If you can get the crowds out to defend fox-hunting, why not to save the planet?

I blame the self-indulgence of environmental lobbies and their disastrous flirtation with the anti-globalisation movement

Last week I packed mother, brother and nephew into the motor, and together we did the bourgeois version of a pub-crawl, taking in no less than three (yes, three!) National Trust sites in one single day. As a family we can hold our drink, and it was only ten pints of tea and a couple of ginger beers later that we turned for home. At which point I noticed that Kent seemed to be covered in large signs proclaiming "Liberty and Livelihood" and the date of 22 September.

"Liberty and Livelihood" is quite good as a slogan. True, "Liberty" (as opposed to "Freedom)" is a bit risky for a true English yeoperson – because of its associations with the French Revolution and with equality and fraternity. But link it alliteratively with the distinctly Anglo-Saxon "Livelihood" and it works.

Interestingly, the signs featured most prominently on the edges of great estates, where not only did the owners seem to have a pretty secure livelihood (and lots of liberty to enjoy it), but in fact appeared to own most of Britain. It was nice to see, on my return to the smoke, that the Duke and Duchess of Devonshire are big L&L supporters. They will be supporting the large Countryside Alliance demonstration in London in just over a fortnight, as will the junior Duncan Smiths, who are choosing this occasion to show their idealism to the world. A large number of other organisations will also be there in spirit or in person, including, puzzlingly, the Ulster Golden Retriever Club, the Sussex Spaniel Association and the Eton College Beagles. I wonder whether they have little holes in their top hats for their ears.

But my intention is not to mock. As far as I can see, the Countryside Alliance has done a brilliant mobilising job over the summer months, and there will many thousands of farmers, beagles, guns, rods, anglers, Archers, country vicars, hunters, dukes, village shopkeepers, Bunburyists and dissenting Labour peers clogging up Westminster on the 22nd, and having a fine old time. It is not, in my opinion, one of the great causes. Though the demands that the alliance places on government seem quite wide, in reality they are easily reduced to a set of simple propositions: save fox-hunting, keep off my land, don't build your bloody house where I can see it and give me some more money.

Even so these demands are argued with some skill and some courtesy – and it is difficult not to have sympathy with a number of the complaints of the demonstrators. I have also been struck by the ruthless way in which the real CA has dealt with an organisation that calls itself the Real CA and advocates a disastrous campaign of direct action (ie breaking things, blocking things and throwing things). The Countryside Alliance understands the limits of public tolerance.

Roll back almost exactly two years to the profoundly unsettling days of the fuel protests, where it became clear that – far from accepting the argument for pollution taxes – the vast majority of British people felt that fuel was too dear. Only in the last days of the attempted blockade did Green groups begin to make their voices heard, after having initially blamed the Government for not having sufficiently "made the case". Or again, consider the complete absence of campaigning support given to Ken Livingstone's congestion charge in London. I have heard Ken's erstwhile Green ally, Darren Johnson, complaining about the mayor's relationship with private companies, but I have missed his rousing speeches and street leaflets backing this inevitably unpopular measure.

Something has gone wrong. It was all too evident in Johannesburg last week. What good did those who organised the barracking of Colin Powell think that their yelling would do? What one single person would behave in a different way because some campaigners joined with pro-Mugabe delegates in shouting down just about the best member of the Bush administration? Back in the land of the free, the right-wingers who never wanted a summit, don't believe in global warming at all and think that poverty is the fault of the poor were all delighted. This newspaper quoted a Jacob Scherr from an organisation in Washington, who (rightly) said that: "It's as if the United States is not located on this planet. A lot of us are completely frustrated with this Bush government."

Precisely. And if he could only have gone on to tell us what plans he had to persuade his fellow Americans to think the same way, then we could have been happy. It was fine for Deborah James, an activist from something called Global Exchange in San Francisco to tell the press that "Bush does not speak for us and does not speak for Americans who want an end to poverty and a healthy future for our kids". He was elected president and she wasn't. I'd have preferred her or – more realistically – Al Gore (who would have been at Johannesburg), but some dimpled chads and the votes cast for Ralph Nader put paid to that.

The big political job – the only job – is to convince the peoples of the rich countries to elect governments who believe that concerted action on world poverty, trade and the environment are important. For that to happen great arguments must be engaged upon and won. But it seems to me that while some governments (notably ours, which is – remarkably – headed by an evangelist for Africa) are halfway there, their electorates are not. Which is why the Liberty and Livelihood demonstration will have so many more people on it than any of the recent anti-globalisation events.

In part I blame the self-indulgence of the environmental and anti-poverty lobbies and their disastrous flirtation with the anti-globalisation movement. This has led to a diluted (and therefore weakened), impossibilist, mega-vague set of objectives and demands. Is it, for instance, necessary for the green movement to be "anti-capitalist"? And if so, what alternative world system are they promoting? When they got together and condemned Johannesburg for strengthening "an international economic and financial system that is incompatible with the goals of sustainable development", did they mean the capitalist system, or just the current manifestation of that system? Are there capitalisms around they prefer? If so, which ones?

In the same way, environmental "threats" with completely different levels of risk have been folded into the overall campaign, largely because they are thought to throw light on the operation of multinationals. Now, several years on from the great GM scare, we still await one single major piece of evidence that GM food constitutes a danger to human health, and one single argument as to why a properly regulated GM production should threaten biodiversity. There is no comparison between this and global warming, and yet the first has, if anything, been campaigned over with more effort and tenacity.

Something has got to change. There should be posters all over Kent concerning world poverty and action on global warming, not bleeding fox-hunting. Get the voters to shout.

David.Aaronovitch@btinternet.com