The politics of climate change has got a whole lot uglier. ‘Saving the planet’ may make for good speeches to the party faithful but the political costs are now becoming more apparent.
The planned job losses in the car industry, including the closure of the Vauxhall (Stellantis) plant at Luton, have made the vision of ‘green jobs’ more difficult to sell. The industrial strategy I oversaw in the Coalition involved expansion of the car industry and a highlight was going to the USA to head off closures of Vauxhall’s plants and get a commitment to UK expansion. Now the industry has concluded that the mandatory target for sales of EVs (22% this year rising to 100% by 2030) is just too difficult. My successor as Business Secretary is having to revisit the policy.
Public warnings by experts of a short-term increase energy prices as we transition to renewable power has also sent nervous tremors through government ministers. Reform UK has smelt blood and sees political prey in the form of ‘net zero’. The Tories are keeping step with their rivals on the populist right. Long gone are the days when Margaret Thatcher led international opinion on the need to tackle climate change and her successors (up to and including Boris Johnson) could be relied upon to support a political consensus including mandating ‘net zero’ targets by legislation. Opposition politicians have sensed that the British public enthusiastically supports the fight against climate change but only if it doesn’t have to pay.
The budget was another warning sign of political nervousness. An obvious revenue raiser, and ‘green’ policy, was to raise petrol and diesel duties which have been frozen for over a decade by governments reluctant to upset motorists and lorry drivers. Nothing happened. With bus subsidies cut, and rail fares set to rise, there is yet another incentive to resist environmentally friendly change in transport.
A much bigger and more painful decision looms. Britain has an opportunity to make EV motoring much more accessible by importing large numbers of low-cost Chinese cars. China has, quite suddenly, become the world’s leading nation for car production and is poised to flood world markets with relatively cheap but high quality EVs. The EU has panicked over the threat to European producers and has thrown up tariff barriers. The USA already blocks Chinese imports. But Britain has an open market. Car industry jobs versus the greening of transport is precisely the kind of dilemma that politicians hate but will soon face.
In practice, the trade-offs can be made less painful by persuading the Chinese car companies like BYD to set up shop in the UK and produce locally. This was the strategy employed four decades ago with the Japanese companies which were then coming to dominate the industry: hence Nissan in Sunderland.
One complication however is that China rings geopolitical bells in a way that Japan did not. China is at the heart of a struggle with the USA for global economic and political leadership and a ‘new cold war’ is developing around trade and investment. Starmer has – very sensibly in my view- opted for a pragmatic, non-ideological approach to China but whether the US under Trump will allow Britain to make its own choices in this matter is open to question.
China is also central to the climate change debate. China is currently responsible for about a third of all GHG ( Greenhouse Gas) emissions (the UK for about 1%) followed by the USA with 11% (and declining), India with 8% and the EU with 6%. GHG emissions are growing in both China and India since their economic development in underpinned by coal – used both for power generation and in industrial processes like steelmaking. Having been in Delhi last week wearing a mask because of the toxic air I understood very directly why coal is an environmental problem as well as a cheap and secure source of energy.
So far, China and India (and other emerging economies like Indonesia) have argued that they are not responsible for climate change which is being primarily driven by GHG emissions put into the atmosphere by now developed countries like the UK in the past. In terms of historic emissions, the USA accounts for around 21% and the EU 12% The UK figure is close to 3% which is about the same as India which has 20 times as many people. China’s historic contribution is much bigger – 11.5% – close to that of the EU though China has over three times the population.
These figures help to explain the virtual impasse in climate negotiations. India and the rest of the developing world (which until very recently included China) has demanded freedom to grow out of poverty even if that entails a growth of GHGs. And India led the criticism at the recent COP in Baku that the financial contribution from the rich world to help poor countries make the ‘green transition’ is miserably inadequate. But this well-rehearsed set of arguments is being upended by two big developments.
The first is Trump. Trump will almost certainly pull the USA out of the COP process and refuse to accept any responsibility for climate financing in developing economies. More seriously, he will disrupt the process of decarbonising the US economy by lifting regulations which mandate greener technologies and giving free rein to companies which extract or use fossil fuels. These measures may be less drastic than some fear since states like California will press on with their climate policies and, in any event, the economics increasingly favour renewable technology as is evident from the ‘greening’ of Texas. But Trump’s climate change denial will energise the populist movements in Europe (including the UK) which are resisting active policies to reduce GHGs.
