When the coalition was formed eighteen months ago, the new prime minister said that his government would be the greenest ever. To that end, the coalition agreement included more than twice as many green policies as any other area.
But there have been doubters, and last month saw the publication of a letter in the Observer declaring that the government is not only not "the greenest ever", it is "on a path to becoming the most environmentally destructive government to hold power in this country since the modern environmental movement was born". It was signed by, among others, Forum for the Future director Jonathon Porritt and Green party leader Caroline Lucas MP.
As someone who advised the Conservatives on green issues before the election, and who as an MP has since been willing to vote against the party on such principles, I believe it is vital to weigh claim and counterclaim in the interests of driving forward the correct green agenda for Britain.
After eighteen months, the government has undoubtedly made progress with the green economy. Despite the sudden change in solar power tariffs resulting from bad planning, the government has kept £867m available for feed-in tariffs over the next four years, launched the £860m renewable heat incentive, is expected to increase investment in green heat technologies by £7.5bn by 2020, invested £3bn in a green investment bank that is expected produce £15bn of private investment, and the Treasury is introducing a carbon support price – a world first.
In addition, the government has legislated for the green deal, in what may be the most ambitious energy efficiency programme in Europe. The Treasury has said it will introduce additional incentives, worth £200m, to encourage households to take up the green deal.
Perhaps most surprisingly, the government has signed up to the committee on climate change's fourth carbon budget, putting it on a carbon-cutting trajectory that exceeds any other country in the world. And it will meet those targets in part by massively incentivising energy efficiency through electricity market reforms, which will put energy saved on a par with energy generated. It means that if a company delivers savings of 1GW, it will be paid as if it had generated a new gigawatt. If the government is bold, and if it gets this right, it has the potential to revolutionise the energy markets.
There are question marks over some of these policies. For instance, while the green investment "bank" is bigger than expected, to have the necessary impact, it needs to be able to issue bonds sooner than 2015. Also, if the green deal is to succeed, it may need a Treasury boost like VAT reductions, stamp duty rebates or council tax holidays.
But nevertheless, all this has happened in 18 months, and amid the toughest economic conditions since the war. So when the Observer letter described the government as "the most environmentally destructive government since the modern environmental movement was born", it seems to me that this sort of analysis lacks seriousness.
For instance, the letter cites as evidence of a government U-turn, the chancellor's "tax breaks for the country's most polluting industries". But even the environment audit committee has acknowledged the need for measures to help energy-intensive industries. It said: "When setting carbon budgets the government needs to be mindful that strong action on climate change may result in some production and jobs moving abroad to countries with less stringent policies. Without care, this could harm UK industry and could increase global emissions."
But the biggest problem with this sort of green critique is that it lacks strategy. It is important that where the government gets it right, the department responsible is championed by environmentalists so that it is empowered to win the next battle. Without this happening, the cynics and naysayers in government will always be able to fall back on the excuse that no matter what the government does, it will never find friends in the green movement, and that there is therefore no political upside pursuing green policies.
It is vital that this is understood because despite the undoubted progress in some areas, there is a very serious risk to green policies. At its core it is the belief by some in government that addressing the environmental crisis can only happen at the expense of the economy.
This is a flawed position that has precipitated, among other things, a forceful trend against any form of environmental regulation (without which standards simply won't rise). The "war on red tape" is welcome in many areas. But in the case of things like food standards in schools and producer responsibility laws to cut out unnecessary waste, it is essential.
We also have hugely controversial proposals to reform planning, an early draft of which sent shivers down the spine of countless conservation groups. While the emphasis on neighbourhood plans and local democracy is welcome, talk by some in government of the planning system being used as a tool to promote growth sounds like a blank cheque to developers.
As well as contradicting the government's own pioneering work on valuing natural assets, the argument is weak. With some 250,000 plots ready for development in the south-east alone, and a system that approves roughly 90% of applications, the problem clearly isn't lack of space or an insufficiently permissive system.
The mood music matters as well. We are told that the government wants to stimulate investment in the low-carbon transition. But ask any green investor what they believe is the biggest risk, and they will cite government. Casual statements by senior figures can send shockwaves through a sector because with the stroke of a pen, policy makers can transform a good investment into a catastrophic one.
