, there is no doubt that it can cause a difference at a local level.
Cars and indeed all forms of private motorised transport blight city centres. By general consent they are unattractive, smelly and space consuming, and Broad Street (among other places) would be massively improved by their instant removal. So far, no one has suggested a worthwhile argument against this proposition, although there are plenty of bogus ones: the tired mantra that businesses would suffer. Businesses in Oxford are based primarily on tourism and students, neither of whom would be discouraged by less parking spaces in the city. In fact, whilst London is not quite going that far, in a short time the capital will introduce toll charges for motorists entering the centre.
It seems that every time you go for what you hope will be an uneventful bike ride, your illusions of safety are cruelly shattered by aspiring racing drivers, who see cyclists as mobile speed bumps. This might not bother pedestrians, but what should bother them is the cost of clearing up the mess on an already overburdened NHS.
The other area in which students and other green activists can make a difference is in the source of University electricity. Some headway has been made: 10% of Oxford's energy is now green, soon to be almost 50%. It's reasonable to ask why this figure couldn't be doubled: the problem is, as usual, one of expense. Don't be fooled by anyone who claims that a fully green policy could be pursued at no extra cost - their argument defies logic. In an era of various funding crises and debacles it may simply not be cost effective to switch now.
Clearly this isn't the place for a wider debate on the issue, either; nevertheless, whilst it is clear that Global Warming is a recognised and obvious phenomenon, the blame for it does not necessarily lie only with man-made emissions. Projections for the future on the issue, just like projections on the amount of fossil fuels left, are always based on flawed assumptions: there can be no prediction for either scientific developments or the actions of companies faced with reduced supply. Also, I would question the wisdom of placing our trust entirely in the hands of scientists whose next grant depends on evidence of the link between emissions and temperature increases. No doubt this view might seem thoroughly cynical, but scientific consensus has been wrong before. Of course, there are no harmful effects in decreasing emissions so in general, therefore, the campaign is a laudable one. The 'Switch to Green' Coalition and the Green Party, whatever their other political views, are at the forefront of a worthwhile movement, and deserve our support in this area. We have been presented with an opportunity for students and residents alike to take up the baton and vote wherever applicable on the issue.
The car has brought us great advantages in personal liberty and commerce. But, in a supposedly environmentally aware age, it should not be allowed to ruin cities with fumes and noise; nor dictate environmental policy. As much as it pains me to agree with a selection of tree-huggers, fanatical cyclists and joyless scientists, the time is right for motorists to leave Oxford to less damaging forms of transport. And hopefully, this will also force those environmental activists back to wherever they came from, until the next environmental crisis rears its ugly head.
30th May 2002