The second is China. The Chinese are the biggest emitters of GHGs but potentially also the main contributors to solving the problem. The Chinese economy is slowing and the massive, planned addition to coal fired electricity will almost certainly not now happen. Even more positively, China is developing renewable technology and its application at a prodigious rate. China now accounts for much of the world’s solar and wind generating capacity and dominates the industries which make it and their supply chains. It leads the world in the electrification of transport (though still uses coal to generate much of the electricity). China is also building most of the world’s new nuclear power stations. And China is way ahead with the next generation of green technologies as with hydrogen. China has problems, as we do, in adapting its infrastructure, for example grid transmission, but a serious green revolution is happening there.
At a time when the Western world, including Britain, is finding the green transition just too politically difficult or, as in Trump’s America, is actively hostile, China is quietly assuming leadership. India too; it is massively expanding solar power. It is blindingly obvious to some of us that working with the Chinese – who are, of course, ruthless, and self-interested – is unavoidable and, for countries which do so, potentially rewarding. If Mr Starmer wants to find an escape from Britain’s loneliness it could be in navigating around the new ‘cold war’ with China and seeing the green potential in all those Chinese cars. We must hope that Britain is still sufficiently independent to chart a different course on climate policy from Trump’s America.
* Sir Vince Cable is the former MP for Twickenham and was leader of the Liberal Democrats from 2017 until 2019. He also served in the Cabinet as Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills from 2010 to 2015.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Weekly Road Report - West End Ward #dundeewestend
Remembering Don Cupitt and his television series The Sea of Faith
How to improve the regulation of political polling - The Week in Polls
Why the government are getting it wrong on local government reorganisation
Rwanda scheme ICT costs revealed
John Mc
Simon R
David Evans
David Raw
30 Comments
Climate change is destroying/changing societies.Instability everywhere as the world changes.It has happened before with the demise of Bronze Age culture leading to the Sea People now found to be MIGRANTS from the disasters of the time (earthquakes,draughts, hunger etc).It led to societal changes,new empires.THINGS THAT ARE HAPPENING NOW.Vince is correct re ‘getting into bed’ with China re attracting their car firms to the UK.Restructuring the country is needed for the countries development.Ways have to be devised to get the people behind preventing negatives (REFORM anyone!)owning the narrative.
A good, rounded analysis from Vince. Arguments based on checkable facts.
This is the first senior commentator I have seen here pointing out that the UK – which put our own car industry in jeopardy with Brexit – needs a creative solution outside the cartels of the EU and USA. We arguably need the new lower cost, higher spec Chinese models and we can have them.
We also need to wake up to the need for the role of the state in the charger infrastructure and not believe that the market will solve that problem. In standardisation and build-out the vendors will la until the risk to return is low enough. This will not do.
However the Reeves budget locks down departmental spending for a few years.
Possibly the government will seek to jolly along the vendors.
It’s quite probable that in 20 years time few people will be able to afford cars of any kind. The writing is already on the wall with falling car sales. In which case, it’s probably as well to get out of the car manufacturing business early and make/do something else. How about buses? bicycles?
A good analysis. I think part of the political problem in the UK (and many other democracies) is that, while technology can go a long way towards alleviating our environmental issues, we also need to change people’s behaviour (for example on flying and driving), and political parties have become very averse to asking people to do that: Instead, too often politics feels all consumerist, with all politicians in a race to promise to give people as much money/tax people as little as possible. That’s presumably because of the pressures of short term electoral gain, but means we end up missing that a decent society usually requires people to step up and take responsibility too. A party that was willing to say that openly would be in a much stronger position to argue for example for the need for higher fuel duties for cars and flying.
Rather than allowing China to dominate green technologies we should try to develop an industrial strategy of being able to produce some EVs, solar panels, wind turbines, and SMRs.
It needs to be sold to the public as a mass abundance project and means to secure agency in a world dominated by giant economies like the US and China. It’s a matter of finding a narrative of hope and change.
@Jenny Barnes
“It’s quite probable that in 20 years time few people will be able to afford cars of any kind”
It’s very easy to make that sort of statement if you live in a city, but what about all the people who live in rural areas? For them cars are essential, not an optional extra. I doubt that our MPs in rural areas will still be MPs after the next election if they tell their voters that they will have to learn to live without their cars.
@Jenny Barnes
” How about buses? bicycles?”
Which may not be useable by some physicaly disabled people who can use a car.
As a rural dweller – buses are not seen in my locality. I drive a small fuel-efficient car and plan to use it until either I am no longer fit to drive or it becomes uneconomic to maintain. And no, being mobility-impaired I could not ride a bicycle.