It should be obvious that in a sustainable world, there can be no confilct between economy and environment.
Fortunately the reconciliation of economy and environment is already beginning to happen, and not just in Britain. For instance, 119 countries have renewable energy targets or policies – up from an estimated 55 just six years ago. Global clean energy investment crossed $240bn last year, from about a fifth of that in 2004. Britain's own clean technology goods and services market is the sixth largest in the world and grew by 4.3% in 2009.
Even without these opportunities, there is unavoidable logic in pursuing Margaret Thatcher's "no regrets" approach of weaning ourselves off oil and protecting the economy from rising prices. "It is sensible to improve energy efficiency and use energy prudently," she said, "it's sensible to develop alternative and sustainable energy sources; it's sensible to tackle the problem of waste. I understand that the latest vogue is to call them 'no regrets' policies. Certainly we should have none in putting them into effect."
She was right. E.ON invested £250m under the energy efficiency commitment, and installed measures that saved the equivalent to 2.3 Kingsnorth plants – at a fraction of the cost of building new plants.
There is a battle over green issues. Until we manage to separate growth from environmental destruction, that battle will continue, and the government will need to be pushed incessantly. But to maintain their potency, the green groups need to keep sight of strategy and remember to reward their friends in government, just as they bash the naysayers.
Comments
5 January 2012 4:16PM
The coalition has singularly failed to deliver on its green pledges Zac. There is no doubt about this.
And as for Thatcher's legacy, please let's not start on that.
5 January 2012 4:34PM
As someone who works in a green NGO's press office, I should point out that we do, quite often, say the Government's doing well when we think it is.
Unfortunately, "Green group welcomes Government initiative" hardly ever gets pickup; we're more likely to get coverage when we're crticial!
5 January 2012 4:47PM
As for Brown's legacy, please let's not start on that.
5 January 2012 4:50PM
So, Green group can't criticise inconsistencies in government policies and statements because this will encourage those putting forward the inconsistent policies? Goldsmith is criticising the proposals on planning law and abandoning regulations on environmental, but Green groups can't do the same? Zac Goldsmith, I'd get out while you still have some sanity and logic!
5 January 2012 4:50PM
Incidentally on another thread was a suggestion to supply 1.2bn people with solar power. Why doesn't the green movement focus on what's actually economically possible - for example try persuading HMG to spend the entire overseas aid budget on something like that.
It would be practical, fend off the coal suppliers who are being subsidised in the 3rd world and make a big green difference. We could even insist we make the bloody stuff here to boost jobs whist we are at it.
5 January 2012 4:51PM
Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981?
And indeed an inadvertant benefit to closing down coal-fired power stations and replacng them with cleaner gas....
Compared to NuLabour, the Tories (with a cabinet stuffed full of wildlife enthusiasts) weren't too bad.
5 January 2012 4:51PM
To be perfectly frank I find it impossible to understand how Zac Goldsmith can square his supposed beliefs, with the policy of this government. This government has done immense damage to environmental protection. The reverberations will go on well past the life of this government.
However, the greatest damage this government has done to progress on environmental protection is not so much it's policy, which is bad enough, but the perception they have created.
David Cameron has done incredible damage by posturing on the environment, and then doing nothing, or actually undoing what he claimed he wanted to do. All that posing with huskies, the green tree logo. What he has done is to create the impression that the environment is just a PR issue, and that it is nothing to be taken seriously. The message of this government is very clear, the environment is right at the bottom of the list of priorities.
Initially I was willing to give this government the benefit of the doubt on it's environmental pledges. I was sceptical about their real commitment, but I at least thought they might pay some sort of lip service to their commitments. George Osbourne in particular has done really serious damage to progress.
You need to understand the way trends work. If you start a trend rolling back environmental protection, commitments to addressing climate change and much more, then this momentum will carry on long after this government is gone.
I met your late uncle Teddy over 20 years ago. Actually he approached me after I spoke at a meeting and asked for my contact details. To tell the truth it was sometimes difficult for me to work out his position on environmental matters, as he had fingers in so many pies, and I admit I never found the Ecologist easy reading. However it's impossible for me to understand how a former editor of the Ecologist can square that perspective, with the immense damage this government is doing to progress on addresing environmental problems.
