As the FT noted this week in an article from the always interesting John Burn-Murdoch:
It's not often these days that one thinks of Britain as having advantages over other developed countries, and less often still that those advantages stem from unity across a famously divided electorate, but for some time now support for the pursuit of net zero has been broader and deeper in the UK than any peer country. And it's not just flimsy support for vague concepts, but for real policies, including those that would hit people in their wallets or otherwise impact their daily lives.
His point, as always in his articles supported by graphics, was that the UK public is way ahead in its green thinking than most countries and that our politicians are being dragged along in the public's wake:
His conclusion was:
It would be wrong to interpret a close by-election result and one poorly designed policy as Britons cooling on net zero. The British public — including Conservative voters — is fully behind ambitious green growth. Confident parties and leaders would channel those sentiments, not undermine them.
I agree.
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:
One thing that impresses me having lived abroad is how green this country stays all the year round and with such a wide variety of plant life too. I think most people born and bred here consciously and subconsciously appreciate this and naturally want to keep it
Fully agreed, but we need to reform political lobbying in this country and make it more transparent.
Then the public could see who was asking for what, and then have the opportunity to boycott their products and share offerings.
It is hard to believe that the UK population is greener than say Germany. But there we are.
The politicians really are trailing the public on this issue. I live in what has historically been a marginal seat, with each of the three main parties holding it since 1997. Every other house in my area has an electric car outside and solar panels on the roof.
The public should be demanding change NOW. Just Stop Oil are just the cutting edge of a groundswell of popular opinion. The fuss about ULEZ is just froth in the media. When people see how few people are actually affected it will fade away.
This ought to be an open goal for Labour (or someone else) to announce bold decarbonisation policies. A rush to renewables, particularly wind, and storage; low carbon concrete as standard; investment in direct reduction steel. But Sunak is looking for wedge issues, and Starmer is afraid of his own shadow. And everyone thinks there is no money. Well, we literally cannot afford inaction.
If you think the majority of people are behind ‘Just Stop Oil’ then you are deluded.
That’s what comes from only obtaining information from an echo chamber like this blog.
Them doing so is much more likely that you being called Sarah when your last three comments were all made using male names.
I notice that you don’t address my main point, which is that the politicians are trailing the public and not providing leadership on this issue.
But anyway I didn’t say that the majority of people are behind ‘Just Stop Oil’. I don’t think they are quite as unpopular as the press makes them out to be, but I doubt they have majority support. But I did say they are the cutting edge of a groundswell of popular opinion.
Just as I don’t expect a majority of people supported the window breaking and arson by the most militant suffragettes. But they certainly were the the cutting edge of a groundswell of popular opinion.
It is unarguably that we need to phase out reliance on fossil fuels. The only argument is about when and how. And it plainly needs to be as soon as possible, by whatever means we can, to minimise the risk of catastrophic climate change: changing patterns of rainfall, floods and hurricanes, droughts and wildfires, melting polar caps and sea level rise. I just don’t understand how people can be relaxed about this.
Well said
‘Sarah’
This blog is no echo chamber – just look at where Richard’s work takes him and what he gets up to.
Consider also that austerity is part of the problem, and if there was more state help to deal with the changes brought in by ULEZ and climate change and that government had not allowed car manufacturers to lie about diesel cars and their emissions, we’d be in a much better place.
Change takes lots of money. This government is effectively trapping people into staying as they are as well as laying the foundation for how we are.
That is why being angry at Just Stop Oil and the likes of ULEZ is so futile and misdirected.
People need to get angry with the government. They have effectively allowed this to happen and don’t want to take responsibility. Well, tough. Some of us are not going to stand for that.
Even The Economist is behind ULEZ expansion
Good news on the awareness of Climate change and policies needed to tackle it.
Not such good news on the amazing democratic deficit that exists in this country.
Yet another area of UK policy with overwhelming support from the public but little support in Parliament or the UK media.
Getting rid of the Tories has to be the priority at the next election but without fundamental constitutional change it will only be a 5 year hiatus before the Tories are back as greedy, dishonest and arrogant as ever.
UK attitude reports on energy have been regularly published by gov (BEIS). In the case of renewables (PV and on-shore wind) those in favour have been a solid 85% for more than a decade (90% for PV and 80% for wind). However, the events over the past decade show that what the public thinks or wants – does not count. It is how the various lobby groups ( UK meeja – a lobby group in and of itself) influence the gov that counts. Cam-moron and the other assorted vile-tory imbeciles were far more inflenced by meeja & oil&gas mafia then what Uk serfs think or want. If nothing else, this shows a complete and total failure of the political system – which does not deliver on the desires and wishes of the population. RES is one case, the NHS is perhaps an even more glaring example.
The two examples show that Burke’s-18th century bullshit about MPs not acting as delegates but acting as representatives – has long past its sell-by-date if indeed it ever had one. If 80 – 90% of the population want renewables then the MPs should act as delegates and vote through whatever is needed to implement those wishes. If they don’t then they should be replaced, recall votes should be made far far easier – the threat of ejection by citizens would focus minds and reduce the leverage of lobbyists.
Can anybody work out whether Starmer actually understands there needs to be a big government spend to tackle climate change and associated pollution? This following Guardian doesn’t appear to know where he stands either:-
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/28/sadiq-khan-says-climate-crisis-more-important-than-party-politics-after-ulez-victory
Isn’t it typical that because of his monetary system illiteracy he’s thoroughly boxed himself into a do nothing much corner? If he has is there much point in voting for a do-nothing other than to get rid of Tory vermin?
The British public maybe substantially behind the concept of Green growth but they are largely insane in understanding how to get the government to drive this (I use the word “insane” because do you want to run the risk of boiling or freezing to death, or if not you your children or grand-children?)
This insanity stems from the wide spread failure to recognise the UK state has a monopoly over money creation. This lack of recognition leads to the nonsense adopted by all the UK political parties that the state must obtain taxes and borrow in order to have money to spend and must therefore adopt a “fiscal discipline” strait-jacket.
This nonsense leads them “not” to recognise the true constraint in the creation of money is having the real resources to spend it on. The monopoly a sovereign state has and the implications of this are explained by Warren Mosler in his essay under the section headed “Exogenous Pricing: A Basic Case of Monopoly”:-
https://moslereconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Full-Employment-AND-Price-Stability.pdf
In the Right’s Greening Backlash I note the insertion of the word “budget” in the following statement:-
‘The IPA has given a red rating to several schemes that contribute to Britain’s net zero pledges. Any schemes placed in the red category are regarded as having “major issues with project definition, schedule, budget, quality and/or benefits delivery, which at this stage do not appear to be manageable or resolvable”.’
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/29/rishi-sunak-warned-that-tories-key-green-pledges-are-unachievable