The other major factor in the use of cars is driverless technology. If cars can be summoned at will, the need to own the biggest car you will ever need disappears. Membership of an on demand service should be cheaper than ownership and give you access to anything from a two-seater to a minibus as required. This would reduce the number of cars on the road and greatly reduce the number of parking spaces required. It would work for the disabled, children and those without a drive to plug in an EV.
@Nonconformistradical. Sure, you might not be able to use a bicycle but I bet there are plenty of other people driving around who would be able to. Plus lots of other people would would be happy to cycle if only there were fewer cars on the roads. As for buses – a huge part of why there are so few in rural areas is precisely that we’ve created such a strong car culture that people who would’ve taken the bus drive instead, which means a good bus service is no longer viable. For decades we’ve been in a vicious circle whereby we’ve made it easy to drive, resulting in more and more cars creating more and more demand for car-based infrastructure causing more cars and so on. We somehow need to change that into a virtuous circle where more people cycling/walking/using public transport creates the demand and conditions for ever better public transport (while also recognising that some people will for various reasons have to drive).
I suspect that Vince well understands, but won’t quite say it, that the current ‘net zero’ path will make no difference to the climate, while bringing economic disaster to this country.
@Peter Davies
Writing as a rural resident – we are a very long way from being able to use safely driverless vehicles on rural roads in UK – which frequently don’t have side markings, are often not even wide enough to have a centre line marking etc.
Driverless technology is never going to outdo the human brain. After all, human brains are needed at some point in the process of creating such technology – it doesn’t evolve by magic.
Driverless technology may be able to work in places with very regular street layouts but for anywhere else – forget it.
It’s interesting that people read my remark about not being able to afford cars as some sort of political car deprivation project. It’s already the case that many private car buyers go for the PCP options where one pays something like £299 a month for 4 years and at the end of the 4 years hand the car back and start on another 4 year treadmill. And as has been said above, we set things up so most people need cars for everyday activities. Even given all that, the younger generation who are facing rents taking a very large fraction of their income, find that they are better off getting the occasional uber than paying for even an old banger given the high cost of insurance. And the long waits for a driving test.
@Simon R
“As for buses – a huge part of why there are so few in rural areas is precisely that we’ve created such a strong car culture that people who would’ve taken the bus drive instead, which means a good bus service is no longer viable.”
Alternatively the car culture has developed because the bus service was never very good. Especially with the growth of supermarkets resulting in people buying larger loads of shopping – too big to take on a bus. There are no shops where I live (many years ago there was a tiny village shop).
I can get in my very fuel-efficient car and drive 6 miles or so to a retail park where I can get all my food in one shop and there are other useful shops such as Boots, M&S etc.
@Jenny Barnes
£299 a month for 4 years more than covers the cost of the small car I bought new in 2011, which I keep in good working order and which is good for a few years yet.
I suspect pragmatism rather than absolutism might be part of the solution of de-fanging the luddite Reform “net-zero” arguments. Taking the positions posed by Peter Davis and Non-conformist radical for example the use by people living in urban areas of autonomous light weight vehicles for journeys within and on main roads between urban areas would account for a large percentage of all journeys. If it is currently impossible to extend this boon to rural areas so be it. Similarly at the general election Labour promised 100% carbon free electricity generation by 2030. Now we find that this is to be replaced by an ambition for 95% carbon free electricity generation by 2030. The latter has much lower capital costs and might just be achievable [unlike 100% by 2030]. Better to go with the pragmatic option.
Why would the Chinese bother setting up manufacturing plants to make EVs here, just to service the relatively small UK market? Unless they met the origin rules by having sufficiently high UK content, they wouldn’t qualify for tariff free export into the EU. Realistically, that means setting up plants to make the batteries here too. Why wouldn’t they set up in the EU instead, unless the UK Government decided to throw huge grants and tax breaks at them?
“Driverless technology is never going to outdo the human brain.” It already has a better safety record. Its reaction times are orders of magnitude lower. It’s getting better all the time.
@Peter Davies
“It already has a better safety record. Its reaction times are orders of magnitude lower. It’s getting better all the time.”
So how does the safety record on rural roads compare with that on urban ones?
@nonconformistradical. Insufficient data since all the significant trials have been urban or on major roads and rural human drivers hit things all the time without reporting it. There is no reason to suppose they would be worse at rural driving than urban.
The background spoiler to making progress in reducing our greenhouse emissions is the well-funded campaign of misinformation and political manipulation by the fossil fuel industry, which has been very successful in delaying progress towards clean energy. Most of our media are still cheerleaders for climate crisis denial, so Labour has to face them down, unfortunately.