5 January 2012 5:23PM
The UKs oil peaked in 1999. Now we have to use our pounds to buy dollars on the global markets to compete for oil. Drivers in the UK cannot do this so are being priced out of the markets. Government policy is rapidly becoming an irrelevance. 6 years of flat oil production internationally will come to an end over the next two or three years and we will begin the decline.
Geology is about to start making the cuts in emissions we could not.
But still this government thinks that cars are the transport of the future.
5 January 2012 5:27PM
"Econimically possible" with in the boundries defiened by the neoliberal agenda.
This question is simply a more polite way of saying "why do these fools not realise we define what is acceptable as only that which is in our interests".
5 January 2012 5:28PM
Twaddle...& nothing less
5 January 2012 5:31PM
Beware, the tide is turning. If we do not embrace it, we will fail.
Osbornomics is the way to fail.
There's no direction to conserve, we need to be learning as fast as we can.
5 January 2012 5:33PM
Hmm, we've discussed this before. I was taught by people who had been advisers on the original proposed legislation. They said the original proposals were entirely different and would have given Britain some of the best environmental protection in the world. I believe the proposed legislation went back prior to the Thatcher government, and then it was delayed after the government was elected. They said after heavy lobbying from some of Britain's richest landowners, that the Thatcher government entirely re-wrote the legislation. In particular, the original proposed legislation had severe punishments for damaging SSSIs, but this was removed, and instead landowners were to be paid generous compensation for not damaging SSSIs.
This led to a debacle in the 1980s where some of Britain's biggest landowners received millions of pounds each for not farming or damaging SSSIs, even though historically some of them had never been farmed. I remember the owner of a large proportion of Exmoor threatening to plough it up unless he was given a huge settlement. It was a licence for blackmail. It's widely recognised that Britain has some of the weakest environmental protection in the developed world - and remember this government is considering ripping it up as red tape. We have less protected land than other developed countries and much weaker protection for it. In may other countries nature reserves are not privately owned and are protected in perpetuity for the public.
The essential weakness of the Conservative Party as regards environmental protection is how easily they are influenced by powerful vested interests. Although to be balanced this was also a serious weakness of New Labour.
5 January 2012 5:37PM
I'm impressed - two articles in one day admitting that the AGW lobby has, at a minimum, got some problems.
I think we're at stage three of the Kuebler-Ross "five stages of grief" model. I expect stage four after Qatar and finally acceptance that it is over by the middle of 2013.
5 January 2012 5:47PM
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
5 January 2012 5:47PM
For pity's sake, I know this is a forlorn hope but can we not derail a potentialy interesting debate about conservation strategy into another tedious CiF climate change see-saw?
5 January 2012 5:52PM
I'd stuff the lot of 'em if I had the chance. Stupid, greedy NuLabour simply copied Tory policy while the Tories went around shooting the stuffing out of everything that moved. The rest they privatised. I supported none of them.
Now please stop being an apologist for the nasty party.
5 January 2012 6:02PM
Good to see a tacit pop at Osborne in there, but to call his comments "casual remarks" is ridiculous. If Osborne had once slipped up in a tough interview, Zac might have a point. But the crap he has spouted has been in carefully crafted conference and budget speeches.
Much more likely is that Osborne is using deliberate provocative language to give succour to all the vested interests would rather do nothing and open up political space to water down environmental aims.
Does Zac have a strategy to deal with that?
5 January 2012 6:04PM
We also have a rather higher population density than most of those other developed countries, which explains part of it.
5 January 2012 6:10PM
Well it's trying it's best to reduce economic activity to a minimum. In that sense it is the greenest government ever!
More seriously, surely he recognises that many Greens are sceptical that growth can actually be separated from environmental destruction....
5 January 2012 6:11PM
I have been working in the environmental movement for around 30 years and things are getting ever more desperate. The refusal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions means that more & more people are starving to death. This is a terrible way to kill someone - being slowly tortured to death by starvation ! Pumping ever more greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere is a crime against humanity - of the utmost depravity.
That, Zac, is the backdrop to this debate - killing people! Killing the world's very poorest and most defenceless of people.
