Cameron and Osborne sound death knell for ‘greenest government ever’ pledge, with complete sidelining of low-carbon economy

Has there been a more anti-environmental political conference at any point over the past decade than this year’s annual Conservative party jamboree in Manchester?

The answer is almost certainly not, and after a week of high-carbon policy announcements and sidelining of environmental issues, the hard-fought political consensus on the urgent need to create a world-leading, low-carbon economy seems under serious threat for the first time in a decade.

If you look at the handful of environmental announcements that have emerged in the past few days, it has provided explicit confirmation that large parts of the largest party in the coalition are not signed up to the UK’s low-carbon agenda, are actively lobbying for it to be scaled back, and are in some cases tearing off in the opposite direction.

We’ve already covered the announcements of a proposed increase in speed limits, a return to weekly bin collections and, most importantly, George Osborne’s commitment to ensure the UK’s carbon targets do not exceed those adopted by Europe. But it is worth looking at them again.

Philip Hammond has driven a coach and horses through his department’s low-carbon strategy, leaving some of his own officials in despair at a policy that could result in motorway emissions rising by 10 to 15 per cent. Eric Pickles has decided that having identified £250m of additional cash, his top priority is the return of weekly bin collections that have been shown to reduce recycling rates. And then there was George Osborne’s litany of environmental misconceptions, arguably the most anti-environmental comments made by a leading British politician in years.

First there was the ‘not us, guv’ defense, with his claim that the UK only accounts for two per cent of global emissions, when research has consistently shown our emissions are closer to five or six per cent. Then there was the categorically false assertion that “we’re not going to save the planet by putting our country out of business”. Is it not demonstrably the case that we’re not going to save our businesses if we kill off our planet? And finally there was the clear challenge to the authority of his green-minded colleagues with an explicit commitment to cut the UK’s carbon targets if the EU does not up its own goals.

The prime minister could have undone the undoubted damage meted on green investor confidence by his colleagues.

He may not have sufficient authority over the right wing of his party to overrule these anti-green policies altogether, but he could have explained how deeper cuts in emissions will be delivered elsewhere in the economy to compensate for the increase in emissions that will result from Hammond’s fuel-burning speed limit. He could have outlined how new recycling schemes would help ensure that weekly bin collections do not undermine the progress on waste reduction made in recent years. And, most importantly, he could have offered green businesses reassurance that while measures will be put in place to stop carbon leakage, the legally binding long-term targets contained in the Climate Change Act are sacrosanct, regardless what the chancellor says.

Instead, he praised Osborne’s “excellent speech”, did not mention climate change once, and only mentioned green issues three times: to criticise Labour’s record, insist planning reforms will not harm the environment, and declare that “green engineering” would form part of the Conservative’s new economy.

Issues that Cameron once presented as an existential threat and a key component of his party’s agenda are now little more than a footnote. In fact, judging by the rest of his speech they are less important than tired attacks on health and safety rules, or lame jokes about Ken Clarke’s liberal tendencies.

Should green businesses be concerned by this clear sidelining of the low-carbon economy?

In the short term, it is unlikely to make much of a difference to a low-carbon sector that is continuing to grow at over four per cent while the rest of the UK economy flatlines.

It is frustrating to see political leaders no longer making climate change and low-carbon opportunities a key component of their speeches, but it is understandable that they are currently prioritising short-term social and economic concerns.

Meanwhile, the handful of anti-green Conservative policies announced this week may create infuriating inconsistencies across government, but they will do nothing to derail the much larger package of low-carbon measures designed to drive investment in green technologies and business models.

Electricity market reforms, the Green Investment Bank, the Green Deal and the Renewable Heat Incentive will all continue apace, creating huge commercial opportunities for low-carbon businesses and investors. Similarly, global climate change risks, surging investment in clean tech, and rising energy prices and supply insecurity will all continue regardless whether the prime minister chooses to mention climate change in his speeches. The fundamentals driving the low-carbon economy remain as robust as ever, and progressive businesses understand this implicitly.

However, at the same time it appears the political consensus that defined action to curb carbon emissions and tackle climate change is drawing to a close.

The Lib Dems obviously still regard green action as core to their identity and were at pains during their conference to highlight the environmental policies they are driving as part of the coalition. Labour were less explicit in their support for low-carbon businesses, but in Miliband’s intriguing and high-risk speech detailing his desire to bring an end to corporate short termism in favour of a more progressive approach to doing business, the party is beginning to map out a pro-green strategy.

