My Green New Deal colleague, Colin Hines, is rarely knocked down for long. We may not have a terribly green-friendly government but next November Glasgow hosts the international COP 26 climate summit. This is one of the big COP events (this year's in Madrid was not). As a result there will be considerable pressure on the UK, as host, to deliver and Johnson will need to decide what will give him greatest glory. Colin is not short of ideas in this blog, reposted with his permission, from the Green Alliance website:
The environment movement needs to learn two lessons from the election result. First, that despite all the coverage of climate events and growing public clamour for something drastic to be done about it, 12 December was definitely not a ‘climate election'. Rather, it was a return to two party politics fought around the issues of Brexit and Jeremy Corbyn's competence. Second, it is now clear that no ambitious political demands, like those called for at the climate talks in Madrid, will have any chance of success unless they are seen to be positive for the interests of the majority in rich countries.
For the COP26 meeting, to be held in Glasgow next November, the message is clear. Climate talks are unlikely to succeed if the discussions concentrate solely on what could be perceived as a rather preachy global justice narrative that the rich world must atone for its historical carbon sins by drastically curbing present lifestyles. Of course, this is a valid analysis, but it is unlikely to result in a shift in the attitude of politicians in more affluent countries, unless measures taken to tackle climate change are clearly seen to benefit the majority of the population in these countries.
Given the UK's new political reality, a crucial factor in terms of advancing the environmental agenda is to ensure that any proposed green programme will be seen to benefit, and hence gain political support from, the new Conservative constituencies in the Midlands and the North.
Luckily there is an issue that chimes with the new Conservative government's desire, as expressed by Boris Johnson outside number 10, to improve conditions for the majority in left behind areas using infrastructure spending, whilst also tackling climate change.
Funding energy efficiency needs to become a central climate policy
This approach is one of making the UK's 30 million homes and other buildings energy efficient, whilst shifting energy supply to renewables. Indeed, the fact is that that the most effective thing every household can do to help tackle the climate emergency is to reduce the carbon emissions from where they live. The crucial steps are to insulate buildings, provide as much of the energy used in them as possible from renewables, especially solar photovoltaics, shift from gas boilers to, for example, heat pumps, and improve the energy efficiency of the lighting and devices they use. That would make a huge difference to carbon emissions, reducing them by up to 40 per cent and, as a result, help to ensure people's children and grandchildren have a future that is less threatened by unstable global weather patterns and the adverse effects these cause. On a personal level, occupants of these buildings would save money and make their dwellings more comfortable, not to mention the positive effects on the local economy, in terms of new jobs, business and investment opportunities.
The government's present 2050 date for achieving net zero emissions patently lacks the urgency required and for that reason the Green New Deal group has proposed a ‘30 by 30' initiative to ensure that all our buildings are made energy efficient by 2030 However, regardless of the end date, the clear imperative is for energy efficiency to stop being the Cinderella of energy policy and instead move to centre stage, since it benefits the majority in rich countries and can play a huge role in ensuring they dramatically curb their emissions.
To make all the UK's 30 million buildings energy tight will mean investing tens of billions annually over the coming years. This could be relatively easily achieved if the chancellor in next February's budget were to tweak existing tax rules to enable savers to ‘save for the planet'.
At present, more than 80 per cent of UK personal wealth is invested in tax incentivised assets. For example, if the rules on ISAs were changed such that the £70 billion paid into ISAs each year were invested in green bonds, at a guaranteed interest rate of say 1.85 per cent (the current average cost of UK government borrowing). This huge sum could be directed to fund a national energy efficiency programme. Simple changes to pension rules could provide any additional funding required.
The secret to success at Glasgow 2020
Improving living conditions by making all homes and buildings energy efficient and, in the process, eventually reducing the UK's carbon emissions by up to 40 per cent, should be the target that Boris Johnson trumpets at the Glasgow climate talks as the host country's major contribution to addressing the climate emergency. Were the prime minister to convince our EU friends to commit to the same target for the continent's 300 million buildings, then Glasgow's success should be assured.
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:
Buy me a coffee!
