Steve Richards: A revolution in front of our eyes
Brown has gone through a profound sea change on the environment
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
Recently, a Cabinet minister told me he expected revolutionary consequences to arise from the economic and political crises that have swept over this country during the past year. After such extraordinary convulsions, he suggested that things would and could never be the same again. He was not sure what form the revolutionary change would take, but was certain that it would happen.
I was struck by the conversation and thought of writing a column looking at whether his premise was correct, and speculating as to what the dramatic consequences might be.
This week I realised there was no need for speculation. A revolution of sorts is happening in front of our eyes, only it has nothing to do with the parliamentary expenses scandal or the collapse of the financial markets. Indeed, I suspect the Cabinet minister is wrong in his premise; both of those crises will be resolved in different ways.
The overblown furore about MPs' expenses is being sorted already and Britain's trivial political scandal will not happen again. The much more significant economic crisis is still being played out and, at some point, fresh, bolder policies will surface to guide Britain away from the deregulated frenzy that marked the 1980s and 1990s.
The revolution that is happening now relates to the Government's response to climate change. I am not an environmental specialist, but I was struck on Wednesday by how many experts told me that the publication of the Government's White Paper, its route map towards a lower carbon future, was in a limited way something of an historic moment. According to one who was previously deeply critical of the Government's approach, Brown and the relevant ministers had gone through a profound sea change in their approach over the past two or three years.
Another passionate environmentalist from within the Government, and therefore obviously much more subjective, outlined to me what he regarded as the pivotal sequence. The Stern report on climate change, which stressed that radical action was the least risky option, had a big impact on Brown, who had previously shown little interest. When David Miliband was Environment Secretary under Tony Blair, he passed the Climate Change Act, which committed Britain to meeting overall low carbon emission targets. The objective was bold but the means were still vague. According to the Government insider, the key at that stage was the legally binding nature of the commitment. He points out there was no equivalent commitment to meet the target to abolish child poverty.
Next, he regards the appointment of Ed Miliband to a newly formed climate change department as highly significant. Brown deploys his close allies in areas he regards as high priority. Ed Balls presides over schools and children's welfare, Douglas Alexander (although perhaps not as close an ally as he once was) is at international development. Ed Miliband was moved from the desert of the Cabinet Office to address climate change.
His brother's original tough overall targets for reducing greenhouse gases became tougher still and more precise at the last Budget. Now each department must reach specific legally binding targets. This means that if the Department of Transport continues to support cheap flights, it must find other more drastic ways of reaching its target. As far as I can tell, it will have no choice but to switch its focus from road-building to improving the railways. As I wrote on Monday, I have doubts about whether Britain has the political will for a high-speed railway. Now the carbon emissions target for that department leads me to hope that it might.
Soon every department will make calculations about carbon emissions in the same way they have to adapt policies to the level of spending available. The regulator set up after the privatisation of electricity, previously limited to regulating price, must now act to ensure that companies generate low carbon emissions too. In addition, Miliband will only give companies access to the national grid if they meet low carbon targets. The free for all in the energy market is over and low carbon emission is the agent that determines which companies will flourish.
There are always grounds for caution when New Labour makes claims for radical policies. I am conditioned to be sceptical, after Tony Blair's decision to deliver a speech on a housing estate in his first week in power was billed as a welfare revolution, as if the act of speech-making was a substitute for policy. Gordon Brown, too, has never knowingly undersold an initiative. I should also add that, although the environmental groups on the whole were positive in their response to the White Paper, they had deep concerns, especially about the timidity over cheap flights, which were left largely untouched.
I understand that particular ministerial timidity. Depriving those on low incomes of a trip abroad is not something easily done by any government, let alone if you are part of an unpopular administration close to an election. Sometimes it is easier to be green if you are well off and can afford more expensive fares. More importantly, if green politics becomes defined, with a humourless earnestness, by one or two big policies associated wholly with deprivation, it will not get very far.
My grounds for caution are based more on looking around Britain now. It does not feel very green compared with quite a lot of comparable countries, with its often filthy non-cycle-friendly cities and expensive transport. The symbolic moment will come when we look at options for a weekend away to discover that the train is cheaper than the car. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are not emitting hot air alone when they point out that the Government's record over the years is not an especially inspiring one.
Still, it will have no choice but to be inspiring from now on. If they lose the next election, the Conservatives are apparently committed to similar objectives, even if there is an important disagreement about the means. They place more faith in market-based solutions, while Ed Miliband sees the value in pulling a lever or two. The Cabinet minister was right, but he was looking at the wrong crises. The way Britain is governed changed this week and, one way or another, our lives will change too.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
These are the all too familiar apologetics for socialist failure that we have come to expect from Steve Richards. The choice is between market based solutions and massive state interference in our lives by the failed Stalinist government. One only has to look at proposals for ID cards, the proliferation of CCTV cameras, the requirement for authors who visit schools to prove that they are nor perverts (i.e. guilty until proven innocent) to see this at work.
Add to that the stampede to give away what remains of our sovereignty to the EU without consulting the electorate, and support for T. Blair (war monger and criminal) as 'President' of this the Fourth Reich and you can see what Labour are really about.
There's no question of 'pulling a lever or two' - its a straight choice between Nu Labour fascism and something that at least bears a passing resemblance to a democracy.
Funny that this is all being announced as 600/700 real green jobs are being lost on the Isle of Wight - astory thar does not receive much coverage from the Indy - I wonder why ?