I suspect that several major players in the car industry have overestimated the oil giants’ ability to face down reality and now they are desperately trying to catch up with the EV leaders. Vauxhall is a small division of conglomerate Stellantis, which is desperately blaming their collapsing sales on everything but their own poor performance. Their Dodge and Jeep brands are just bringing EVs to market while their fossil fuel car sales are down nearly 50% in a single year. Fiat is also struggling and Vauxhall is caught up in the shambles. Toyota, Ford and VW have also made serious errors in their transition to EVs, but BMW, Mercedes, Kia and Hyundai are doing well in taking on Tesla. The Chinese makers do not have an open goal and we should be thankful for their contribution to the rollout of electric buses nationwide.
Vince:” An obvious revenue raiser, and ‘green’ policy, was to raise petrol and diesel duties”
and a policy that would have encouraged the switch to EVs without subsidising the motor manufacturers. How strange.
The idea of a pool car is a non-starter, a car is a personal thing and also it is the freedom to go where you want when you want.
I think the support for green matters is wide but shallow. People are prepared to support it so long as it
1. Doesn’t cost them and
2. Doesn’t reduce their quality of life.
Both my parents and my ex-partner’s got rid of their diesel/petrol cars and purchased brand new high end German electric cars. Within about 6 months they had traded them in and gone back to petrol/diesel.
In my parents case they travelled to the nearest city and back, on a full charge, a round trip of about 60 miles. When they got back they had 30 miles range left. The dealer indicated it was because they had the heating on. Within the week it had gone back and been replaced. Similar story with my ex’s parents. None of them will ever get an electric car again.
Electric cars will not take off unless the range is the same as petrol/diesel and they take the same amount to recharge as a tank of petrol/diesel.
People are prepared to be green, but not at any cost. Especially not if it means jobs losses or inferior products at increased prices.
My prediction is that the new petrol/diesel car ban will keep getting kicked down the road, similar story with banning gas boilers.
Otherwise we will end up with Prime Minister Farage.
Even with the heating on and in winter (cold batteries hold less charge) you could expect a real range of 200 miles or more from a VW ID3. Something wrong with a modern EV with a sub 100 mile range. First generation Nissan Leafs have a real range of around 70 miles.
“Even with the heating on and in winter (cold batteries hold less charge) you could expect a real range of 200 miles or more from a VW ID3.”
Which wouldn’t be enough for my intended Christmas journey. Depending on route I’d expect travel distance of up to 230 miles. Assuming no major queues I think my car would need around 20 litres of fuel – a bit less than half the tank capacity.
I would add that both have gone back to hybrids. They are prepared to be green if the green product is the same quality and cost as the non-green product. However, they are not prepared to go for the green product if it is more expensive or inferior. Also I don’t want to be coerced especially when you see the jet-setting instagram feeds of the people doing the coercing!
I will be honest and state that this is my attitude as well. All things being equal I will go for the green product, but not at any cost. I will also not vote for “sin taxes” to artificially make the non-green product more expensive.
That is what I mean when I say the support is broad but shallow.
The challenge is to make the green products as good as the non-green products. The electorate is not made up of 60million climate scientists. People won’t vote to make their quality of life worse, they won’t vote for extra taxes on the non-green products, they won’t vote for coercion, they will however vote for the green products if they are as good and convenient and cost effective as the non-green product.
Converting to an electric, green sustainable economy is essential, regardless of the cost. Luckely, it is also the route to economic success. There will winners and loosers on the way and our job is to minimise the effects on the latter while maximising the former. The UK should be bold enough to do what is right, regardless of the political headwinds.
“The UK should be bold enough to do what is right, regardless of the political headwinds”
That’s all well and good in countries like China, but in a democracy like the UK you have to take the electorate with you. If you don’t you end up with Brexit. Net Zero could easily be the new Brexit if you don’t take the electorate with you.
@Slamdac “Net zero could easily be the new Brexit” concurs with Nigel Farage on Question Time this week. He seems to have mellowed on immigration saying in a positive manner that we have always been welcoming to those fleeing persecution and so on, but he was very strong against our Net-Zero plans. He is determined to tell the public that our green plans will cost them a lot, so those parties who support these plans must be opposed.
A well argued piece from Vince with a prectical and important conclusion ” We must hope that Britain is still sufficiently independent to chart a different course on climate policy from Trump’s America.”
It does seem like we rely a lot on our relationship with China, and that may well increase when Trump gets stuck in with his trade wars that he is promising.
But what on earth will we do when China finally gets round to invading Taiwan? And in the meantime how can we justify our current realtionship with China given the repression taking place in Hong Kong, Tibet and Xinjiang?
Reluctantly I feel like I have to agree with Vince Cable. We need to have good relations with China whether we like it or not.