So - everyone with a shred of decency demands an end to the expansion of aviation, we demand the end to catering for ever more car traffic, expansing/ widening of major roads, etc. We demand on-shore wind farms because they are so much cheaper than off-shore. We demand that Tories demand that local councils stop opposing wind farms. We demand a coherent feed in tarif policy, We demand that the Chancellor starts to plan for the post peak oil world and plans for the implications of ever rising commodity prices.
But most of all we demand that Tories stop faffing around and start cutting greenhouse gas emissions. And there is nothing you can do or say that will stop decent people from demanding that your party stops killing people.
5 January 2012 6:14PM
Or what? You're giving Pilate 24 hours to comply or you'll start cutting bits off his wife?
Honestly, the more greens sound like the People's Front of Judaea, the less they will be listened to.
5 January 2012 6:18PM
Excellent article and a must read for all.
The conflict between economy and green culture is based on a distorted and myopic vision.
It is important to rebalance the purely market-oriented cycles of production and consumption, often by agents in confrontation with nature, with a more committed attitude to an ethical base and a more critical view of industry, economy, and politics. However, unfortunately, these processes are increasingly dominated by their constituent industrial capitalist element to the detriment of a more profound and critical reflection.
Considering that production and exchange are driven by scarcity, exchange led by monetary transactions but not confined to them, takes place between otherwise unrelated parties whose only approach to locating one another is via mechanism of price as the sole and ultimate indicator of value. This has been exacerbated further by a culture of immediate gratification that has fixated traditional policies, politics, and public opinion on immediate ROI rather than a culture of investment and long-term values.
The above have led to financialisation of the world and have fuelled the misconceived dichotomies and misconstrued incompatibilities that Zac Goldsmith has eloquently demystified and debunked in his article.
The innovative approaches, thinking and policies as mentioned in the article, bear the promise of making a real difference in turning the tide.
5 January 2012 6:20PM
Specifically how?
5 January 2012 6:29PM
Zac, this really is quite absurd. Your govt has done its best to stuff the solar market completely; you are moving ahead on nuclear power despite Fukushima; you have eliminated the Sustainable Development Commission; there is no real 'Green New Deal'; I could go on (and on, and quite often do).
If you believe in these issues, you will defect now to the Green Party. Otherwise, forget it, and just keep having fun with your rich Eton chums while the planet slowly burns...
5 January 2012 6:30PM
FC1967
'So - everyone with a shred of decency demands an end to the expansion of aviation, '
Perhaps you should have asked Zac to get rid of the family private jet if your so concerned about flying ,or is it 'different ' when green leaders do it?
5 January 2012 7:10PM
Pure gibberish.
At least Zac is clearly wrong.
5 January 2012 7:14PM
Crikey. I'm a professional post graduate ecologist, and I have no idea what you're trying to say.
5 January 2012 7:17PM
Clearly you didn't take the elective in Post-Modern Socio-Economic Comment.
5 January 2012 7:19PM
If it's any consolation, I doubt if Ms Megele has much idea either.
5 January 2012 7:20PM
Your profile saith thus:
which probably explains the complete absence of coherence in your comment.
5 January 2012 7:27PM
With 62 million people in the UK why would we want to be suppling 1.2bn people with solar power?
5 January 2012 7:58PM
This is a government committed to the americanization of British society, a continuation of the new labour and thatcherite path towards a smaller state with lower levels of public service, welfare, education, health etc. Contraction of the state and the concomitant contraction of the economy through austerity are justified through a plan to control government deficits in order to preserve the low borrowing costs which fuelled the boom which led to the credit crunch. Needless to say the society towards which we are moving will be one with even greater levels of of inequality than the staggeringly high ones already achieved, but that will be a phenomenon with which Zac Goldsmith is only too familiar.
In the midst of that programme, from time to time, government will facilitate initiatives which lead to lower energy consumption, more efficient use of water resources, or a reduction in the use of landfill i.e. measures which are green or environmentally preserving in so far as they reduce the rate at which the planet is rendered inimical to human life or indeed most other known life forms. Every time that happens we are supposed to congratulate government rather than criticise its failings.
