The part biofueled Virgin flight from London recently was a headline writer’s gift if ever there was one. I suppose if Virgin wanted to be taken seriously, though, they would have powered the flight using anything other than coconuts.

But it wasn’t the reaction of the press that bothered me – I’d have been more shocked had they not turned a cynical spin on a tycoon’s green aviation claims. No, what really got up my nose was the reaction of the environmental lobby.

That Virgin flight to Amsterdam had just one of its four engines running on 20% biofuel, so it’s safe to assume that Richard Branson won’t be riding to mother Earth’s rescue just yet. Yet when I was at school you got marks for effort, not just results, so surely the eco lot should be praising Virgin for taking a step in the right direction? Not likely.

It’s a ‘gimmick’, thundered Friends of the Earth, telling the BBC, ‘If you look at the latest scientific research it clearly shows biofuels do very little to reduce emissions’.

Hang on – weren’t you lot telling us that that biofuels were a good thing a second ago, and campaigning for government to invest in the stuff? Well yes, it turns out they were.

In 2003 Greenpeace said in a report that, ‘biofuels offer carbon reductions, reduced nitrous and sulphurous oxides (that damage air quality, impact human health and can cause acid rain). They also offer a huge potential new stimulus for farmers and more localised use of crops grown for energy’.

And a couple of years before that they campaigned for government to invest one pence per litre of fuel tax in green energy and, you guessed it, ‘allow hydrogen and biofuels to become widely available as alternatives to oil for transport’.

It was advice and campaigns like this that inspired many to action. I live in Brighton and regularly get caught in the tailwind, (which, in case you’re interested, smells suspiciously – and pungently – like a fish and chip shop), of the fabulous biofuel bus they have running from the station to the universities. Great? No. It was great, but now its a gimmick according to Friends of the Earth.

In their warped determination to always be in attack mode, always oppose government and big business, environmental NGOs have lost sight of the real goal, which is to encourage behavioural change. Why so ruthlessly attack a company that makes baby steps in the right direction as opposed to the multitude of companies that do nothing?

Why break into Heathrow or cover parliament with banners? What they really need to do is go to the terminal building instead and begin a much-needed dialogue with passengers. The answer to these questions is simple: environmental NGOs are increasingly turning towards publicity stunts at the expense sensible, educative, public debate.

A few years ago biofuel was all the rage; now it’s condemned. Wind turbines on roofs? Was good but now we’re told that so much energy goes into making them it’s not so certain. And depending what type of environmentalist you are, nuclear is either brilliant or appalling.

Is it any wonder that people are choosing at every turn to just stick their head in the sand and get on with life as normal? I’m not saying here that biofuels are a good or bad thing, but I do think that after almost decade of debate and so-called leadership by the environmental movement, it is reasonable to expect enough clarity of information to enable the public to make this judgement. So is there a lesson in all this for progressives? You bet; there is a poverty of leadership in the sustainability movement, and Labour needs to take the mantle.

Most of the large environmental NGOs have failed to build coalitions or work towards consensus in the way of Make Poverty History. Their utopian dogma and uncompromising demands alienate many, sometimes giving the impression that aspiration is a bad – or even dangerous – thing.

Labour could, and should, fill this leadership vacuum. It has the most powerful tools already in its grasp – knowledge and power. The Stern report, a universally accepted piece of academic brilliance, coupled with the fact they are in government, could pave the way for some of the boldest policy moves since Tony Blair announced the ending of child poverty in a generation.

Ed Miliband, in his brilliant lecture to the Fabians recently, talked with passion and eloquence about the need for Labour to take bold steps in environmental policy. Former cabinet ministers Charles Clarke and Alan Milburn have called for radical moves to tackle climate change and galvanize the Labour movement. Now is the time to dominate this agenda with a narrative defined by ambition, informed by ‘rights and responsibilities’, and mindful of the need to build momentum behind a failing campaign.

Peter Kyle is Director of Startegy and Enterprise at Acevo (The Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations) and a Labour party member.

