01 May 2015, 12:12
One of the more intriguing political hypotheticals of the past five years is what would have happened to the coalition and its various green policies had Chris Huhne accepted the ban that was coming his way on the fateful night the speed camera caught him. The media focus may have been on the personal drama that characterised the Energy and Climate Change Secretary's fall from grace, but what is rarely noted is the impact the resulting enforced reshuffle had on the tenor of coalition negotiations.
Huhne was something of a political bruiser, ferociously intelligent and not afraid to let people know that he knew it. During a relatively short stint at the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), Huhne clashed with Prime Minister David Cameron and Chancellor George Osborne at the Cabinet Table over the AV referendum, and battled with the Treasury over its carbon targets and the Green Investment Bank. Somehow, the detail of these rows found their way into the papers.
Huhne's enforced departure and his replacement with Ed Davey resulted in a slightly more conciliatory approach towards both the Treasury and the Lib Dem leadership. Davey has recently revealed he fought tooth and nail with the Conservatives over a whole host of green policy issues and there is no doubt he enjoyed some notable successes, but there was rarely the sense that a resignation could be on the cards if the Lib Dems failed to get their way, as there sometimes was with Huhne. The criticism of Tory negotiating tactics on energy and environment policy that did emerge from Lib Dem sources tended to be less frequent and more nuanced than had been the case under Huhne - until the last few months at least.
It is worth recalling this shift in style because the election campaign has seen a notable and necessary shift back towards what we might refer to as the Huhne doctrine on coalition, as Davey and colleagues such as Danny Alexander lifted the lid on some of the battles they had with their Tory counterparts. The key question for green-minded voters as they assess a Lib Dem manifesto that on paper is arguably the most impressive of the three main parties is which approach to coalition is the more effective and which will hold sway should the election as expected deliver a hung parliament?
Or to put it another way, how much are the Lib Dems willing to compromise to retain their ministerial cars? Where are the red lines on green policy?
Understandably, the Lib Dems are not about to tell anyone which of their policies are sacrosanct in any coalition negotiations. In part this is because it is extremely bad practice to let people know what you will settle for ahead of any negotiations, and in part because the party is understandably focusing all its attention right now on avoiding the electoral wipeout that would make any talk of coalition moot.
But there are signs the party is already thinking about how it will prioritise its demands should it find itself in a position to determine who forms the next government. The decision to put five priorities on the front page of its manifesto, including its high profile Five Green Laws, sets out a clear template for negotiations. Similarly, the decision to brand its mix of pragmatic and genuinely ambitious environmental proposals as Five Green Laws looks like an opening gambit that would allow the party to lose parts of its green agenda in any negotiations and still put forward a distinctive green legislative programme it would find it easy to take credit for.
For example, it is easy to envisage a scenario where Lib Dems might agree to abstain on airport expansion in return for a decarbonisation target and a continuation of support for wind energy. Similarly, you can see how the Green Laws would help the Lib Dems demand much of the credit for clean energy or biodiversity policies that Labour and the Tories actually want to deliver too.
There are too many variables to predict whether such negotiations will go ahead or how they might pan out, including the question as to whether Nick Clegg can take part in talks if he is no longer an MP.
But one thing is clear, when it comes to energy and the environment policies, the Lib Dems would find negotiations far easier with Labour (and the SNP) than with their current coalition partners. Personality clashes, disagreements over wider economic policies, and electoral maths, may all serve to scupper such talks, but there is clear overlap between the two parties on power sector decarbonisation, energy efficiency, green industrial policy, and nature protection. A deal looks plausible and would result in plenty of policies that green businesses would like to see.
What is equally clear is that a continuation of the current coalition would require much more challenging, but not necessarily insurmountable, energy and environment policy negotiations. Davey and Osborne would once again be diametrically opposed on crucial issues such as the pace of decarbonisation and the role of wind energy, not to mention the issues that are (disgracefully) not getting an airing in this election, such as where the next wave of carbon targets should be set and how much money should be made available post 2020 for clean energy.