The principal flaw in this argument is that it ignores the obvious fact that at the lower measured standards of living towards which we (Zac Goldsmith excepted) will continue to move through austerity for the foreseeable future we will indeed reduce dramatically energy consumption, water consumption and waste production. We are already buying fewer cars, making fewer journeys, taking fewer holidays, using less fuel and simply buying less stuff as our retailers discovered this Christmas. Building fewer houses reduces demand for steel and cement. It is inconceivable that UK emissions of Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are not reducing as a consequence. With a steady path set out towards mediaeval standards of living the coalition will solve the majority of environmental problems.
Unfortunately the coalition and its green advisers have no strategy for exploiting the environmental gains the coalition has established. The strategy, if it deserves the name, is to deregulate, force down the cost of labour, keep money cheap and hope that high levels of profitability and the hidden hand will create enough jobs to get the tories re-elected. The lib-dems know they are heading for a disaster anyway. It won't work. With demand for UK exports stagnant, until the government intervenes with some realistic investment programmes to generate new demand, the private sector won't have the public services, education health etc. it needs to generate the demand for private services. In the mean time having Pickles encourage housing developers to energy inefficient housing on inappropriate sites with no reference to transport links is not going to solve any problems. Ignoring the transport needs of a low energy society is also going to achieve nothing.
There is a shortage of jobs, but no shortage of work to be done building a society which consume a lot less energy. It is time for some sensible government.
5 January 2012 8:15PM
Good piece. It's not a war between left and right.
BUT
The narrative at the moment ... led by media and govt and policy ...is that economy matters more than environment . From long term, environmental and humane perspective that needs to change. Climate Change should be prioritised over the economy. we need long term vision. And courageous leadership. and a media that can operate without steer of advertising revenues.
2012. the year of potential. Social enterprise. Zac. Caroline. JP.
Come on!
5 January 2012 8:27PM
You never let a few inconvenient facts get in the way of your baseless claims do you?
Have a look at this list of countries by population denisity. Note the UK in 53rd place with a population denisty of 255 per km2. Then note the Netherlands in 30th place with a population denisty fo 403 km2, or Belgium in 36th with 355 per km2, Japan in 38th place with 337 km2. Mind you we have a slightly greater population density than Germany in 56th place with 229 per km2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_population_density
Somehow I doubt you will admit you were wrong, but then I suppose this goes with the territory of being in denial.
5 January 2012 8:45PM
All that's true enough, but the ranking considers the UK as a whole. The UK, frankly, consists of England plus Celtic debris - and lightly populated debris at that. England on its own has a population density of around 395 per square kilometre, not much less than the Netherlands. Wales has a density of 140/sq.km, Scotland only 65.
The single biggest distorting factor is the large expanse of Scottish moorland, little of which is sought for development anyway. The threatened land is largely in England, which does have a heavy load of population. I'm quite prepared to accept that rural England (and the rest of the UK) could do with greater protection, but UK rules are generally drawn up from an English perspective, and English population pressure does influence this.
5 January 2012 8:56PM
A process which has been going on for almost a century, driven by popular culture more than anything else. Even Thatcher cannot be blamed for it.
Amongst others, New Zealand, Spain, Portugal, Canada, Ireland, Japan, Iceland and Australia spend a lower proportion of their GDP on welfare, education, health, etc. Of that list, Japan and Ireland spend a lower proportion than America.
Interestingly, of the small list of countries shown above (not including America), only Portugal has a less equal society (measured as post-taxation Gini coefficient) than Britain. All the others have a more equal society, despite spending a smaller proportion of GDP on welfare.
It's not a simple as you (and many on the left) think.
5 January 2012 9:04PM
Careful what you say councillor. Your naieve and anti-science anti-nuclear agitation may well lead to you being locked away for life should your concept of a super-jury ever become reality.
One further thing, you might come across as a bit more convincing if your post wasn't dripping with class-prejudice.
5 January 2012 9:11PM
You must remember that Zac's carbon footprint, along with those of the jet-setting Greenpeace climate chiefs, are fine - it is all "good" carbon dioxide, because they care so much about the environment.
Not like the carbon footprints of business leaders or the common person in the street - their carbon dioxide is "bad", because they're not doing enough shouting and protesting about the topic.
