I’ve never really been one for the fluffy stuff of environmentalism. I’m concerned about global warming and in favour of cuts to carbon not because, I’m sentimental about our green and pleasant land. But because, I really, really want to make at least sixty. And on my sixtieth birthday it is nice to imagine that I can say, “yhe my grandchildren can grow up to be my age, fullfill themselves, and live happily.”

Perhaps the reality of parenthood is different but it is my dream so far.

The biggest barrier to this dream at the moment is the threat that by the time I’m forty the world will be flooded, there won’t be enough food and temperatures will be spiralling because, the man made rise in temperature, has set of natural and uncontrollable emissions of carbon. So I think, cut carbon, avoid all of the above, live happily ever after, achieve dream.

What I’m saying here is environmentalism is for me and I dare say for most people pragmatic. Appeal able to many even those who currently aren’t “with it” because global warming poses a real risk to them and their current life standards.

Channel 4 News is broadcasting from the artic on the battle for oil below it, discussing the risk of a new cold war over supplies. I think the green agenda is missing a trick to outflank the right here.

From a purely security prospective do I actually want to rely on oil coming from Mr Putin, the Middle East which is hardly stable and Livingstones mate who’s tramping on local democracy a bit? Answer not really, and most Daily Mail readers probably aren’t keen on the idea either.

Most people don’t agree with the ideological/spiritual side to environmentalism, the science is hard to explain and open to contradiction. The security implications of reliance on Russia etc is neither hard to explain nor easily contradicted. Further they can appeal to all voters. Environmentalists and the Lib Dems should not be afraid to talk about the threat than reliance on oil puts our economy and national security in.