Which brings us back to the initial question, would the Lib Dems, potentially bruised from seeing their numbers slashed, make key components of their green agenda part of the price tag for a second coalition? Would the party be willing to walk away from government if the Tories refuse to drop their opposition to new wind farms? And if a new coalition agreement can be reached, would an older and wiser Lib Dem leadership team dig their heels in even harder over upcoming rows around the next wave of carbon targets and green policies for the post-2020 period?
Green business executives who believe the party would answer in the affirmative to these questions can easily construct a compelling case for voting for the Lib Dems, confident in the knowledge they would either work with Labour to boost the green economy or make ambitious green policies a price of doing business with a Conservative Party that has offered decidedly mixed signals towards green firms.
Those who feel the coalition's green achievements, such as the Green Investment Bank and increased investment in renewable energy, have been too readily offset by a Lib Dem failure to secure greater concessions from the Conservatives, who feel the party should have demonstrated a greater willingness to make certain green policies non-negotiable, and who subscribe to the view that Clegg's tuition fees betrayal means he can never be trusted again, may be sceptical that this time around will be any different.
The reality is the Lib Dems were crucial to many of the coalition's more admirable green achievements, but could and should still have fought harder and louder to deliver yet more progress. That said, with the Conservatives showing little willingness to revive their explicitly green messaging of 2010, there is a sense that in a few months' time the Lib Dems could be regarded like the out of form batsman who is dropped only to see their stock rise as their former team-mates put in a woeful performance.
It is notable that yesterday the UK's two leading business titles, the Financial Times and the Economist, both endorsed the continuation of a Conservative-Lib Dem coalition, arguing that while the Tories edge out Labour when it comes to economic credibility, the Lib Dems are still needed to temper some of the more reckless instincts of the Conservative right. Many green business leaders will identify with that analysis and feel justified in backing Lib Dem candidates in the seats where they remain competitive. However, they may also wonder what it might be like to see a government elected where, rather than having to defend the green economy from ministerial detractors, the new cabinet, regardless of how many parties are at the table, has a mandate to deliver a truly ambitious low carbon vision.
30 Apr 2015, 16:10
Anyone looking for a way to sum up quite how bizarre this election campaign has become would do well to reflect on the fact the Green Party is currently facing serious questions about whether it has been green enough.
During her latest grilling on the Today programme this morning, party leader Natalie Bennett was asked why the Greens had not done more to highlight their environmental policies and use the extraordinary platform they have been offered to promote their "raison d'etre". Thankfully, Bennett avoided a "brain fade" (the entry of which into the political lexicon represents the Greens' least welcome achievement of this campaign) and highlighted how the Greens promise serious action on energy efficiency and low carbon transport systems. But the criticism inherent in the question about the Greens' willingness to downplay some of its climate policies will resonate with many environmentalists and green business leaders.
The party's decision to focus on an anti-austerity message, making common cause with the SNP and Plaid Cymru, while offering a genuine left-wing alternative to Labour undoubtedly played a role in driving the "green surge". Moreover, the party performed a valuable democratic function, providing a reminder of the argument - expertly elucidated by influential economist Paul Krugman this week - that the coalition's austerity programme has had little credible economic rationale. But the Greens' unwavering focus on ending austerity, punctuated by populist policies on rail ownership and house-building, feels like a missed opportunity for those who wanted to see climate change and the green economy pushed up the campaign agenda.
It is not as if it would have been difficult to deliver a pitch that offered a balance between the Greens' two core messages of environmental protection and a fairer society. Green quantitive easing to mobilise investment in low carbon infrastructure, the energy efficiency programme Bennett name-checked this morning, and a bold overhaul of the tax system to shift the burden from income to pollution could all have been given more airtime in a way that reinforced, rather than diluted, the anti-austerity rhetoric.
A clearer focus on environmental policies would not only have ensured the Greens better performed their crucial role as the one party that engages fully with the true scale of the environmental challenges the UK faces. It may also have forced the party to look again at the envelope-pushing policies that fuel the impression many in the party are happy to stay on the fringes of British politics.
