My Green New Deal colleague, Colin Hines, had this letter in the Guardian this morning:
Rebecca Long-Bailey, like all Labour's leadership candidates, emphasises democratic movement-building as a precursor for change (Giving power to the people is Labour's path back to power, Journal, 17 January). But this approach will inevitably involve the few but not the many, and would benefit from taking heed of Oscar Wilde's supposed warning that socialism “takes up too many evenings”. However, one of her demands that could involve large-scale public involvement is that of a green new deal to tackle the climate crisis, but in a way that prioritised a nationwide scheme to make all the UK's 30 million homes and workplaces energy-efficient.
Such a massive green programme would generate jobs in every constituency and result in “democracy in action”, since it would require the involvement of every household and local community, with the practical perks of improved living conditions and reduced bills. Since the general public lack trust or optimism that politicians can really improve people's lives, this approach should garner all-party support.
Most importantly, such a route to tackling the climate emergency could go well beyond the UK's parochial politics, since it could play a pivotal role in helping to ensure that next November's Glasgow climate talks are a success. Were our politicians and activists with contacts in Europe to lobby the EU to commit to the same target for its 300 million buildings, thus cutting Europe's carbon emissions by up to 40%, then Glasgow's success should be assured.
Colin Hines
Convener, UK Green New Deal Group
Much of this is familiar here, of course. But four points we are now focussing upon are worth highlighting.
First, the Green New Deal is about cross-party activity and deserves cross-party support.
Second, by linking necessary and practical goals it is worthy of this support, not least from the public.
Third, housing is a vital issue because of its impact on the energy issue.
Ande fourth, only by picking a target such as this can the COP in Glasgow later this year be successful. And since every government wants success for a summit it hosts, this is vital, and an issue on which Tory cooperation should be possible.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
What do you think will have the bigger environmental impact replacing petrol cars with electric or the energy efficient homes you propose?
Homes
Cars require a much more radical solution and plans for direct replacements are folly
The science tells us otherwise..and of course radical solutions are needed, we are trying to save the planet!!!!!
Phasing out petrol cars is feasible, the technology is deliverable its just the infrastructure needs to be put in place. No change is easy but the results here could be game changing and, by enlarge, this has the public buy in. The push has got to come from all directions..
I’m not sure the science does tell us otherwise. I’d be quite happy to be shown the data though.
From reading around it’s ambiguous as to whether heating or transport contributes most to CO2 emissions. Transport was quoted as a couple of percent more than heating in 2014 by the CCC, but with data of this nature I wouldn’t say it proves anything either way.
https://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/5CB-Infographic-FINAL-.pdf
I agree with RM that making homes efficient is the better route for now (whilst also looking at improving transport emissions).
I can’t see much resistance against home insulation initiatives. Literally nobody would lose out (well, maybe the gas companies) and the tech exists.
I’m not convinced that the tech is deliverable now to switch all petrol/diesel cars right now, even ignoring infrastructure issues. Batteries are improving quickly, but we’re still not quite there…
If we had a better class of politicians I’d be tempted to start agitating for free public transport which would be an absolute no-brainer for cutting CO2, but we’re not there right now.
TL;DR: go for the low hanging fruit – concentrate most effort on the changes which will make a big difference now and then concentrate on the difficult changes.
Again, I’m not arguing against greening transport. I am just not convinced that the data is conclusive one way or the other, and pragmatically, having a large impact now in one area (homes) is better than comparatively little in another (transport).
We share a logic
I’m a little confused by this exchange of views. As I understand it:
1. Replacing conventional vehicles with EVs will obviously have a much greater impact but that is a transition that will occur by attrition over time as the EVs become cheaper and more available and the price of renewable energy (already cheaper than coal) continues to fall. This is a phase out that will occur by way of the consumer market as all new vehicles eventually become EVs. To be fully meaningful it would also require the complete phase out of fossil fuel electricity generation. Something that is well underway in Britain but not as yet accomplished.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/dec/19/fossil-fuels-fall-to-record-low-in-britains-energy-mix-data-shows
2. Some govt. support by way of infrastructure and policy is most definitely required. I am not aware of any “plans for direct replacements” with EV’s and yes, that would be folly.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/dec/25/norway-leads-way-electric-cars-green-taxation-shift
3. An energy-efficient homes project, by way of contrast, need not be a slow transition. It could be a readily do-able project and thereby have greater immediate environmental impact. I’m guessing that’s what Richard means.
4. As the nation continues to convert to fully non-fossil electricity sources the environmental impact of energy efficient buildings will be less carbon significant but, in the long term, it would still improve living conditions and reduce bills.
5. There is no need for these 2 ideas (the electric vehicle transition and the energy efficient buildings) to be in competition. You can do both.
Assuming that everything I have said is basically correct you two are not in dispute.
NOTE: Point number 4 (above) is partly contingent on whether an energy efficient building project would involve incentives and assistance for Solar PV installations (plus other forms of self-reliance). If it did, that would greatly increase the project’s environmental significance.
“Here in the UK, a recent study suggested that covering 61 per cent of south-facing commercial roofs with solar PV could provide all the energy needed for UK businesses, while saving medium-sized and larger enterprises at least £30,000 a year on their energy bills.”
https://energysavingtrust.org.uk/blog/present-and-future-uk-solar-power
I have no issue with any of that
But, I would add that the transport transition is about more than cars
Hi Marco and Gene
Firstly, apologies if I came across as overly confrontational.