5 January 2012 9:12PM
Bingo !
And I only read 4 paragraphs.
Guess which version of bingo I'm playing ?
5 January 2012 9:32PM
weaning ourselves off oil
ok , being the biggest producer of waste oil in europe (we sell it to europe)
anyone ever tried to locate #biodiesel?? in the UK?especially as the UKpetrochemical industry have twisted the law to profit themselves
not to mention #CNG compressed natural gas (methane)so much landfill and thickheaded sewage management
any fuel saver or emissions reducer (bought here or abroad) cannot presently be tested at an MOT or a special mot centre for THE PARTICULATE EMISSIONS CO2, Nox , etc.
surely europe needs a slap in the face by THE UK introducing a compulsory rapid emissions cycle (20 minutes @ different speeds on a rolling road for example) to ensure each vehicle sold with, or fitted with, aftermarket (alternative) (GREEN WORLDLEADING) kits meeting (or far exceeding) pollutant level requirements. Its easy.
with all car/van/truck manufacturers currently telling government exactly how polluting all vehicles are gonna be. oil companies (petrol stations) are doing the same.
WE WANT GREEN FUELS and vehicles.
negligent policies are allowing this to happen. 2020? we could all have a choice in this NOW every day at the pump or, by(for instance ) converting a diesel van to run on CNG . small business will adapt and grow. Also as VW has just built a CNG passat , who can buy it ? the germans. Not we UK road-users.
until anything is done we are all just gonna be heavily taxed and poisoned with our hands tied.
#TESTmyEMISSIONS
5 January 2012 9:57PM
But still this government thinks that cars are the transport of the future.
its hydrogen (car bike bus truck ) for example that always gets fronted as the 'future' and the green hand gets slapped for even asking. ive got some on my van IT WORKS and i just use exhaust heat to reform water (wikipedia HIGH TEMPERATURE ELECTROLYSIS)
the lack of grip government has, on the extent of how quickly the economy (and stocks etc..) would change hands if #GREENFUEL became compulsory can be tasted in every policy change.
picture em MINE MINE MINE MINE they are still just throwing all the toys out the pram the spoilt little f.....
5 January 2012 10:12PM
HereTodaybutnot4long nobodies carbon footprint is zero , not even the dead while their still 'sticky ' and a carbon free world is a very very dead world . Now of all people you think the greens would understand how Photosynthesis works .
Photosynthesis is the process where the green pigment in the plant's leaf (chlorophyll) absorbs energy from sunlight and, using this energy, water, and carbon dioxide, produces oxygen and simple sugars. The plant then uses these sugars to make more complex sugars and starches for storage as energy reserves, to make cellulose and hemicellulose for cell walls or with nitrogen, to make proteins.
5 January 2012 10:25PM
An excellent article.
5 January 2012 11:44PM
Yeah I too noted that Mr Goldsmith isn't standing for the Green Party. He's what we call a "blue-green", which gives the blues a showing in the green vote stakes.
Blue-greens have a great time. They get to hang out with beautiful hippie-type men/women, enjoy their company, have sex with them, smoke a bit of weed, eat a generally good diet (anybody in the UK who eats a real apple for lunch is doing better than the rest of the population) and get credit for helping to do their bit for the planet, etc.
Then when asked why they didn't achieve anything or, more commonly, were part of a party and/or government that made things worse, they get to blame this on the fact that they are a minority within their party, albeit a minority with *some* influence i.e. being inside the tent pissing out. Except if they were outside the tent being pissed on, at least their actions would be consistent with their beliefs and words.
6 January 2012 12:24AM
One hears only what one wants to hear, clearly!
6 January 2012 12:39AM
Absolutely true that that Green lobby needs better strategy. We need better ideas as well. We need to be innovative and persuasive.
We need to emphasize, like Zac does above that there are very clear reasons for developing a low carbon economy that have nothing to do with global warming or pollution. Sensible economic and political reasons that may bring on board those with no interest in the environment.
We certainly need to provide positive reinforcement when government does the right thing. This will help the government to do the right think more, rather than become defensive. However, others are clearly right in pointing out the many contradictions and failures of the current government.