The tragedy of the Greens' campaign is that radical policies that are not actually that radical and command significant public support - such as calls for bolder climate action, low carbon stimulus funding, rail nationalisation - are hampered by genuinely radical policies that are too easy to characterise as unviable and unpopular, which then undermine the credibility of the whole programme. Add in the well documented presentational challenges the party leadership has faced and it has felt at times as if the party is still punching below its weight.
It is fascinating to wonder where the party would be in the polls had it tempered the policies that were too easily spun, unfairly but predictably, as equating to "banning the Grand National" or "appeasing ISIS", throttled back on some of the anti-business, "soak the rich" rhetoric, and offered a still ambitious but properly funded anti-austerity vision for a greener economy. For what it is worth, my bet is the party would have retained much of the support it has already secured and found it a lot easier to tempt away those disaffected Labour and Lib Dem voters who currently baulk at the Green's more extreme policies.
It is this failure to provide a more meaningful nod towards both environmental policies and the political centre, coupled with the unfairness of the electoral system, that will see many green business executives resist the appeal of a party that in many respects should prove a natural ally. The Greens are significantly more pro-business than they once were, and the party argues that it is anti-corporatism, rather than anti-business. But the reality is that many business leaders, green or otherwise, still feel like the party doesn't understand the business world and is resistant to the clean tech innovation and social benefits it can and does offer. The Greens are perfectly entitled to attack capitalism's weaknesses, but a clearer recognition of businesses' genuine strengths would only have strengthened the party's overall standing.
It has been the most high profile Green campaign in decades and if it results in the re-election of Caroline Lucas and a strong second place in a couple of other target seats it will be hailed as a success. Depending on the parliamentary arithmetic the party could yet get its wish of being able to push a minority government to strengthen its climate policies - particularly if it forms an informal alliance with SNP and Plaid Cymru and their pro-renewables, anti-fracking stance.
But it still feels that a combination of slicker presentation and beefed up policy credibility would have kept the Green surge rolling and ensured the majority of people who want to see a greener economy were better represented at this election.
30 Apr 2015, 12:36
In several important respects the result of next week's election is of little consequence to many of the UK's green businesses. The three main party leaders have all committed to prioritise climate action in the next parliament, and as a consequence the manifestos, while containing important differences, remain wedded to the continued decarbonisation of the UK economy.
Meanwhile, the big trends impacting the global clean tech sector - plummeting low carbon energy costs, fast-expanding green vehicle markets, multinationals' pursuit of sustainable business models, the prospects for an international climate deal - will pay Friday's results little heed. The varied likes of IKEA, Apple, Unilever, ArcelorMittal, and HSBC, are not about to tear up their global sustainability strategies based on whether David Cameron or Ed Miliband makes it to Number 10, just as the clean tech start-ups of Old Street and Cambridge and the ‘Northern Powerhouse' and ‘Silicon Glen' are not about to shut up shop if their preferred candidate loses. The White House and the Chinese Politburo will be similarly indifferent to a result that will have no impact on their wide-ranging climate strategies.
And yet, at the same time this is an election that could still prove hugely consequential to the UK's green economy and the levels of confidence and investment flowing into its potentially transformative clean tech sector.
As I argued previously, it is perfectly plausible the next parliament will usher in a golden age for the green economy as decarbonisation really steps up a gear and the next government introduces a wave of policies designed to accelerate green infrastructure investment.
However, it is also plausible an anti-renewable energy government battling to avoid a lost decade, distracted by an EU referendum and a constitutional crisis north of the border, reliant on climate sceptic backbenchers to maintain a majority, and led by a prime minister who is nakedly hostile to the idea of the UK leading the world in tackling climate change, will push the green economy to the bottom of a very long list of priorities.
Consequently, who forms the next government really matters for green businesses, investors, and entrepreneurs. The challenge now is translating this realisation into a decision on who to vote for, when each of the parties have their own distinct mix of strengths and weaknesses - with the exception of UKIP, obviously, where the strengths from an environmental perspective are all but impossible to determine.