This policy is a poorly thought out answer to a non problem. Other countries have found that wind generation does not save a gram of CO2 because of the need for coal or other hydrocarbon fueled generators to back up when wind conditions are unsuitable. See http://windfarms.wordpress.com/denmark/
Finally Steve what's all this "Brown deploys his close allies in areas he regards as high priority. Ed Balls presides over schools and children's welfare." Have you forgotten that he wanted Balls to replace Darling as chancellor?
A far more important question is how do we fill the electricity gap which will appear in 2014-2016. Many nuclear and coal fired power stations are scheduled to shut between now and then and we cannot build enough replacement coal or nuclear, never mind wind in the time available.
Guess what. When the lights start to go out, politicians will panic and there will be another 'dash for gas' fired power plant. What will happen to the price of gas in the UK? The only compensation is that new gas plant is now oever 60% efficient and will produce far less CO2 than the coal plant they replace.
Labour know as everyone else does that they are finished as a party at the next election - their only hope is to build and keep on building that policitical mine-field, laid with a brand spanking new range of financial bombs to go off in order to screem aloud the Tory failings. If no one else can see this, then I hope my little voice will trigger a realisation in the minds of some when it occurs and I for one will be waiting to shoot Labour down when this occurs.
I've often thought of creating a web site, dedicated to keeping the truthful-teeth of the cornered badger, sunk deep into the jugular of Labour and keep it there so they are bled to death never to rise again. Now may be the right time to do so as public memory is short but what they are creating by their practised art of stealth and cunning is as clear to me as anything I've observed about this odious party. Had there been the internet back in the 80's and early 90's, what we are seeing now would be a crystal clear replay only this time in preparation for election annialation. Watch, my bones tell me the future where these scum are concerned.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/climate/evidence/e
What this reveals is that, six years later, nothing much has changed, and we are six years nearer the lights going out.
For example, one of the proposals made six years ago is that we were all going to be able to install wind turbines and/or solar power on the roof, and sell any surplus back to the grid.
Quite a good idea when you think about it, assuming of course we could afford said renewables, but instead we waited for "market solutions". These have not appeared; Adam Smith's 'invisible hand' has failed to deliver. Again.
Last week's plan trotted out the same sell-back idea as though it had just been thought up anew.
This sort of New Labour flim-flam is always accompanied by assertions which must have people in Germany and Denmark rolling round with laughter: namely that we in the UK are "world leaders" in the field of renewables.
We are world leaders in failing to walk-the-walk, and there are now no levers left to pull, Steve.
The money has all gone to Brown's pals in the City, and, as another blogger rightly points out, Brown and Mandelson are so keen on the new 'green' economy, that they allowed the turbine factory on the IOW to fold.
So we'll buy all the renewables we need from China, always assuming that the Chinese will go on investing the proceeds in the City so that we can borrow it again to buy even more of their renewables.
I think there are signs that the Chinese are wising-up to this little scam, and might not play ball a second time round.
Unless we can fund a nice high interest rate. Can we?
I feelthe same because i sleep under the bed Come out and smell the freash air It will hit your ears you will feel regenareted fresh fish out from the water try that ...move in the bus you will see more sadness
I thank you
Firozali A. Mulla
Extract: There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Seitz_Tobacco
Unfortunately we see all to often what a negative effect the influence of money can have. It's a particular shame when that negative effect gets in the way of the genuine pursuit of scientific discovery & the potential good for humanity that can come from it.
Either we take account of all viewpoints (something that the IPCC conspicuously fails to do) and have a proper debate about the Science of AGW or each side can rubbish the bona fides of their opponents.
The people who signed the petition Collin refers to may not be Climate Scientists but the majority of the genuine signers are Scientifically-trained. Many of the 700+ Scientists who signed a recent Petition to the US Congress are educated or have experience in Climate-related disciplines but I have not been able to find an IPCC response to them. Does anyone have a link to same?
10 Not So 'Recession-Proof' Industries
According to conventional wisdom, some industries are "recession-proof," poised to ride out even the roughest of downturns. They're thought to be propped up either because they provide sins for the downtrodden to dabble in (like gambling), simply are indispensable (like hospitals), or enjoy a consumer base either so rich or so passionate that no number of frightening figures on the unemployment rate or gross domestic product can keep customers away (like luxury retailers). But as the recession deepens, even those popular doctrines are revealed to be about as reliable as an asset-backed security.
I thank you
Firozali A. Mulla
In terms of moving away from the deregulation frenzy, I hope something is done to prevent the race to the bottom as jobs are sent to low wage low environmental standard countries. An unstable lower and middle class tends to lead to social pathologies.
Levelist policies may be what is needed. These policies seek to equalize the relationship between low wage low environmental standard countries by applying equalizing tariffs.
The tariffs are not protectionist because they are not applied on high wage high environmental standard countries .
For what it is worth:
http://corporatestatesmen.com/images/LE
+
2. Green 'experts' tell us that if we are skeptical we are ignorant or 'not of good standing'.
3. When we suggest practical actions not hype, we are told we are stupid, then miraculously the practical actions become policy.
Etc Etc Etc.
I spent a great deal of time both studying climate and reading the political documents.
I am not a Professor but I can argue with them.
Now: can we shift this debate from the dogmatic to the pragmatic please?
1. Is this announcement real or more window dressing?
2. Is the Minister STILL of the opinion that seeohtwo is the primary determinant of climate change?
3. Will the Minister explain why scaremongering is thought to be more useful than engagement and specific actions?
Then can we stop pfaffing about and start DOING SOMETHING CONCRETE PLEASE?
View full article here NO I trust you
Why dont you go in the politics
I thank you
Firozali A. Mulla
I thank you
Firozali A Mulla