And yet while there are numerous honourable exceptions within the party (Greg Barker, Zac Goldsmith, William Hague, Tim Yeo), it has become clear this week that the Conservative leadership has decided green issues are no longer a vote-winner and are instead a handy sacrificial lamb to offer those on the right of the party who always thought the whole concept was a nonsense anyway.

This shift in strategy poses little threat to the low-carbon economy as long as the Lib Dems remain in the coalition. But it is possible to imagine a scenario where a full Conservative victory at the next election allows for the full expression of what Chris Huhne memorably described as the “Tea Party tendency” in the form of an assault on green policies.

Green business leaders need to be aware of this risk and should now urgently redouble efforts to protect what had previously looked like a solid political consensus on climate change. They need to make use of that business hotline the government promised would connect business leaders and ministers, and make the case loud and clear that rising emissions present both a grave threat and a once-in-a-generation opportunity to deliver a low-carbon economy that drives both economic growth and rising living standards.

It is the kind of thing David Cameron used to say all the time - it is just a shame that at the time when we need green leadership most he has lost his voice.

Dr Benny Peiser adds:

The political class of Britain is in denial. They just don’t see or they don’t want to see that they are on their own now. No other country is following. It’s exactly the opposite, they are all retreating, whereas Britain is saying, ‘Oh, we are not going far enough, we need even more reductions.’ “Everyone else is saying, ‘Hold on, stop, we need to think. Is that really what we want, is that viable economically? Should we go it alone? Or shouldn’t we put some pressure on the rest of the world? But Britain says, ‘We’ll go alone.’ Apart from the question whether it’s actually feasible economically and energy wise and so on, it’s politically nonsensical.”

Virginia Attorney General Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II on Wednesday blasted the Environmental Protection Agency in the wake of a recent inspector general’s report that found it failed to follow federal rules in its process of using climate change data to conclude greenhouse gases are a threat to human health.

Mr. Cuccinelli, a global warming skeptic, first petitioned the EPA in February 2010 to convene and reconsider its conclusion and filed a lawsuit in federal court in the wake of the “Climategate” scandal, in which researchers from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia were accused of manipulating climate data based on a number of stolen emails. A handful of investigations have cleared scientists of wrongdoing.

The agency noted that the report did not address the science at hand, merely processes and procedures.

“I fully expected supporters of the greenhouse gas endangerment finding would argue and will continue to argue that the violations identified in the investigation are only technicalities,” Mr. Cuccinelli said. “But these rules were put in place to guarantee that the regulatory process was not hijacked by a political agenda - by either party. Both scientists and government officials should operate in transparent ways, and the rules that the EPA failed to follow were designed to guarantee such transparency and to make certain that its conclusions were sound and based on the best available scientific data.”

Among a number of shortcomings, the report concluded that rather than performing its own research, the EPA relied on work done by others and did not determine whether the data met its own quality guidelines before distributing it.

The peer review panel also did not meet independence requirements because one of the panelists was an EPA employee, and the EPA did not adequately identify the level of scientific information it was using to support its action, the report said.

Some prominent and well-meaning liberal evangelicals are targeting House Republicans with radio spots that claim the congressmen want to “delay” and “disarm” Environmental Protection Agency regulations that the Evangelical Environmental Network asserts would safeguard the health and neurological development of unborn children, by reducing mercury emissions from power plants

There is no scientific or health basis for these claims. Moreover, the activists express panic over speculative or imagined risks to American children, even as they condemn legions of Third World children to death from real diseases that the simplest of modern technologies and living standards would prevent.

Bishop Harry Jackson, Jr. and his colleagues cannot let these EEN claims go unchallenged.

Thank you for considering his eloquent and passionate response to the EEN - to help set the record straight and bring a measure of true ethics and justice to this environmental debate. We hope you will post it, quote from it, and forward it to friends, colleagues and bloggers.

Sincerely,

Paul Driessen, Advisor to the Affordable Power Alliance

Our children are at risk

Evangelical Environmental Network needs to get it right, before it preaches to others

Bishop Harry R. Jackson, Jr.

Once again, partisan political activists are defending job-killing regulations that will harm the most vulnerable people, while providing no demonstrable environmental benefits. Unfortunately, these activists are also working hard to seduce sincere church leaders.