The first point to make in any assessment of who to vote for is not a referendum on a single issue. This is particularly apparent for green businesses who often marry broad corporate concerns with specific environmental concerns. Mirroring those Tory-leaning business leaders who are fearful about the destabilising effect of an EU referendum, it is possible many green business entrepreneurs will simultaneously despair of Conservative wind energy policies but be won over by the prospect of lower taxes and a more aggressive deficit reduction plan.
Equally, the green economy is not a homogenous whole, regardless of how often certain former Environment Secretary's attempt to force the phrase "green blob" into the political lexicon. Energy companies with substantial renewable energy interests may warm to Labour's plans for a decarbonisation target, while being put off by its talk of a price freeze. Green car firms may be impressed by the coalition's record on electric vehicles, even as solar farm developers revel the opportunity to punish Ministers at the ballot box over their management of the sectors' boom and bust cycle.
The second crucial point to remember is that the on-going iniquities of our electoral system mean the only logical response to the question ‘who should I vote for?' is ‘where do you live?'
There are those who believe that failing to vote with your conscience is some form of democratic betrayal, but the real democratic betrayal is a system that forces people to calculate whether the satisfaction of voting for a preferred candidate who is destined to lose outweighs the frustration of seeing a candidate diametrically opposed to their values elected with little opposition.
A green-minded voter in a UKIP target seat may conclude their vote is best used backing whoever is best-placed to block the march of the English Breakfast Tea Party and its climate reckless policies. Similarly, some centrist voters in Brighton Pavilion may make a calculation similar to those celebrities who signalled their support for Caroline Lucas as an essential parliamentary voice while declining to specifically endorse the Green Party's policies.
But, all other things being equal, which of the parties offers the best prospectus for the green economy and the million or so people it now employs?
In a series of blog posts over the next few days I'll be looking at the green business pitch offered by each of the main parties and how the election may play out for the green economy in the event of these various prospectuses holding some sway in the next parliament. I'll be starting today with the Greens and their fellow anti-austerity travellers the SNP and Plaid Cymru, followed by the Lib Dems, Conservatives and Labour.
With the polls as tight as ever in this most unpredictable of elections and the final result likely to rest on both the outcome in a handful of desperately close marginal seats and the vagaries of coalition negotiations it is currently impossible to predict with any confidence whether this election will deliver a golden age for the UK green economy or five years when this previously buoyant sector is forced to fight for its survival. The worry for many of those working for green businesses is that at this late stage both extreme scenarios remain plausible. As such, with just a few days to go, only one thing is clear: every vote matters.
24 Apr 2015, 11:25
There is a school of thought among climate change campaigners that argues that as storms, floods, droughts and wildfires hit with increasing frequency and intensity, the scientists and meteorologists who are wheeled into the TV studios to answer questions about whether climate change is to 'blame' need a new approach. Instead of opening their response with the technically accurate but inadvertently reassuring disclaimer about how 'no single event can be attributed to climate change' as is the case now, they should declare that 'this is what climate change looks like - this is precisely the kind of extreme event we expect to see happen more often and with more intensity'. Both lines are technically accurate and both should be included in any response, but by opening with a clear reminder of how climate warnings are increasingly being borne out the urgency of the challenge becomes much clearer.
I was reminded of this climate communications debate while watching the news last night with its latest heart-breaking reports from the Mediterranean on the countless hundreds, perhaps thousands, who have died in the past few weeks. For this is what climate crisis looks like - this is precisely the kind of extreme event climate security analysts from the Pentagon to the MoD to the world's top insurance firms expect to see happen more often and with more intensity.
Now, of course, the disclaimers and caveats are still extremely important. The tragedy of people smugglers exploiting the desperation of some of the world's most vulnerable communities and sending men, women, and children to their deaths, while governments trapped between narrow political pressures and basic humanitarian impulses fail to work out how best to respond is not a direct result of climate change, in much the same way that no single typhoon is a direct result of rising global temperatures.