We can but hope there will be a trip to Clydebank on offer at the summit, where the Queens Quay Energy Centre and District Heating Network can be viewed. It is a small start I admit. I think others are raising their heads.
https://www.queens-quay.co.uk/queens-quay-energy-centre-showcased-at-all-energy-2019/
Sums have been calculated, papers have been written ( Strathclyde uni ) the city council seem to be positive – to show Glasgow city centre homes and businesses could be heated from the river Clyde flowing past, but the gas boilers continue to chug along.
So slow to adopt change. Sigh.
“…unlikely to result in a shift in the attitude of politicians in more affluent countries, unless measures taken to tackle climate change are clearly seen to benefit the majority of the population in these countries…..”
If only.
The current political and economic elite in the UK doesn’t give a toss for ‘the majority of the population’.
If we are to have carbon reduction taken seriously by our political rulers, we must appeal directly to the financial benefits which will accrue to the wealthiest individuals who dominate our lives.
Recall that Aneurin Bevan made a similar accommodation with ‘Doctors’ to get the NHS off the ground. Sometimes principle has to get off the bridge and get its feet wet. The only way to engage the interest of hirelings is to offer them rewards. The people we need to influence could ‘retire’ tomorrow and never experience material want.
I like today’s Guardian article by Luke Pagarani which articulates the parochial mentality of many voters who plumped for the Tories in the general election:-
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/21/labour-older-voters-corbyn-local-socialism
To me his article seems to be saying that these voters were motivated by wanting to cling onto their shrinking slice of the pie rather than finding motivation in growing a sustainable pie for the country.
They appear to have succumbed to a “masked” libertarian ideology where taking care of “me” trumps taking care of others including working with others for mutual benefit. This is the Thatcherite curse of course which has gained such a strong foothold in the UK.
Certainly its already possible to see how its going to pan out with Johnson’s government doing its best to shred worker’s rights and consumer standards in the name of profits for the party’s sponsors not to mention the continued shrinking of public services and investment and a full frontal attack on the welfare state. Even worse will be the “future infanticide” stemming from a failure to do its part as a country to tackle climate change.
For me the only resistance to this voter parochial mentality is likely to come from Clive Lewis as Labour leadership contender but even if elected leader he’s not going to stand a chance of forming a government unless he educates voters like this out of their current mentality.
I’ll take a read, although I can feel myself slowing down by the minute…
Hope that doesn’t mean that you’re unwell…
No….I’m just tired!
@Helen Scofield.
Interesting opinion piece you linked to. I was struck by the unwitting irony of: “Despite ethical injunctions to “call out” prejudice, there are no electoral prizes to be won from naming racism as such, except in the most egregious cases.”
Anti Semitic slurs against Corbyn (always aimed at Corbyn for not ‘dealing with it’ effectively) have been a leitmotif of the campaign of vilification). No electoral prizes ? Harumph. You can’t do better than mobilise the congenitally racist than by winning their sanctimonious approval.
That’s Goebbels you can hear clapping in the distant ether.
It is my understanding that this event is being hosted by the Scottish Government not the UK Government. Can you clarify?
I think it is U.K. government but I may be wrong….
Brenda, it’s the uk government hosting. Rumour had it that they might exclude the Scottish government entirely – may have been hyperbole, and I’ve forgotten where I saw this because the GE happened. It would be shocking if so, but the Scottish government really doesn’t have any power in international things.
I tried to send this yesterday but it seems to have gone off into hyperspace and is probably puzzling the hell out of the Vogons by now. Anyway, here’s a reconstruction of my response to Contrary’s post of 22 Dec at 8:22am:
Contrary, it’s my understanding too that the UK is hosting the event and I fear it’s likely they may try to exclude the Scottish Government entirely from any involvement in the event. After all they entirely excluded the Scottish Government and the other devolved governments from any participation in Brexit, so why would they wish to share the kudos of staging COP26? They particularly won’t want to give the Scottish Gov any opportunity to show that the UK’s recent track record on renewables is largely down to policies and initiatives of the Scottish Gov.
