Labour has reaffirmed its commitment to a Green New Deal in a document released by Anneliese Dodds and Ed Miliband in their respective roles as Shadow Chancellor and Shadow Business Secretary. which roll covers the environment brief.
In summary, the plan is sound. I would like it to be more ambitious, and believe it could be. But it hits the right targets. That makes it a solid step in the right direction. The principles that it embodies are, I think, appropriate:
My submission, with Colin Hines, to Labour's call for evidence was on funding. We proposed a national investment bank, of course. It is in Labour's proposal. And we suggested that this bank should be allowed to issue bonds, permitting green QE if need be. In addition, we suggested that those bonds be incentivised for retail saving. Labour has said:
I am pleased Labour has taken note. The proverbial ‘how are you going to pay for it' question has been addressed without, I admit, explicitly touching on MMT.
So I can back this plan.
That said, I am aware that some in Labour are angry about it. The suggestion is that Rebecca Long-Bailey's version of the Green New Deal was planned to exclude private sector participation in the process, and so what is being proposed now is not sufficiently socialist. I admit that I think the criticism unfounded. That is firstly because the delivery of a Green New Deal without private sector participation would be nigh on impossible: of course private sector companies would always be involved in the supply process. And second, that is because I consider this an irrelevant argument. We live in a mixed economy and are going to do so. Redrawing the boundaries between sectors may well be important, most especially in many care environments and around education, justice and other issues. And I am not denying, of course, that direct local authority action may have a real role to play in delivering the Green New Deal. But to pretend that the environment is the secondary in concern in the Green New Deal is just wrong.
Labour has a serious policy now, and I welcome it.
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:
Good if adopted as a priority in a Labour election manifesto and passed overwhelmingly by their conference and not relegated to 9th or 10th on their agenda.
The document is a definitely a step in the right direction.. But its proposals are still not sufficiently joined up. For example, there are good suggestions on infrastructure developments that are needed to facilitate expansion of renewable energy. But there’s no mention of the massive expansion in storage capacity that will be needed to save energy that is generated when supply exceeds demand that can be be drawn on when demand exceeds supply.
Accepted
As I said, a start….
The overall sentiments of the document are fine. Some of the detail suggests that Miliband & co have fallen victim to assorted lobby groups. Page 11 on CCS (carbon capture and storage) is one example whilst simultaneously ignoring the fact that the UK has some world-leading manufacturing companies in the area of electrolysers (E.G. ITM) which would use renewable electricity to produce green hydrogen — for the most part at a price that is equal or less than hydrogen from SMR+CCS. I don’t blame Strathclyde Uni for pushing its PoV (which is CCS) I do blame politicos for not getting other perspectives. CCS maintains the UK’s dependence on imported nat gas. The following page, covering green-hydrogen then contradicts what was said about CCS.
The politicos also fail to understand that as the proportion of renewables rises in any power system, there is a rise in “excess” electricity and a correlated fall in wholesale electricity prices — which in turn means that Contract for Difference costs rise, which in turn means that Uk serfs pay twice for their electricity — the 1st time through the energy-only component of the bill which covers the LCOE (levelised cost of electricity) aspect, the second time via the renewable levy component in the bill to cover the difference between low wholesale prices and as-bid contract for difference prices. This phenomena is called “market failure” but so far is unrecognized by politicos of any stripe. Regulated wholesale prices is the way forward with the excess elec drained by electrolysers. But apparently Miliband & Co think that CCS is the right route, or not given page 12. Flip-flop policy anybody?
The pages on thermal renovation makes the right noises, ditto Page 17 on off-shore. Page 18 on community energy ignores the malign role played by the UK’s DNO-mafiosi in ensuring that embedded generation is either halted or made very expensive. Keep in mind I used to work for these hooligans. There is no obvious solution, Ofgem is functionally incapable of regulating the DNOs and nationalization is off the table. Given this situation, community energy will procede at a snails pace (yes there are example – & pace substantial change — they wil remain that — examples).