Sectarian tensions, corrupt governments, terrorism, the EU's scaling back of search operations, and, despite all the disgracefully confected outrage over Ed Miliband's foreign policy speech today, the tendency of Western governments to engage in conflicts in North Africa and the Middle East without any serious plan for the post-conflict period have all played their role in fuelling the current crisis.
But there are other macro-trends at play here that are driving thousands of people to risk their lives attempting to cross the Mediterranean, of which climate change is undoubtedly one.
We know that states tend to fail when they cannot feed themselves. We know that climate change increases the risk of disruption to food supplies in a region. We know that numerous societies throughout history have collapsed due to their failure to adapt to environmental change. We know that in 2007 UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon described the war in Darfur as the world's first climate change conflict. We know there is evidence that the violence triggered by the Arab Spring uprisings of 2011 were in part fuelled by protests over soaring food prices. We know recent research has suggested climate change played a role in sparking the Syrian War that in turn has played such a big role in fuelling both the rise of ISIS and the humanitarian crisis off Europe's southern coast.
Most of all though, we know that even if climate change is not the primary factor behind the current tragedy this humanitarian disaster and the seemingly intractable geopolitical challenges, nationalist tendencies, and crushing grief it invokes is precisely the kind of disaster security analysts expect to see worsen in a world afflicted by escalating climate change.
When the world's political and business leaders gather in Paris later this year to discuss the urgent need to slash global greenhouse gas emissions and enhance climate resilience they will be motivated by the compelling financial reasons for averting dangerous climate change and shifting to a greener and healthier global economy. But there is another reason. Without a rapid and successful global effort to tackle this existential threat the heart-breaking scenes of the past week and the sadness and rancour they unleash will only become more commonplace. After all, this is what climate crisis really means.
21 Apr 2015, 16:02
After the disappointment of yesterday's BBC Daily Politics election debate on energy and climate change, which prompted RTCC's Ed King to today observe that "voters - and future generations at risk from climate change - deserve better", numerous questions remain unanswered.
Here are 16 of them. I've no doubt missed a few important ones and you'll have your own pressing questions that you would like answered. I also have numerous questions I'd love to ask UKIP's Roger Helmer and the Greens' Andrew Cooper, but those are for another day.
These are the questions I wish Andrew Neil had asked those on the panel most likely to have a crucial energy and climate role in the next government:
To Matt Hancock:
1. You won't support a 2030 power decarbonisation target - where do you think lower cost emissions cuts will come from>
2. If you want decarbonisation at lowest cost, why are you ruling out more onshore wind farms?
3. If 'onshore windfarms often fail to win public support' as your manifesto claims why do polls show circa 70 per cent support?
4. If onshore wind farms are unable by themselves to provide the 'firm capacity' the grid needs, why are you supporting offshore wind farms?
5. If you think Labour's decarbonisation target will add £96 to bills, how much will your emissions reduction plan add to bills?
6. Would you dilute action on climate change to secure UKIP support for a minority Conservative government?
To Caroline Flint:
7. Is runway expansion compatible with UK climate goals?
8. Do you accept Tory warnings a decarbonisation target will push up energy bills?
9. Would you sign up to more ambitious UK carbon targets to secure SNP support for a minority Labour government?
To Ed Davey:
10. Is a strong 5th carbon budget and decarbonisation target a non-negotiable in any future coalition involving the Lib Dems?
11. Is continued support for onshore wind a non-negotiable in any future coalition involving the Lib Dems?
To Hancock, Flint and Davey:
12. What is your stance on the carbon bubble hypothesis? Do you agree we have to keep it in the ground?
13. What is your stance on Arctic drilling?
14. What will happen to the Levy Control Framework and CfD clean energy support system post 2020?
15. Where do you stand on the fifth carbon budget?
16. How will promised spending cuts impact DECC and Defra?
I'd argue the three main parties should be able and willing to answer all of these questions before, rather than after, the election. Judging by the confusing mess that was the debate on energy and climate policy I remain doubtful these straightforward questions will be answered any time soon.
ABOUT JAMES' BLOG
Previously known as the BusinessGreen Blog, James' Blog features musings, observations and occasional rants from BusinessGreen editor James Murray
Browse posts by date