A Fabian Environmental Policy Network Seminar
Wednesday 2nd March

Britain is faced with high levels of unemployment, deep cuts and a radical rethink of public spending. As well as this, the ever looming spectre of global climate change is a challenge that must be faced. With this in mind the seminar sought to outline a discussion on whether a new green economy could help resolve both problems; providing jobs whilst also combating climate change. The current Coalition agenda leads us to question, what the role of government ought to be in promoting green growth, how departments could have a more ‘joined-up’ approach to this, how and where resources should be directed and what broad strategy could be undertaken to provide green and sustainable jobs.

Sunder Katwala, General Secretary of the Fabian Society, chaired the discussion and was joined by Shadow Secretary of State for DECC Meg Hillier MP, Shadow Minister for BIS, Gordon Banks MP and Steve Radley, Director of Policy and External Affairs at EEF. The event was held under the Chatham House Rule and the following report gives an overview of the themes and opinions expressed.

A Green Revolution?

Much discussion went into envisioning a green industrial revolution where business, communities and homes were not only environmentally sustainable but played a key role in social justice. It was posited that a first-mover advantage could be key to this – giving the UK an edge over its other European neighbours, allowing for environmentalism and self-interest to go hand-in-hand. That being said, it was raised that there was too much focus on a national agenda and not a local, European or global one; all of which are essential to tackling climate change.

The previous recession provided a back-drop to the general discussion, with many delegates advocating the need for a comprehensive green growth strategy to stabilise the economy and to be taken forward beyond the process of economic recovery.

Key to this green growth strategy was the role of green jobs and industry. A speaker pointed out that the more green jobs are available the more individuals will become advocates of sustainability even if only by the nature of their job. Another speaker cited a report that suggested that for every green job created 5-6 other jobs are lost – providing a crucial challenge for this agenda.

The need for growth to encompass not just GDP or GDA but also happiness added an interesting dimension to the seminar, something which was agreed government was uncomfortable talking about.

Retro-greening, better procurement policy and a global perspective were all seen as key to business doing more to achieve green goals.

Business was seen as warming to the green agenda with construction cited as a model example of an industry that had radically shifted. From initial scepticism to the potential to be the ‘greenest industry’, construction was shown to have changed practices and focus with the introduction of zero carbon homes. The role of government in this change of course was emphasised.

What is the role of government in this?

It was agreed upon that the claim to be the ‘greenest government ever’ should be one that every government takes up so as to ensure a progressively greener agenda with each new parliament. The need for ministers and civil servants to work beyond their silos on this broad agenda was stressed and procurement was cited as one example where government itself could act more sustainably.

Government initiatives like the Green Investment Bank (GIB) were seen as a positive step towards plugging the gap that lack of private sector investment had left. But a general lack of leadership and coherence was largely observed. Questions were raised about the role and structure of the GIB such as how effective it could be in light of the cuts and its inability to lend to land industry and potential to lend to nuclear solutions were cited as possible problems with it. Some delegates suggested that without funding the GIB was pointless and that the possibility of green ISAs being ruled out was another obstacle for the Coalition to achieve its green targets. There was also some discontent about the cuts in general with one delegate suggesting that cuts to local amenities kept people at home, thus using more electricity. The removal of the RDAs was also cited as an example of indirect government policy that could impact on the green agenda. Job cuts may also have an impact on personal wealth needed to fund individual green schemes and the limiting of council budgets also meant that many employees focused on local environmental schemes would be laid off thus limiting the ability to deliver on targets.

Many agreed that government ought to take a leadership role and that private enterprise alone was not enough to ensure the delivery of a green economy. How government balanced ‘carrot and stick’ was widely debated with some suggesting incentives should play a larger part and others saying that deterrents were essential to achieving a green economy. In regards to business it was suggested that regulation was not necessarily an issue but that it had to be the right kind of regulation with incentives for business that complied. Excessive regulation was seen as being counterproductive, though the new ‘one-in-one-out’ rule was decried as simplistic despite making intuitive sense to the public. Labour’s climate change agreements were now seen to act as a tax not a coherent tool in changing attitudes and practices in business.

There was also some debate on how far the government ought to nudge the individual to a greener lifestyle. An example was given of the introduction of seatbelts as a big change in legal and social norms. Questions were raised as to how long the fuel tariff is sustainable for but on the other side there was a call for more of the burden of green measures to fall on the individual. This was tempered by a general feeling that government needs to help the individual reduce his/her carbon footprint and that like businesses, incentives and indeed self-interest may be essential to this. It was noted that many haven’t taken up free schemes due to the ‘hassle factor’ and government was encouraged to take a lead in making green living the easier and more attractive proposition for households.

The need for simple, joined up measures was encouraged for both business and the individual with government strategy encompassing all departments. Indeed a failure of the current government policy was attributed to the disproportionate power of the treasury in deciding what is and isn’t possible in the realms of environmental policy.

Despite broad agreement between the government and opposition on the need to combat climate change another key constraint is the electorate. Many delegates noted the tough sell government would have to get the general public on board with a tougher green agenda. The long-term benefit of a low carbon economy was contrasted with the short term nature of the parliamentary electoral cycle where many vote with their pockets. The need for a bold, coherent and long term strategy for green growth was advocated though the immense difficulties in getting an already financially strained public on board were very much recognised.

Concluding the session, there was a general call for both the Coalition and Labour to bold in their vision of how to tackle climate change. This is an issue that requires cross-party and inter-parliamentary consensus and thus a topic that should be kept outside of party politics. Indeed government, business and the individual all have a stake in and a responsibility to achieve the UK’s climate goals.