As the Guardian has reported:
Labour is poised to commit itself to one of the most radical net zero emissions targets in Europe after members voted to agree to a target of 2030.
Party members voted on Tuesday at the autumn conference in Brighton to back a motion by the campaign group Labour for a Green New Deal to set a fixed date to achieve net zero, as well as nationalising the big six energy firms and guarantee green jobs.
I am of course pleased by this, although a lot of baggage has been added to the motion that may not be strictly necessary to achieve the goal.
What I do know is that the goal will not be achieved unless Labour, and anyone else wanting to go near it, agree to impose a net-zero carbon target on business and right now Sustainable Cost Accounting is the only way I have heard of to do that. It has to be discussed.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Encouraging news, but is there enough support for GND in the country at large to ensure enough support to win an election.
MSM will concentrate on the story of nationalising Eton College which will make a fine diversion. Much as I think embedded privilege needs to be addressed it isn’t really the issue that we need topping the manifesto at present.
And I’m rather afraid it will be.
Enough support for GND for Labour to get support and votes via it?
Well, once the brexit obsessive disorder dies away, the climate emergency WILL be a central major issue (alongside ending austerity) for many people. For Labour , its redGND is a hook with which to unleash significant investment spend into the economy and the profound payback (in addition to mitigating the climate emergency) will be employment and infrastructure stimulation. Even the most convinced climate warming denier would be supportive of it, or at least open minded about it. There’d be very few people who would decide AGAINST voting labour because of its GND commitment.
qwertboi says:
” There’d be very few people who would decide AGAINST voting labour because of its GND commitment.”
Not quite the same as there being enough people who understand the benefits you outline who would therefore vote FOR GND.
My guess is that the Tories and MSM will just replay ad nauseam their fall-back, worn out record : ‘How will they pay for it? The same old profligate Labour will bankrupt the country as they always have done’. It’s a theme that resonates perennially with a big chunk of the electorate having the Magic Money Tree / Household Budget analogies permanently etched into its subconscious. Communists / Trotskyists / Venezuelans / Anti-semites – Tory hacks will dredge up all the usual expletives at the expense of defining the pressing issues of the day and objectively assessing Labour’s planned programme of socio-economic reform. The Tories are past masters of misdirection and sleight of hand. They’ve studied the Penn & Teller handbook. As has Lynton Crosby, BoJo’s other eminence grise.
For lack of anything better to do (sad) I watched JC’s closing speech which had some merit but IMHO lacked a strong, coherent narrative. I gather it was amended and shortened at the last minute to capitalise on the latest news (for those who haven’t yet read patrick Maguire’s astute reportage – https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2019/09/boris-johnson-saves-jeremy-corbyns-conference-speech). He said he’d pay for their progressive new programme by taxing the 1%. Is he stuck in a time-warp? Does he really not understand how the nation’s monetary system works? Is he still too scared to tell the truth?
Call me picky, but I just don’t like his presentational style, which is probably irritating to all but the party faithful. As the leader of the official Opposition I find he lacks a certain gravitas and/or chutzpah. And his jokes are pretty feeble. Which is a shame because much of what he proposes is good policy. Additionally I always believe it’s tempting fate to triumphantly pre-ordain an aspiring Prime Minister, especially one whose party is trailing 8 points in the polls. It doesn’t chime well with the electorate. (Who can ever forget Neil Kinnock grasping defeat from the jaws of victory).
Yesterday I listened to John McDonnell who came across as more astute and actually quite amusing too. But he’s not a mover and shaker, is he?
What’s all this got to do with a GND? Well, everything really. Because without a credible ‘sponsor’ it’ll just get put on the back-burner. The Tories are certainly not going to buy into it. Of course they’ll ‘green wash’ and ‘fiscally veneer’ their manifesto, just like Cameron did (remember the huskies, new tree logo, the big society etc.). But it’s not in their DNA to embrace progressive change. Or anything too complex to explain to the public. Their sole solipsistic purpose is to protect asset values at whatever cost to society in general. Simples!
The LibDems are the political embodiment of Judas. They’ll project themselves as the voice of moderation, reason and environmental responsibility but there’s no chance they’ll have the courage to invest the money required for a long-term, sustainable GND. Besides, they’re neither liberal nor democratic; just dyed-in-the-wool Neoliberals.
That only leaves the Greens, the SNP and Plaid, who together can barely muster 10% of the votes. All a bit depressing really. I suppose I should be a bit more enthusiastic about Labour, but they don’t make it easy for anyone who’s not a party member. Pity we don’t have a Stephanie Kelton & an AOC to help spread the gospel and to enthuse the voting public.
Noted
And very largely agreed
In the cold light of day you could say that Labour has tried to look at other policy areas other than BREXIT.
Any idea who their green advisors are?
Yes
I know them
They’re sound, overall
Labour is backing the Green New Deal. There’s a bill that would set a national target of Net Zero Emissions by 2030 – same as the Green Party and very demanding. There’s also a supporting report – GND – A Bill To Make it Happen – with lots of good stuff.
Just one problem. The policies in the report stand no chance of getting us to zero by 2030. For instance:
1) No carbon tax when everyone knows that there must be a price for carbon.
2) Houses to be retrofitted to EPC band C. But at band C there’s a lot of remaining peakiness in demand so that most will have to stay with gas heating.
3) The Frequent Flyer Levy makes everyone’s first flight each year cheaper! How can this be sense? Overall FFL reduces flying by far too little. We need carbon tax on aviation fuel and other restrictions.
4) Little policy on industry or freight. No mention of CCS or any carbon sequestration method except forests, which can absorb little by 2030.
It’s well meant. But it won’t work.
As an author of that report let me respond
First, there is no certainty about carbon taxes except that they are decidedly regressive
Second, as yet there may still need to be back up energy – these things happen in stages
Third, FFL will work by hitting who it says it will hit – and they are the real problem
Fourth, I agree re industry. I wanted Sustainable Cost Accounting in there: it is too radical as yet
Richard,
We’ve differed on carbon tax before so I won’t repeat that.
2) Housing: With a 2030 target and 29M houses to retrofit there’s no time for stages. No time for a seconds try. Every house and flat must be raised to ZC2030 compliant standard when its done.
3) FFL: The 2015 NEF reports said that replacing APT with FFL would “not on average decrease flight frequency in absolute terms, only relative to” APT. We have a Climate Emergency! Our main aim should be reducing emissions not “hitting” the frequent flyers. (Though any effective policy will ‘hit’ the frequent flyers that should not be the main aim.)
Perhaps an enhanced FFL – tax depending on distance, no zero tax for first flights – would be better. But I’d just tax aviation fuel.
David Flint says:
“… But I’d just tax aviation fuel.”
It is bizarre that the airline industry still gets a free pass on aviation fuel tax. I wonder what a similar subsidy would do to rail prices ? Not really a level playing field is it for medium-haul journeys. ?
“First, there is no certainty about carbon taxes except that they are decidedly regressive”
Do carbon taxes have to be regressive ? I don’t see why.
We all use carbon
If carba0n taxes are applied to all common uses – and by far the biggest are domestic fuel and transport – then they will be regressive
This is why, at best, proxies have to be used
We all use carbon….. carbon taxes are applied to all common uses …… then they will be regressive.
Hmmmm. Is that a problem of carbon taxing or inequitable income distribution, I wonder.
Don’t tell me…..
It’s complicated 🙂
Where I work, we as an organisation (a registered social housing provider) have just committed to ground source heat pumps in all our new build.
You have to start somewhere, even if you think you’ve ran out of time.
Agreed