The event was organised by Friends of the Earth, to provide a question and answer session for residents to grill the government minister before he set off for what is one of the most critical international summits ever held. However, what was billed as a chance for voters to test the strength of the government’s climate policies turned out to be little more than an opportunity to paint a rosy – or should we say green – picture of those at the top.

The event was composed of a panel chaired by John Harris of the Guardian and included Ed Miliband, Sir Richard Leese (leader of Manchester City Council) Mike Child (director of Friends of the Earth) and Len Wardle (chair of The Co-operative Group) – the latter conveniently ‘forgot’ to mention his Labour party membership, let alone his company’s support for them. Although the room was filled with environmental activists, none of the questions seemed to faze either Sir Richard or Miliband, who seemed to have all their answers well prepared before taking to the stage.

In his opening address, Miliband chose to focus on the “maximum ambition” for Copenhagen: in reality, this means the UK agreeing to only a meagre further 6 per cent reduction of carbon emissions by 2020, or an overall 40 per cent cut compared to the current stated target of 34 per cent.

Despite his ministerial remit, he proved strangely evasive on the issue of renewable energy and in particular the closure this summer of the Vestas wind turbine production plant. Following the news of closure of the factory on the Isle of Wight – due to a decrease in orders of turbine blades – workers, supported by environmental activists, staged an occupation of the site in August and demanded that the government intervene by nationalising the plant. Their supporters both in the labour and green movements urged the government to put their money where their mouth was and support a fledgling ‘green economy’. The calls fell on deaf ears.

Mr Miliband continued to speak of ‘clean coal’, despite the fact that coal releases a far higher proportion of harmful emissions per unit produced compared with other conventional forms of energy production and carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology remains unproven on a large scale.

In a similar vein Richard Leese (his own musings are on his modestly named ‘Leader’s Blog‘) painted a flattering picture of Manchester as a ‘green city’, focusing on the City Council’s commitment to the 10:10 agreement and other smaller green initiatives. His only mention of Manchester Airport – in which Manchester City Council is the majority shareholder with a 55 per cent stake in its operating company – was that it would be “more green” by “reducing emissions…from things like too much time spent taxiing or circling the airport waiting to land”. Nor was there any reference to the recent controversial move to double the airport’s freight capacity, a decision which not only undermines such claims but has also provoked fury among local residents and environmental activists.

The one issue that united the room and everyone on the panel, with the exception of Miliband, was the problem of the Royal Bank of Scotland’s investment in tar sands. This is widely acknowledged to be the ‘dirtiest’ form of oil extraction and has resulted in the destruction and pollution of traditional lands of many indigenous communities in Canada. The ethical dimension of such an investment is magnified when taking into account that RBS is now a majority publicly-owned company. Effectively this means taxpayers are financing environmental destruction and the government has faced rebuke for not forcing the bank to withdraw funds from such clearly detrimental practices which run contrary to its rhetoric on mitigating climate change.

Len Wardle was quick to admit that as a publicly owned company, RBS is rapidly losing any public support they might have had left by investing in this particularly harmful form of fossil fuel extraction. Miliband remained vague on the matter, arguing that it was “an issue for the Canadian government”.

A focus on individual responsibility, an argument which acted as a get-out-clause for Miliband, was the most common thread throughout the evening.

“Think of the most sceptical person you know, then think of how you’re going to convince that person,” said Miliband. All very well, but what about the investment in new coal power stations? Getting friends to stop using plastic bags doesn’t really seem to compare, somehow.

His own parliamentary voting record certainly shows that he doesn’t take ‘individual responsibility’ that seriously though: he tows the government line at every possible opportunity and his quip that he’s “not allowed to have his own opinion, obviously” is more truth than fiction. And so the constant repetition of the idea that “everyone has to do their part” allowed him, and the rest of the panel, to deflect attention away from the pressure exerted by big businesses on climate change negotiations, instead talking of ways in which members of the audience could do more to get other people involved in the ‘green movement’.

So what was the verdict at the end of the night? Alex Anasi, of Friends of the Earth Manchester, said that Miliband “seemed switched on but there’s a lot of stuff that holds him back”.

Those in power seem perfectly well aware of what needs to be done, as well as the desires of the much touted “silent majority”, but their refusal – or sheer inability – to stop the wheels of the machine from rolling down this steep hill fail to inspire hope. It’s hard to swallow back the old proverb that the road to hell is paved with good intentions…

 http://manchestermule.com/article/when-the-other-miliband-came-to-town