No mention is made of circular economy measures in the section covering recycling on page 20. Circular economy features regularly as an important policy in the EU that will be instrumental in getting it to 55 — 60% 2030 and zero by 2050. That Labour does not even mention it suggests that British insularity, with EU departure, is becoming the norm.
Not a bad document, could have been better and tighter.
I agree with you re CCS – I noted that when I read it last night and forgot to mention it when writing this morning
@ Mike Parr
Thanks as ever for your insight on this. I cannot see the point of ccs when more useful things could be pursued.
any chance you can get hold of Ed Miliband?
On the topic of green hydrogen (referred to by Mike), a single brief article appeared in the Scotsman recently, but seems not to have been mentioned anywhere by other newspapers or broadcasters:
https://www.scotsman.com/business/european-marine-energy-centre-orkney-claims-green-hydrogen-world-first-3029388
There is further information here:
https://www.engerati.com/energy-storage/flow-batteries-tidal-and-hydrogen-trialled-in-orkney-world-first/
and here:
https://www.surfnturf.org.uk/
A possible reason for the media silence might be that significant funders are the Scottish Gov and the EU with no mention of UK Gov. This might have something to do with the Tories having withdrawn R&D funding for tidal power years ago (a massive own goal if ever there was one). This, in turn, might have something to do with herd stupidity or perhaps Tories and their pension funds are too heavily invested in oil and other fossil fuels.
@Mike Parr
Well spotted. Do you have anyone who can filter this to Dodds or Miliband? Dodds might be a better bet. Any Labour MP around you with a direct phone line?
thanks for the kind comments. I’m hoping that Miliband etc visit this blog or have it drawn to their attention. The people I knew in Labour who could have brought some of the points to Labour’s attention have left for reasons I don’t think I need to explain. Most of my activity with respect to the energy transition is focused on the EU – where my political contacts are soemwhat better than in the UK.
Responding to Ken, the fossil mob have seen significant attrition to their share price, Exxon is cutting its capital spend to maintain its dividend (a most interesting approach) and there has been a flood of money going into renewables. Uk has no significant players on the renewables manufacturing side and only one significant operator (SSE). This is in contrast to the renewable resource – which is colossal. There is talk about the UK being the “Saudi Arabia” of renewables with respect to Europe. Continuing with this meme: so a very small number of people benefitting financially from renewables in the UK while the rest remain poor. Sounds about right given the Uk’s(tories) past track record.
Agreed – this is progress.
Those on the left do need to accept that the majority of the population are and will always be broadly centrist. Ideology does need to give way to pragmatism.
FWIW I think Ed Miliband does now sound far more credible than previously and that helps.
Sorry to pour cold water on this welcome development. But without a real commitment to PR the perpetual electoral merry-go-round means the necessary radical ideas will be ditched in the heat of a general election.
Labours green record at local authority level is atrocious…eg Sheffield’s street tree disaster; their hard line against a zero waste strategy and their failure to act on their own commitment to the Climate Emergency.
For communities to enthusisticaly embrace radical behaviour change can only happen if Labour Councils are able to work democratically and flexibly with local people. Sadly Labour’s authoritarian nature prevents this.
For example, my local Labour Councillors in Sheffield are rarely seen or answere questions. Sheffield City Council has now suspended voting on policies at full council meetings.
Our politics is in a humongous mess.
I would urge support for the campaign group “Get PR Done” which is focused on getting PR in the next Labour’s general election manifesto.
There’s no mention of raw materials which worries me. Bolivia is rich in Lithium and has suffered a military coup (now thankfully reversed). Without including a strategy on how to obtain materials required for a GND, this could be more Imperialism – greenwashed.
[…] could spend hours discussing superficiality of this plan, whilst comparing it with Labour’s more comprehensive proposal, and what is really needed, which would cost vastly more. But I doubt that further analysis is […]