I'd also like to see the promotion of innovative strategies for reducing resource consumption (and thus reducing the trade deficit). This might include providing tax incentives for 10 year guarantees on consumer goods, with matched loans for those who can't afford the initial outlay for products that last. Is the Green bank doing anything yet? If not, why is it not offering me a loan for insulating the walls of my house? I can't afford it outright, but in the long term it will benefit me, my tenants and the country.
6 January 2012 12:48AM
OH.. and speaking as a landlord. Someone should be forcing me, or at least providing me with the incentive to install and maintain a basic level or insulation. Otherwise, landlords will continue to just let their tenants foot the bill for poor insulation.
6 January 2012 11:30AM
@Zac - so many things that could be used to rebut your argument, but here's a simple one. You, as someone with a better than average knowledge of economics and commerce, should understand the impact on investor confidence in announcing and then slashing FiTs for solar. The courts may yet overturn this but the damage has been done. See the example of California post 1970 for how to get it right (and before anyone brings up their recent economic woes it could've been a lot worse without a resilient utility and construction industry built on long-term price and policy signals). At that point I stopped believing a word from the 'greenest government ever'.
P.S. - The Green Deal and ECO are built on sand - see p.107 of the consultation document for the get-out-clause for the 'Golden Rule'. And whilst I'm at it, publishing a 'consultation' document running to 239 pages is quite frankly taking the piss.
@Rupert - no thanks, our party doesn't need another green Tory, and quite a few of us are still hoping you might jump the other way - wouldn't be the first defection in East Anglia would it?
6 January 2012 1:07PM
Actually the environment movement does congratulate governments, of any political persuasion, - when they get it right.
WDCS has consistently pointed out that the Defra team that work on whaling issues have been at the forefront of protecting whales at the International Whaling Commission (IWC), but we should also note that whatever the individual civil servants best intentions, the recent cut backs in their ranks have resulted in lower numbers of staff trying to do the same amount of work.
The loss of institutional knowledge should no be underestimated either. The ability of the UK to engage in international environmental agreements requires a detailed institutional memory, and that needs good, experienced civil servants, who can help our elected officials to do the right thing. NGOs such as WDCS can do what they can, but in a democratic world, Ministers need experience by their side when entering the rough waters that are international conventions such as the IWC.
But its not just what the Government does behind the scenes that is important, but what it says. Recently, the Chancellor denounced the burden of "endless social and environmental goals" on industry and went onto say, "we will make sure that gold plating of EU rules on things like Habitats aren't placing ridiculous costs on British businesses." These comments have done immense damage to the credibility of the Coalition's declared green agenda.
The UK's Habitats Regulations, which implement the EU's Habitats and Species Directive, were first brought into place by a Conservative Government in 1994 and have been a foundation stone on which protection for whales and dolphins and other marine life has depended. Any aggressive dilution of them will only result in a poorer marine environment and less whales and dolphins around our coast.
The 'atmosphere' that this approach and rhetoric creates in government and their advisors means that people feel that they 'have to put development before the environment' rather than developing sustainably.
We need a civil service, opposition, and backbench MPs that will challenge Government Ministers to do better to meet our environmental committments, but maybe the threat of job losses and the barrage of negative comments from the Treasury is creating an environment that is holding back the best and brightest from making such mitigating comments?
So the NGOs will continue to congratulate where congratulations are due - but if there is an absence of balancing views from government advisors behind the scenes don't expect the Green Movement to be less than strident in the public arena.
7 January 2012 10:44AM
SteB1 - true enough but the fact remains that the Act did get passed, even if in a watered down form.
And, sadly, it still forms part of what is some of the best wildlife protection legislation in the world though that is more a comment on the situation elsewhere since it sure as hell ain't perfect. It has, of course, these days been much stiffed by EU legislation.
If you think that a builder can get fined and thrown off his project for killing a couple of newts across most of the globe you are very much mistaken...
Compare and contrast with Lbour deciding to build a million new homes i nthe south-east, ignoring tiny concerns like water suppy and indeed where the houses would go....
I am concerned about the direction of the current government - but will keep my powder dry until the proposals are firmer. Thigns still seem somewhat nebulous.