Well-meaning prominent liberal evangelicals are using radio spots to target Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. We know and respect several of these leaders. Yet the activists’ panic over speculative or imagined risks to American children dominates their proclamations, even as they condemn legions of Third World children to death from real diseases that the simplest of modern technologies and living standards would prevent.

The Evangelical Environmental Network’s ads claim the congressmen want to “delay” and “disarm” Environmental Protection Agency regulations that the EEN asserts would safeguard the health and neurological development of unborn children, by reducing mercury emissions from power plants.

In our opinion, this is another misinformation campaign.

As pastors and parents, we stand tall in protecting children. But as concerned civic leaders actively engaged in energy and environmental discussions, we know the EEN radio spots are partisan and misleading. We cannot leave them unchallenged.

First, we must look at the facts. There is no credible evidence that American children are born with dangerous levels of mercury in their blood, or have impaired mental or neurological abilities due to mercury. The Centers for Disease Control says mercury in US children is well below even EPA’s “safe” levels.

The Food and Drug Administration, US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, and World Health Organization have all established risk levels that are 2-3 times less restrictive than EPA’s. Under those guidelines no American children, in the womb or otherwise, are remotely at risk from mercury from power plants, fish or other sources.

As independent natural scientist Dr. Willie Soon has documented (read his report at www.AffordablePowerAlliance.org), US power plant emissions account for barely 0.5% of mercury in America’s air. The rest comes from forest fires, volcanoes and other sources. Even closing every US power plant will not make us safer than we already are.

Disregarding these facts, EPA’s proposed mercury, cross-state pollution and “maximum achievable control technology” rules for major power plants and other generating systems will increase electricity prices by up to 24% in just a few years, NERA Economic Consultants and other experts predict. That means factories, schools, offices, shops and hospitals will be forced to raise prices, cut services and lay people off.

The result will be more families unable to afford proper heating, air conditioning, nutrition, healthcare and prenatal care, or even pay their rent or mortgage. More children will have trouble in school and suffer impaired mental, physical and emotional well-being. 

The EEN religious leaders claim they want to “protect life,” and “believe children are entitled to abundant life.” However, their actions, alliances and political agendas violate those proclaimed beliefs at every turn.

Christian organizations need to balance their concern for the environment with a healthy concern for human life. In our book, Personal Faith Public Policy, Tony Perkins and I note:

“Unfortunately, a number of religious leaders have joined the alarmist crusade and are attempting to make the environment the most important issue in the church. In some ways they are correct in pushing for the church to get involved. In other ways, many of them are like the young prophet who ran to King David before he heard the message. (See 2 Samuel 18:22–28.) They have zeal and a desire to change things, but they do not have the message the church needs at this time.”

A million abortions are performed in the United States every year, according to the “pro-abortion rights” Guttmacher Institute. Hispanic women are 2.7 times more likely than non-Hispanic white women to have an abortion, while Black women are four times more likely.

Can EEN cite even one instance where it expressed outrage or even concern about these deaths? Can it cite one instance when it criticized abortionists, or supported calls to reduce federal funding from abortion clinics that end so many minority lives?

In poor, tropical regions, hundreds of thousands of children die in agony every year from preventable insect-borne diseases. But radical environmentalists campaign against the use of insecticides and the powerful insect repellant DDT - ensuring that the carnage continues.

Environmentalists also oppose hydroelectric, coal, nuclear and natural gas for generating abundant, reliable, affordable electricity. Yet hundreds of thousands of children die every year from lung diseases, caused by breathing toxic pollutants from heating and cooking fires, and from intestinal diseases resulting from spoiled food and unsafe water - because their communities lack electricity.

Can the EEN cite one instance when its belief that “children are entitled to abundant life” caused it to condemn these radical green policies...or resulted in a call for access to insecticides and plentiful, dependable, affordable electricity?

Our children are at risk, but not from mercury. They are at risk from policies defended and promoted by the EEN and other partisan political activists.

The EEN should proclaim a universal right of access to modern, life-enhancing, life-saving technologies. It needs to recognize that regulations too often impose unacceptable costs on the poorest and most powerless among us. It needs to terminate its alliances with groups whose policies result in imposed poverty and racial genocide.

Until then, EEN’s warnings, advice and radio spots should be taken with a shovel of salt.

Bishop Harry Jackson, Jr. of Beltsville, Maryland is Chairman of the High Impact Leadership Coalition and co-chair of the Affordable Power Alliance.