The part biofueled Virgin flight from London recently was a headline writer’s gift if ever there was one. I suppose if Virgin wanted to be taken seriously, though, they would have powered the flight using anything other than coconuts.

But it wasn’t the reaction of the press that bothered me – I’d have been more shocked had they not turned a cynical spin on a tycoon’s green aviation claims. No, what really got up my nose was the reaction of the environmental lobby.

That Virgin flight to Amsterdam had just one of its four engines running on 20% biofuel, so it’s safe to assume that Richard Branson won’t be riding to mother Earth’s rescue just yet. Yet when I was at school you got marks for effort, not just results, so surely the eco lot should be praising Virgin for taking a step in the right direction? Not likely.

It’s a ‘gimmick’, thundered Friends of the Earth, telling the BBC, ‘If you look at the latest scientific research it clearly shows biofuels do very little to reduce emissions’.

Hang on – weren’t you lot telling us that that biofuels were a good thing a second ago, and campaigning for government to invest in the stuff? Well yes, it turns out they were.

In 2003 Greenpeace said in a report that, ‘biofuels offer carbon reductions, reduced nitrous and sulphurous oxides (that damage air quality, impact human health and can cause acid rain). They also offer a huge potential new stimulus for farmers and more localised use of crops grown for energy’.

And a couple of years before that they campaigned for government to invest one pence per litre of fuel tax in green energy and, you guessed it, ‘allow hydrogen and biofuels to become widely available as alternatives to oil for transport’.

It was advice and campaigns like this that inspired many to action. I live in Brighton and regularly get caught in the tailwind, (which, in case you’re interested, smells suspiciously – and pungently – like a fish and chip shop), of the fabulous biofuel bus they have running from the station to the universities. Great? No. It was great, but now its a gimmick according to Friends of the Earth.

In their warped determination to always be in attack mode, always oppose government and big business, environmental NGOs have lost sight of the real goal, which is to encourage behavioural change. Why so ruthlessly attack a company that makes baby steps in the right direction as opposed to the multitude of companies that do nothing?

Why break into Heathrow or cover parliament with banners? What they really need to do is go to the terminal building instead and begin a much-needed dialogue with passengers. The answer to these questions is simple: environmental NGOs are increasingly turning towards publicity stunts at the expense sensible, educative, public debate.

A few years ago biofuel was all the rage; now it’s condemned. Wind turbines on roofs? Was good but now we’re told that so much energy goes into making them it’s not so certain. And depending what type of environmentalist you are, nuclear is either brilliant or appalling.

Is it any wonder that people are choosing at every turn to just stick their head in the sand and get on with life as normal? I’m not saying here that biofuels are a good or bad thing, but I do think that after almost decade of debate and so-called leadership by the environmental movement, it is reasonable to expect enough clarity of information to enable the public to make this judgement. So is there a lesson in all this for progressives? You bet; there is a poverty of leadership in the sustainability movement, and Labour needs to take the mantle.

Most of the large environmental NGOs have failed to build coalitions or work towards consensus in the way of Make Poverty History. Their utopian dogma and uncompromising demands alienate many, sometimes giving the impression that aspiration is a bad – or even dangerous – thing.

Labour could, and should, fill this leadership vacuum. It has the most powerful tools already in its grasp – knowledge and power. The Stern report, a universally accepted piece of academic brilliance, coupled with the fact they are in government, could pave the way for some of the boldest policy moves since Tony Blair announced the ending of child poverty in a generation.

Ed Miliband, in his brilliant lecture to the Fabians recently, talked with passion and eloquence about the need for Labour to take bold steps in environmental policy. Former cabinet ministers Charles Clarke and Alan Milburn have called for radical moves to tackle climate change and galvanize the Labour movement. Now is the time to dominate this agenda with a narrative defined by ambition, informed by ‘rights and responsibilities’, and mindful of the need to build momentum behind a failing campaign.

Peter Kyle is Peter Kyle is a former aid worker, academic from the University of Sussex, and Special Adviser at the Cabinet Office. Now he is a director of a leading third sector organisation, but writes here in a personal capacity.