The goal of cutting CO2 emissions by 20 per cent by 2010 has been part of Blair's self-image as a world leader. Yet the UK's record is lamentable

When America's mainstream media give prominence to green issues, you know that the crisis is upon us. Climate change, whose seriousness was for a few years the object of supposed dispute among academics, is now universally seen to be reaching what Time magazine calls "the point of no return". The problem is, by definition, global. The effects are cumulative, the consequences still hard to discern for those not directly affected. We see floods. We see droughts. We still don't think they will happen to us. All the while we continue our merry, self-destructive ways.

Our government talks a good talk. Tony Blair has given a plethora of speeches. His latest effort, in New Zealand, provided the usual mix of sounding alert to the danger, while suggesting actions that fall far short of dealing with it and appeasing the inadequate US administration by giving up on not just the Kyoto protocols but on finding a binding successor.

All the while, ministers tinker: a small levy here for miscreants, a small incentive there for those trying to conserve. They stress, with some justification, that the newly emerging superpowers, namely China and India, are responsible for the biggest rates of increase in carbon-dioxide emissions. They stress, with less justification, that transnational businesses have to be cajoled rather than coerced into seeing sense. They stress, predictably and pointlessly, that countries similar to the UK, such as France and Germany, are faring even worse. It may be true that nine of the original 15 EU states are unlikely to meet their Kyoto targets for reducing emissions, but some perform better in other green areas.

Whenever it can, this government hides behind others. The environmental review, published on 28 March with its silly catchphrase "tomorrow's climate, today's challenge", was a study in spin, which most voters hoped had been left behind. In his foreword, Blair concludes by saying: "The solution is in the hands of us all, as businesses, citizens and consumers." But where is the role of government as creator and enforcer of change? Nowhere in the larger report is there an apology for missing - by a seemingly wide margin - the laudable original goal (and three-time manifesto commitment) of cutting CO2 emissions by 20 per cent by 2010. The policy had been an important part of Blair's self-projection as a bold world leader. Stripped of the rhetoric, however, the UK's record in recent years is lamentable.

Greenpeace's "climate crime file" lists ten areas where the government has fallen short. Among them are: overseeing an actual increase in industrial greenhouse-gas emissions; succumbing to corporate lobbying; failing to stem energy waste from buildings; paving the way for new nuclear power stations; increasing road-building; and, as Mark Lynas vividly describes in our cover story (page 12), presiding over an unprecedented expansion of air travel, which will cancel out any CO2 reductions made by all other sectors put together. Tax breaks on aviation - no tax on fuel, no VAT on air tickets, and no absorption of the environmental costs by airlines - amounts to a public subsidy of £9bn a year.

Parliament provides a similarly damning verdict. On the eve of the Budget, the cross-party environmental audit committee accused the Treasury of "institutional inertia" in the face of the mounting danger of climate change. It pointed out that environmental levies had fallen year on year since 1999, just as the air passenger duty rate for budget airlines has been cut. Gordon Brown did little to enhance his green creden-tials the following day. The extra cash he allocated for wind turbines and solar heating was derisory; the new road tax rate for 4x4 "Chelsea tractors" was a cheap headline grabber. The rise in the climate-change levy only in line with inflation added to the disappointment.

When confronted by criticism, ministers are adamant that they are doing whatever they can . . . in the circumstances. They are right to say that much depends on us and the way we lead our lives. As ever with new Labour, ministers have more than one eye on what they believe to be "mainstream" opinion. That mainstream has shifted more quickly than the politicians realise. They now have the room to act, to introduce proper curbs, to use the tax system to reward and punish severely; if only they dare.rave maverick or latter-day Alf Garnett? The Mayor of London and holder of arguably the second most important executive office in the UK is, annoyingly, a bit of both. Ken Livingstone's career has been adorned, or marred, by turns of phrase that others would not dream of - or get away with - using. Livingstone's linguistic journey began in 1983 when he described Britain's record in Ireland as "worse than what Hitler did to the Jews". It has taken him variously via "I just long for the day I wake up and find the Saudi royal family are swinging from lamp-posts", through his "German war criminal" remark to a Jewish reporter, and now calling the American ambassador a "chiselling little crook" for allowing his diplomats to ignore the congestion charge.

For all the outbursts, Livingstone is still there and remains quite popular. Whether he should be depends on whether you like your politicians unvarnished. We think we do.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website