In a thoughtful piece on Business Green, editor James Murray asks:
How hard are the Lib Dems willing to fight for their green reputation?
To paraphrase him, he says “move over Green Party”:
It is the Lib Dems that have repeatedly pioneered demanding yet largely realistic green policies. You might not have agreed with every green policy they proposed – for example, the party’s long standing opposition to nuclear power continues to divide environmentalists – but for much of the past 20 years the Party has maintained an admirably distinctive green voice at Westminster.
But James has his doubts about how much greenness the Lib Dems can deliver:
Growing numbers of green business leaders and environmental campaigners are now asking whether [the Lib Dems’] record constitutes true green leadership. Speak to many clean tech executives and green policy experts and frustration with the Lib Dem leadership’s failure to deliver more progress is often palpable.
He describes the Green Growth and Green Jobs policy paper at the Glasgow upcoming conference as “such an interesting contribution”:
Media attention will inevitably be drawn to the proposal to either reject all new nuclear plants or accept nuclear playing a “limited role” in the future power mix. But the rest of the document is a fascinating collection of progressive and ambitious green policy proposals, ranging from short term dividing lines with the Conservatives such as support for a decarbonisation target and only limited fracking, to long term goals to phase out cars with internal combustion engines by 2040 or ensure all thermal power stations utilise their waste heat.
James Murray’s article is well worth a read. He concludes:
Green business leaders will be hoping for a powerful demonstration that environmental responsibility and ambitious green policy is still core to the party’s purpose.
So are we up to it?
* Newshound: bringing you the best Lib Dem commentary in print, on air or online.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Violent Bonham Carter features on Fake or Fortune?
Have resignations led to a rethink?
High Fell leaflet watch (2)
Two new Makerfield by-election polls gives Burnham 5 and 12 point leads
Chloe
GWYN WILLIAMS
Alex Macfie
Peter Martin
John Smith
7 Comments
I still (just) have faith in conference to vote for green liberal policies. The problem is I have no confidence in the vast majority of our* MPs to do so in parliament.
* lapsed but still quite can’t get out of the ‘our’ habit…
“ensure all thermal power stations utilise their waste heat.”
Which will have the effect of reducing their efficiency at their primary function, generating electricity. That waste heat is at a very low temperature 20 -30C – useless for heating buildings, as in the winter it would get even cooler as it travels to wherever it’s going to be used. A domestic central heating system runs at 75C, and if you want hot water at that temperature, it needs to be coming out of the power station at 100C or so. This “inefficiency of power stations” is a misunderstanding. If you want to convert thermal energy to mechanical, then Carnot efficiencies apply; you want the hot end as hot as possible and the cold end as cold. By increasing the temperature of the cold end by 80C + you lose 20% or so of the electricity you could have been generating. And as the electricity generated is around 40/50% of the thermal energy input, that cuts your efficiency down to 30/40%. Capital investment for pipework? digging up the streets?
One option would be to generate electricity at maximum efficiency. and then use heat pump technology for space heating – which relies on large areas of underfloor heating at temperatures around 45C. But it’s not suitable for many existing buildings.
Just to be clear what ‘green business leaders’ want is for us to deliver greater subsidies so that can make more profit.
Perfectly reasonable, that how capitalism works, but lets not pretend their is anything morally virtuous about them .
It is indeed a thoughtful piece; thanks for highlightinging it. He drew attention to the nuclear options debate at Glasgow on the ‘green growth/greenjobs/zero carbon’ paper, but might have made more of the likely impact on the LibDem’s standing among environmentalists if the pro-nuclear option is chosen. This will be seen as a big reversal of our traditional pro-renewabes/anti-nuclear stance. It would also move the party beyond the Coalition Agreement position into a stance identical with the Conservatives. I rather suspect this will prove one of the hotest issues (no radio-active pun intended!) at Glasgow.
I think it would be a mistake to judge the nuclear issue on the basis of our “traditional” stance. There are plenty of environmentalists who have changed their minds on nuclear, and many of the rest, I suspect, are staying put for reasons of tradition.
To compare the problem of radioactive waste to the problem of global warming as if the two were anywhere near each other in magnitude displays no sense of proportion whatever.
You have only to read the Motion F40 on Manifesto themes to see where the current Leadership and their johnny-come-lately advisers want us to be. The Working Paper on which the Motion F40 is based has a full chapter on Green commitments in the context of modernising industry (including energy policy) so as enable economic growth without the increase in CO2 and other pollutants that might normally be expected. The Green investment bank is prominent in this context, but nowhere is it explained how the GIB will raise and disburse funds free from Treasury control. Likewise with the Green Deal, which is stalled to the point of stillbirth because of an almost total Treasury block on funding for the scheme.
However the Motion F40 itself seems not to incorporate sustainability and green values as fundamental to a Liberal Democrat position in the 2015 election. Yes, there is the Green Investment Bank (twice), there is no other mention of the word “Green” or “sustainability”. There is mention, almost in parentheses, of ‘resource efficiency in industry’, ‘taxation (of) pollution’, ‘promoting green industry’, ‘decarbonising the economy’ and ‘protecting … landscape and wildlife’.
‘Investing in infrastructure’ mentions ‘transport’, but not ‘public transport’ as a way of promoting community cohesion as well as reducing carbon emissions, ‘investing in housing’ but not ‘energy efficient housing’ as a way of reducing fuel poverty as well as improving access to decent housing for all.
Overall, there is a lack of ‘bite’ in the Motion. It is as though we are writing our version of an eventual Coalition Agreement, acceptable to George Osborne as to Ed Balls, with green issues tucked in as an added extra, to be jettisoned during negotiations (in return for more tax breaks and planning permissions for ‘fracking’?).
As Liberal Democrats we have a proud history of environmental commitment and activism. Our Green Liberal Democrats (as Green Liberals) were active before the ‘Green’ Party (most of whose policies, and many members, seem to originate in the old Communist Party) was formed.
Perhaps we should update the current strapline – “Stronger Sustainable Economy – Fairer, Greener, Society”!
I, for one, will be arguing and fighting to maintain our leadership as Britain’s greenest party (despite the occasional neoliberal naysayer within our own party). I will also be asking our MPs the hard questions, to find out why they are finding it so difficult to win the arguments against Patterson and Osborne.