Those in power are wrong. The idea that nature is our enemy is outmoded

The Government seems to think that looking after the environment is at odds with prosperity. The reverse is the case

The Dover coast is one of only 23 marine conservation zones (Rex) (Rex)

Get rid of all this green crap. That, according to reports, is what David Cameron told aides. For years politicians and people in power have regarded environmental concerns as a hindrance to the great god progress. Progress was achieved by getting rid of the green crap. If you protect nature, you do material damage to the people and the economy.

It’s a view that was always wrong: and in the 21st century it’s more wrong than ever. Increasingly, it’s being pointed out that the natural world – our national natural capital – makes a huge and quantifiable contribution to the welfare and prosperity of the nation. It’s not just about fluffy animals and sweet birdies: it affects every major issue in politics. It’s about the future of the country we live in, and what we’ll pass on to our great-great-grandchildren.

Cameron has based his term in No 10 on “what works”. Practical solutions to problems: a view of life unfuzzied by outmoded ideas. The point he has missed is that nature works. The idea that nature is our enemy is the one that’s outmoded.

The NHS will be a major issue in May’s election. It’s been estimated that every pound spent on walking schemes saves the health service £7.18 by avoiding costs for treating heart disease, stroke and type two diabetes. It been shown in a thousand experiments that access to the natural world is a profound help in mental illness: and it’s been estimated that mental illness costs the nation £105.2m every year in treatment and lost productivity. The World Health Organisation says that by 2020, depression will be the second most prevalent cause of ill-health across the world: better access to the wild world would help to ease the problem.

All this from the newly published What Nature Does for Britain, a fine book from Tony Juniper, who demonstrates the many ways in which good management of our national natural assets promotes all kinds of economic and social benefits. It’s a must-read for any one who is concerned about the way we run our country.

This way of thinking is reflected in the Natural Capital Committee, which last week reported to the Government, advising on these issues: forests, rivers, the atmosphere, land, wildlife and the oceans. It’s one of those moments when you think politics has come to its senses. But talking will only get you so far: you measure conviction by the actions governments take. The first test of a new attitude to the natural world came on Friday, with the issue of marine conservation zones. The zones the Government accepted now go to a 12-week consultation period, after which they will be gazetted. Or not.

There were 37 sites proposed. They accepted 23, including the coast around Dover. Pitiful. Joan Edwards, the head of living seas at the Wildlife Trusts, said she was “bitterly disappointed”. A number of sites have been turned down because of the potential economic costs.

In other words, it’s more important to fish the places out than to establish circumstances in which fish stocks can recover. Intensive fishing doesn’t just take fish away: it also damages the sea bottom, destroys reefs and undersea meadows – the places where fish feed. The strategy is to overfish while at the same time damaging the potential for recovery. The theory seems to be that you can over-exploit a resource in a sustainable sort of way. I’m not sure they’ve thought that one through.

Some more facts from Juniper: in 1948 there were 40,000 fishermen in the UK, working more than 13,000 fishing boats, with a peak catch of 1.2 million tonnes. Now there are 10,000 fishermen, 6,575 boats and a good deal less than half the catch.

Fish are wild: the only wild animals that most people eat. If we wish to carry on doing so, it makes sense to look after the wild world they live in. And this is what the Government has refused to do. By this woeful response to the issue of conservation zones it has shown it is still wedded to the depressing and exploded notion that progress can only come at the cost of the natural world.

Many people grasped the idea of the economic relevance of the wild world with the disappearance of the bees: that we are losing our natural pollinators has a vividness that no rhetoric can rival. It’s obvious that without bees, we will struggle to make plants grow.

Juniper also notes that the annual value of the service provided by pollinating insects for crop production is £430m. Plants favoured by bumblebees have declined by 76 per cent. Every year British farming uses 31,000 tonnes of pesticide. Could it be – could it possibly be – that we are getting something slightly wrong here?

Flooding is another of those hot political issues. Many people believe the only answer is deep dredging and vast embankments; “Money is no object,” Cameron declared. As the best way of saving the NHS money is to stop people getting ill, so the best way to prevent flooding is to stop water from reaching the towns.

Part of the answer here is in restoring blanket bogs and replanting trees upstream of threatened towns: holding the water rather than whooshing it away all at once. Pre-emptive action: delay and prevent the run-off, rather than dealing with it once it’s arrived – a classic example of “what works”. Much cheaper, and the resulting creation of nice wild places will have benefits in terms of wellbeing and mental health. It all joins up, if only they’d let it.

The atavistic belief that the wild world is fundamentally hostile to prosperity and progress must be expunged from the political mind. But it’s still going strong, as we see from the hopelessly outmoded response to the marine conservation zones. Like the wastrel son of a self-made man, we’re flushing our natural capital down the drain.