Since I wrote about the overblown approach some environmentalists have been taking, I may as well post about it again because two stories have caught my eye today.

Firstly the nuclear thing. Today’s announcement from the government is probably the best news for the environment for years.

Nuclear power is, after all, carbon-free (well, carbon-low anyway, as Tim Worstall points out). Increased nuclear power will reduce the high carbon emissions that arise as a result of coal and gas. Meanwhile, the technology needed to make renewable energy cost-effective is not there yet.

As such, for the medium term at least, nuclear power is the only viable, vaguely environmentally-friendly solution to the current energy conundrum. Greens ought to be cock-a-hoop. Of course, environmentalists are never happy, and they are complaining about the government’s announcement.

I’m with Niall at Mushkush here:

I am nominally a Green voter (I think my membership may even still be valid) but I’m also pro nuclear. Not necessarily because it’s a cure all – it’s not – but because it’s a necessary evil… Simply put it’s not possible to do what appears to be necessary without some nuclear in the interim.

The only reason environmentalists could be opposed to nuclear power as a medium-term solution is if they actually wanted there to be either:

1. More carbon emissions
2. No electricity

Sometimes I think some environmentalists really would prefer it if people had a standard of living that was more akin to that of the middle ages. Which brings me on to the other story that caught my eye.

Tata Motors have unveiled the world’s cheapest car, on sale for 100,000 rupees — £1,277 to you and me. It’s a breakthrough that is sure to transform the lives of people in developing countries for the better. But environmentalists are calling it a disaster.

It is not an environmental disaster. The Tata Nano must be one of the most efficient, resource-saving methods of travelling that has ever been accessible to people in a developing country like India (it wouldn’t be so cheap if it wasn’t). It will surely have a part to play in improving the standards of living of many Indians.

So what is the message environmentalists are trying to tell people in developing countries? “Sorry, but only we westerners are allowed to have cars”?

If environmentalists are really concerned about the earth’s resources, they ought to be applauding Tata’s breakthroughs in the realm of resource-efficiency.

This isn’t to say that compromises have to be made in order to tackle climate change. The solution to the problem of carbon emissions is simple and well-known: a Pigovian tax. Simply make people pay for emitting carbon.

That way there is no need for outbreaks of bansturbation or inefficient regulation (which only results in people meeting their quotas, not actively aiming to reduce emissions). A simple tax would incentivise people to reduce emissions themselves with the minimum of fuss.

So it looks as though the SNP and the Greens have come to some sort of deal, something just short of a proper coalition. But I’m with Shuggy — I don’t really understand what’s in it for them.

Obviously it can give the SNP two extra votes in the Scottish Parliament. But it is only two votes, and still far short of a majority. An SNP–Green coalition is not a good deal stronger than an SNP minority administration.

Meanwhile, I am really scratching my head as to why the Greens want to get involved. When coalition talks started, there was a joke (or was it a joke? Was it real?) that the Greens had two conditions. Those conditions were no more nuclear and fewer carbon emissions — which are both already SNP policies anyway.

If the Greens wanted to maximise their influence (as you would assume they would), you would expect them to at least ask for something a bit more radical, like no second Forth Road Bridge. Obviously no deal would be made in those circumstances because it would make both the SNP about as electorally popular as Hitler, particularly in Fife. But it would be a good starting point for the Greens.

But I’ve not heard anything about demands made by the Greens, besides a few “disagreements about transport policies”, which is a bit vague. It sounds like the Greens are giving up a lot for the sake of not a lot of power (because it would still be a minority administration).

I guess both the Greens and the SNP are hoping that the Lib Dems will come to the table. Their original stance was principled, but the fact that they are refusing to even talk about it is beginning to make them look petulant.

After all, as has been pointed out by many people, any referendum on independence would probably be lost. And a multi-question referendum would give the Lib Dems the perfect opportunity to campaign for more fiscal federalism in Scotland. Even though these issues are technically reserved matters, the debate that would be initiated could also open to door to a campaign to resolve the West Lothian Question via a federal solution in Westminster.

Moreover, there is the fact that the SNP and the Lib Dems are so damn similar, apart from the issue of independence. Would it not, for instance, be a good opportunity to implement a form of Local Income Tax, which both parties favour over the current system?

Meanwhile, those rumours that the Lib Dems’ refusal to talk is really being dictated by Gordon Brown don’t go away. I don’t know how true it is. But the very idea makes me quite uncomfortable, and for as long as the Lib Dems refuse even to talk about it, it begins to look true.

Back to the SNP, and Holyrood Watcher has noted how the SNP now face the harsh realities that come with actually being in power. Compromises to be made, and the fact that there are scarce resources (I sense this is a particular weak point for the SNP!).

The one solid Green demand — to go ahead with Edinburgh’s tram scheme — is uncomfortable for the SNP to take on board. And the SNP appear to be learning that increasing spending in one area involves opportunity costs, ie. decreasing spending in another area. Doh! Why didn’t they think of that before?

Update: Just as I finished writing this post, I saw this from Brian Taylor:

So what is this deal? The SNP and the Greens agree that – they won’t build any new nuclear power stations; they’ll introduce a law to cut climate-change pollution year on year (instead of vague longer-term targets); and they’ll “work to extend the responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament.”

Ha! In other words, no nuclear and fewer carbon emissions. ie. the Greens have extracted bugger all from the SNP. Oh well. And that wording, “work to extend the responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament” — very weak, don’t you think? The Lib Dems would like to do that as well. It looks to me like this the plan — to bring the Lib Dems on board.

Update: Having read the actual agreement (PDF), it is actually a bit stronger than that. It mentions ‘independence’ and contains a strong hint that a referendum is still on the cards.

Greenpeace are being immature in opposing nuclear power.