As an economist, I am concerned by the economic philosophy of the Green Party.

At its recent conference, it advocated economic contraction of the British economy to tackle climate change.

There is no doubt a change in the dynamic of the global economy is necessary. Indeed, the Kyoto agreement could be expanded to more industries and organisations to achieve this goal. However, for the fundamentalists of the Green Party to advocate a full economic contraction to tackle the problem is both short-sighted and dangerous.

How, for example, would it provide jobs for its many student supporters when they graduate?

How would it pay for the social housing it advocates so ardently?

Economies can serve both people and the environment, even when growing, but the shift towards more emphasis on the environmental impact of economic activities is subtle and evolutionary.

In my work, I have seen companies dedicated to fighting climate change emerge and grow rapidly.

They have made non-polluting bio-fuels a reality at the petrol pumps, invented and installed more efficient methods of generating wind and solar energy and created an international market in Kyoto carbon credits to help countries to meet their commitments to reduce carbon emissions.

Even Britain's biggest multinationals are moving towards their goal of becoming carbon neutral.

Would the Greens wish to constrain this with economic contraction?

The problem the Green Party is really trying to tackle in this way is over-consumption. It should know there are less harmful methods.

Buying locally-produced food takes nothing out of the national economy while it strengthens the local economy and has less environmental cost than buying food harvested, frozen and shipped from thousands of miles away.

Individuals can buy goods with less plastic packaging and goods made from ethically sourced and managed resources. And communities must be told which brands/ companies follow socially responsible, carbon-neutral business practices so individuals can choose to buy goods which have little or no negative environmental impact.

There is an immediate imperative to protect the environment.

But acting drastically without full consideration could have devastating consequences for individuals and families and Britain.

Now let's hear no more of this economic contraction nonsense.

  • Michael Macfarlane, Marine Parade, Brighton