Opinion: Re-stating our environmental credentials in a language that makes economic sense

Last weekend wasn’t a good one for the environmental agenda.

First came a DECC press release containing proposals that will give rise to a new ‘dash for gas’ in the UK. The announcement means that new gas power stations will not need to be more efficient or less polluting.  It is part of the Treasury’s anti-green agenda which holds the misguided view that green policies are anti-growth and increase costs for businesses and households. This is despite the fact that recent hikes in power bills have been largely due to large increases in wholesale gas prices.

(Incidentally, the release was embargoed until late on a Friday night the weekend before the budget. Hmmm.)

And it gets worse. Today, the Government has announced that 174 environmental regulations are to be scrapped, merged, liberalised or simplified as part of the Government’s Red Tape Challenge.

To give some context, reports began circulating last month that a Cabinet Office drive, led by Oliver Letwin, was seeking to simplify environmental regulations in the same manner as controversial attempts to cut planning regulations from 1,000 to just 52 pages. Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman has seemingly not been part of discussions on the issue, which took place between Letwin and a number of Cabinet Office and DEFRA officials.

Letwin followed that up with a somewhat contradictory public statement which said all environmental regulations had been deemed necessary but could be ‘a great deal simpler’.

This week’s proposed changes, which are being strongly encouraged by the Treasury, are a real threat to Britain’s natural environment. Yet little clarity has been provided on how they will save businesses money. Moreover, in the long term, the costs of environmental damage will ultimately be picked up by the tax payer.

At Spring Conference, Vince Cable made a pledge to “confront the old-fashioned negative thinking which says that all Government needs to do to generate growth is cut worker and environmental protections.”

As a Party, we all need to follow suit and take steps to actively challenge this misguided, out-of-touch Conservative orthodoxy.

This means two things:

Firstly, with energy prices climbing there is an urgent need for a loud, credible and coherent narrative which shows that greater reliance on volatile gas supplies is dangerous for businesses and consumers.

We should apply pressure for a tightening of gas plant emissions levels.  This is in line with the recommendations of the Committee on Climate Change, the Government’s own independent advisers. The Committee says that electricity generation should be almost carbon-free by 2030 if it is to remain on course to decarbonise the power sector by 2050, yet the Government’s plans (which would allow unabated gas plants to operate until 2045) deviate from this approach, raising serious questions about how this target will be met.

To help the UK meets its emissions targets, we also need a robust system of ‘capacity payments’, which adequately reward gas plants for not running at full capacity.   Capacity payments, which form part of the Coalition’s Electricity Market Reform Proposals, would ensure that companies have adequate incentives to invest in flexible capacity which can be used to meet peaks in demand.  Robust capacity payments can also support and encourage investment in renewable generation, which tends to be more intermittent and inflexible. Such investment is currently stuttering in the UK.

Secondly, we must continue to advocate policies which harness environmental protection to generate long-term growth rather than destroying it in the hope of making short-term profits.

Making special provisions to grant borrowing powers to the Green Investment Bank would be a fine place to start. Delivering on a long-held commitment to fund four Carbon Capture and Storage projects and doing more to encourage an increase in Combined Heat and Power capacity would help generate jobs and growth while going some way to providing assurances that future fossil fuel generation will be able to proceed in an efficient and cleaner manner.

Policies which create a greater dependence on gas and tear apart environmental protection will do nothing to help the UK economy in its hour of need. At this pressing time, it is vital that we stand up and re-state our environmental credentials in a language that makes economic sense as well as common sense.

* Ben Wood is a member of the Liberal Sustainability Network.

Read more by or more about , , or .
This entry was posted in Op-eds.
Advert

7 Comments

  • This article would be more convincing if it could tell us which of the 174 environmental regulations are being altered/scrapped etc in a bad way. I followed the links, and found that “The Waste Management (Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 1997” are going. They “Designate relevant offences for the purpose of the “fit and proper person” test in section 74(3)(a) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990”. And why are they going? Because they relate to a “a provision that has been repealed”. Sounds fair to me – perhaps Oliver Letwin is right?

    Since that part of the article is not very convincing, I wondered about the other parts. If the dash to gas means a dash away from coal then we will cut our carbon emissions a lot – the Carbon Trust record that coal creates about twice as much CO2 as gas per kWh (http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/cut-carbon-reduce-costs/calculate/carbon-footprinting/pages/conversion-factors.aspx).

    Finally the claim that ” we also need a robust system of ‘capacity payments’, which adequately reward gas plants for not running at full capacity ” looks like the energy equivalent of the CAP paying farmers not to produce. It looks expensive, and paying out big money to big companies for power plants that don’t produce electricity doesn’t seem a good way to make green policies popular.

  • “the misguided view that green policies are anti-growth and increase costs for businesses and households. ”

    So either green policies cost EXACTLY nothing, or they save money. In which case there is no need of all these environmental regulations, because you do not have to force people to save money. So why are you worried?

  • @ad
    “So either green policies cost EXACTLY nothing, or they save money. In which case there is no need of all these environmental regulations.”

    The reason for many of these regulations is to save money, unfortunately the money they tend to save (in the first instance) is not that of the party impacted by the regulations.

    Although we are seeing the results of some ‘green’ regulations on business where the early adopters are showing significant benefits to both their business operations and bottom-lines of becoming ‘greener’. The question is whether the proposed ‘simplifications’ will have a negative impact on the momentum of industry adoption of ‘greener’ working practices and hence stunt the growth of UK businesses servicing the growing green marketplace, resulting in loss of jobs and the UK’s ability to compete internationally in this important market.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert



Recent Comments

  • Andy Daer
    As we know, Johnson didn't get Brexit done, and didn't handle Covid "fine". In his Today interview he said the real problem is the media; if only they would st...
  • Helen Dudden
    If a seat can be bought in the House of Lords, where is the value of that seat? I've been to Westminster on several occasions and always been checked on the...
  • David Evans
    Jeff, you say "Perhaps not, but it is unreasonable to [seek a pay increase that compensates for the effect of inflation] and retain absurdly archaic working pra...
  • Chris Moore
    @Peter Martin: An economically and mathematically challenged individual might conclude from your intervention that UK GDP per capita was higher in 2007 - 50k...
  • John Medway
    Thanks all for your comments. @William Francis - Yes, although GDP isn't in my view "almost everything", it still has its uses. A precipitate fall in GDP wou...