I have no problem with the idea of simultaneous vehicle de carbonisation and building efficiency improvement.
The point I was trying to make was that everyone seems to “know” that vehicle emissions are the biggest source of co2.
I was contesting that view, at least with regards to the average household. As I’ve said in both my posts, I think it’s a good idea to aim for all emission reduction options, but insulating households etc is by far the most tech ready and probably the easiest to implement politically.
My complaint really is that phrases such as “the science tells us” and “replacing vehicles with EVs will obviously” are getting bandied around, when the science, as far as I can see, is not nearly as clear cut. The problem is that this has the effect of deprioritising housing improvement because it’s not seen as such a big issue, when it pretty much is.
I’m not arguing against action, and feel free to call me a pedant (I am one). I’m just asking that we avoid making such broad brush statements without supplying data.
Re: Marco’s point about house insulation making less of a difference as we shift to more renewable. Yes, in terms of carbon later, but improved efficiency should always be strived for. Otherwise resources really are just being wasted. Also, and I think this is the important bit. It’s not the difference in carbon output once the grid (or local grids) is less carbon-centric that is the issue. It’s the big change that can be affected now that matters.
Anyway, I think we’re all singing from the same hymn sheet :). I guess I’m just a bit of stickler for data
p.s. just as an after thought, what about retro-fitting petrol/diesel cars with electrical motors? Given that a quick search suggests that almost half an EV‘s total carbon output comes from its manufacture.
I think you’ll find that such retrofitting is nigh on impossible
Richard, I absolutely agree with you. The problem is that our First Past the Post voting system ensures that parties have to fight each other. Either a party will insist that only its particular version of the Green New Deal will work, or it will down its importance. The Green New Deal groupd needs to come out in favour of proportional representation.
It is great that people support the Green New Deal concept. To get it to succeed we also need to be pushing for it to be properly planned as an integrated overall system that adds up. In the comments here people are talking about solar PV without taking into account that almost all solar energy is during a few days in spring and summer whilst we need electricity at every moment throughout the year. This is a very demanding technical challenge. Our political resolve must include insisting that that technical aspect is properly considered.
Have you researched solar PV?
And you do know it is not the primary expected source of renewable energy?
Why not go and read what Common Weal have done on this?
I did look into this a lot. As I said, my overriding conclusion was that as activists pushing for effective change we need to first and foremost push for integrated planning by technical experts. As activists, we are not in a position to discern the technical details such as what role solar PV needs to play. A clear explanation of the issues is in https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2011.0431 . I got a motion through to being our Constituency Labour Party’s motion for the September Conference. Apparently it was well received in the compositing meeting. I’ve pasted it along with the supporting preamble here:
motion to Conference:
A National Energy Plan
This Conference notes:
to save the climate we need to rapidly transition our energy and land use to avoid
greenhouse gas emissions. This has to be done whilst ensuring energy security for industry,
affordable warm homes and an effective, affordable, transport system. The sobering
experience of the Energiewende in Germany shows that vast sums can be spent on an
attempted energy transition without resulting reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
This Conference believes:
the full transition to net zero emissions needs to be carefully planned on a national level;
adhering to the best available expert advice.
This Conference resolves:
that the policy of a future Labour government should be to commission a
comprehensive, evidence based, measurable, national, plan for the full transition to net
zero emissions within the shortest practicable timeframe. This planning should make use of
the best available expertise. Our political resolve should then be to follow such a plan, with
the necessary funding and legislation, within a framework of social justice.
Proposing speech:
Political pressure is building for us to take adequate measures to avert catastrophic climate change. However it is less widely recognized that this requires more than just resources and political enthusiasm. It is a very technical engineering challenge. It is not simply the issue of which individual measures provide the greatest benefit on their own. It is also vital that all the energy conservation, substitution, generation, storage, transmission and demand response measures integrate together effectively. If we simply go with the flow of political expediency, then even highly resourced climate change mitigation projects are likely to fail. That has been the experience of the Energiewende in Germany where they have so far taken over a decade and invested €250bn without achieving a reduction in CO2 emissions.
In order to work, our program has to be joined up and rigorous. Then we will be able to achieve zero net CO2 emissions within the shortest practicable timeframe whilst ensuring energy security for industry, affordable warm homes and an effective, affordable, transport system. Only a large multidisciplinary expert team can adequately plan and direct such a mission. As well-meaning politicians and political activists, we are not in a position to judge the more technical aspects. Instead, what we can and must do is to insist that experts are commissioned to do the necessary analysis and make a plan for the full transition to net zero CO2 emissions. As the transition is carried out, there will inevitably be lessons to be learnt and adjustments to be made. Our ongoing input as political activists will be required to ensure that commitments are not rolled back on and that all implementation is within a framework of social justice. Our role needs to be to supply the pressure to ensure that the experts’ plan is followed.
At the Labour Party Conference in September, it is expected that there will be many climate change mitigation motions from other constituencies. I hope that High Peak will select this motion for conference because I consider that it will make an unusual but much needed contribution for that wider political movement. If a future Labour government starts effectively implementing a climate change mitigation policy that delivers, then that will inspire other countries across the world to emulate our example and we really could avert climate catastrophe. We must do that, rather than rerunning the mistakes made with the German Energiewende.