If the Scottish Gov is excluded from participation, I think it likely that Glasgow will see some massive demonstrations against the UK Gov. Indeed, the mere presence of Johnson at Cop26 will be enough to fill the streets with protesters.
“Luckily there is an issue that chimes with the new Conservative government’s desire, as expressed by Boris Johnson outside number 10, to improve conditions for the majority in left behind areas using infrastructure spending, whilst also tackling climate change.”
If Johnson feels the need to keep his new-found voter support on board, he will have to do this. There has to be something for his his newly recruited fan base. Brexit alone won’t wash, because the ‘hard’ left (the socially conservative hangers and floggers are as interested in material wealth as their capitalist overlords….they always were. That is their yardstick. They may not get venison and goose for Christmas, but a Bernard Mathews turkey is bootiful enough)
If Team Johnson is prepared to finance a radical domestic insulation project they will covertly admit that it is affordable from the Magic Money Tree.
I see a chink of light.
He doesn’t need to keep his new supporters onboard. Many of his new supporters will be rendered impotent by the reduction of seats in the house and boundary changes. Neither Johnson as an individual nor his party have any liking for our northern paupers ( bearing in mind that their present condition is a result of prior conservative policy). So with photo ID also to be forced onto the population (3 million present voters disenfranchised) things are looking grim even for what passes as democracy in this country (England). People have been led down this path, following the sound of pipes and the sound of unicorn hooves. Suckers. At the end of the path is the pit of despond, the path is very steep and slippery. The way back is hard. Good luck.
A geeky technical point (Apologies)
Energy efficiency is undeniably a “good” thing and I’ll never knock it. (“Negawatts” – growth to be encouraged! ). However – it is late in the day – and we need a paradigm shift. Reduction in energy consumption is not the primary immediate target – a non-linear reduction in CO2 emissions is.
This app demonstrates the realtime CO2 emissions of different UK heating systems today. Try selecting South Scotland (it can be done !) This applies for any heat pump viz ASHP or GSHP). With further projected decarbonisation of the UK electricity grid – these heating systems automatically improve by themselves in terms of CO2 reduction – no further intervention required. Fossil fuelled systems have no further efficiency improvements to be made. In the meantime we prevaricate and piddle around trying to find an alternative “low carbon gas” to the unfortunately but cleverly named “nautral” gas. The Netherlands just stopped any further expansion in the use of natural gas for domestic heating – and are rolling back on existing installs.
https://planetcooler.pythonanywhere.com/static/CO2Reg0.html
(Health Warning: No I am not a contractor (any more) – but I am involved with the non-commercial promotion of heat pumps – their CO2 reduction potential was not recognised or understood for years (in the UK))
ps – this is what the Clyde heat pump system referred to above is a great example of. Regrettably rare in the UK.
pss: only raising this because heating is big elephant in the CO2 room – in the UK. Progress in CO2 reduction in heat and transport has been abysmal against the RES 2020 targets.
Agree with all that
Whilst it should be possible to come up with a series of specifications for retrofitting better systems to domestic property, I fear that something more piecemeal will occur. The heat pump lobby, will make the case for air source heat pumps (ASHP) and they will get installed at much cost. There will be much ‘hurrah’ at the eco credentials of it all. Then few years later it will be apparent that the promised benefits will not have been realised. Fuel bills will not fall and homes will not be more comfortable.
I hope that when campaigning for action on e.g. domestic heating, interested groups can join together to come up with practical plans that are capable of roll out on an increasing scale. Start with a few homes and scale up. To me that gives the public something that is desirable, rather than simply (over)sold to them.
Who said there was one size fits all?
Ouch! – not me.
I wonder if a system similar to the original building society principle would work? A street/group of like-minded people start a community fund, paying a set amount in each week/month. Houses are done up with a loan from the funds, each according to need (e.g. homes with babies > elderly > disabled > low income > low eco rating > medium > high). Part of the savings on energy costs are paid back into the fund until the loan is paid off. Repeat with other, more disruptive, or longer payback time, energy saving measures until all homes in the group are at PassivHaus standard.
This is the principle behind the savings idea Colin Hines and I are promoting