Return to: Home | Politics | UK Politics

Tackling the real crisis

Phil Bloomer

Published 10 October 2008

In a week dominated by the growing global financial crisis, a couple of potential tipping points in the climate change debate have passed almost unnoticed

Such has been the media furore over the return to Cabinet of Peter Mandelson that it seems almost sacrilegious to suggest that, once the dust settles, the return of new Labour’s prodigal son may be overshadowed by a mere reorganisation of Whitehall departments.

Yet while stories about how Peter patched it up with Gordon and what Tony thought about it dominated last weekend’s newspapers, it is the absence of energy policy from Mr Mandelson’s returned ministerial red box that has the potential to really make waves.

The fact is that successive Secretaries of State at the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (and before that the Department of Trade and Industry) have failed to deliver their part of the Government’s promises to tackle global warming. They have often buckled in the face of the energy industry and business leaders, including elements within the Confederation of British Industry. With the fear-mongering line that 'the lights might go out, they push their own vested interests and ignore the needs of millions of poor people across the globe who will be the first victims of climate change, not to mention the citizens of this country.

The current situation in Haiti, where a combination of hurricanes and high food process have left hundreds of thousands of people hungry show the effects of climate change are already being felt by the poorest.

Ed Miliband, the first-ever Cabinet minister for energy and climate change, now has the chance to demonstrate how the Prime Minister’s promise at Labour's conference of “fairness at home, fairness in the world” can be turned from rhetoric into reality.

There can be no doubting the pressing need for change. In a week dominated by the growing global financial crisis, a couple of potential tipping points in the climate change debate have passed almost unnoticed.

On Tuesday, the committee charged by the UK government to examine climate change backed scientists’ call for an 80 per cent reduction in UK emissions by 2050. This was followed by a vote of the European Parliament’s Environment Committee to limit the emissions of new power plants, among other measures.

As Sir Nicholas Stern demonstrated so powerfully two years ago, the potential economic damage of climate change dwarfs even that of the current financial crisis. Yet UK government departments and corporations remain schizophrenic in their reaction to climate change. Oxfam’s report, The forecast for tomorrow reveals a country deeply divided between those who recognise the need for action and those who would rather pretend we can carry on with business as usual.

While the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Greater London Authority and the Scottish Government, are all pursuing ambitious policies on climate change, BERR's approach to energy policy before the reshuffle is highlighted as one of the six organisations whose policies undermine the UK commitment to tackle the issue.

Faced with a potential reduction of electricity generation capacity of about 20 gigawatts by 2020, the department has appeared ready to ignore more than 30GW of renewable and gas-powered generating capacity under consideration or in development and plump for coal, without clear assurances of the potential for the as yet, largely untested technology for carbon capture and storage. A more recent change of heart by BERR on renewables should instead show the way forward.

The first litmus test of whether the Government’s reshuffle marks a sea-change in their approach to climate change or merely a rearrangement of chairs on the deck of a sinking ship will be the decision on plans by E.ON, proud sponsors of the FA Cup, to build the first new coal-fired power plant since a 23-year-old, bubble-permed Kevin Keegan scored a brace to help Liverpool to defeat Newcastle in the 1974 final.

Kingsnorth would have a dramatic and devastating effect on Britain’s carbon footprint; its annual CO2 emissions will be 7 million tonnes – more than the combined output of 30 developing countries. It would smash the EU’s proposed emissions limits. Kingsnorth and other coal-fired stations cannot be allowed to go ahead if the UK is to even come close to making the cuts in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 demanded by the Government’s own experts this week.

Meanwhile, European governments, including the UK, will decide in the next few weeks whether or not to water down ambitious plans for tackling climate change and promoting renewable energy, voted through by the European Parliament this week.

These decisions will have a far-reaching impact beyond the levels of greenhouse gases emitted. Striking a deal at the international climate change negotiations this year in Poland and next year in Copenhagen, will require strong, demonstrable leadership from European governments that claim they are committed to playing their part in reducing emissions, if countries like China and the USA are to come on board. Britain and Europe cannot expect to take the lead at December’s critical negotiations in Poznan unless we can show that we are prepared to take tough choices and practice what we preach.

There is however hope for change. Despite the laggards like E.ON, Oxfam's report shows that we are also home to some of the world’s best, most inspiring progress in tackling climate change. National institutions such as Marks and Spencer, British Telecom and even the National Grid have led the way in taking concrete action to reduce emissions.

Gordon Brown showed the most political courage in his reshuffle, not in the way many have suggested by springing the surprise of returning Mr Mandelson to Cabinet, but in bringing energy and climate together under one roof.

Now he, and Ed Miliband must show even greater courage to swim against the tide of interests who would water down our commitment to reducing emissions at home and in Europe, and by doing so fuel the growth of a much greater and more damaging threat than the current financial crisis.

Phil Bloomer, Oxfam Campaigns and Policy Director

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

14 comments from readers

4fooey
10 October 2008 at 16:11

Energy efficiency and conservation are absolutely vital in tacking climate change -- we could take-up many conservation measures today, which would save on carbon emissions and save people money. Meanwhile we need to put our collective heads together and come up with alternative fuels -- we all need to get about (cars, trains, planes), make things, heat our homes, and so on, but we need to get away from burning carbon.

We also need to be tackling this on global level, as well as at home -- the same concerted effort seen now in the financial crisis should be mustered for tackling climate change, and urgently.

Cybertiger
10 October 2008 at 16:26

"... we all need to get about (cars, trains, planes), ..."

... buy a bike. We'll all be on bikes soon.

Nilsey105
10 October 2008 at 20:00

whats the ministers email addy i need to send him some ideas ?

Carl Jones
10 October 2008 at 20:43

Phil: paragraph 5 is a bunch of poo. One, you have no concept of NWO weather control/modification and two, global grain stocks are at record lows, since the Iraq invasion, we`ve had rigged oil prices and the Bush neocons have provided subsidies to produce bio-ethanol.....400kg of corn to produce 25lt of ethanol in a country swamped with heavey vehicles and huge engines.

At this point, I`m becoming so ANNOYED with the global waring DRIVIL pumped out by the NS that even I can see the creation of terrorists who will target the global warming liers with tube and bus bombs, an MI5 tactic.LOL

The 80% target wasn`t unoticed, it was belted out by the BBC propaganda machine all day on every news cast.LOL I have even commented on its timing as the economy tanks.....see (sweeeet) Caroline Lucas`s latest article.LOL

If the ellite are stupid enough to allow us to run short of power, I have no doubt that France will sell us some nuke generated electricity at a nice price......of cource, France is a well planned society and I don`t see them showing any concern over "alledged" rising see levels.LOL

Phil, I`ll make a deal with you, the moment I see the US and China do SOMETHING serious on alledged global warming, I`ll come on board, but you might have to "digg" me up! LOL

Nilsey105
11 October 2008 at 00:42

"......an 80 per cent reduction in UK emissions by 2050."

ermm thats 42 years away Fusion power will be on stream by then so no problem. So why all the hysteria?

Gideon Polya
11 October 2008 at 03:02

Dr James Hansen (top US climate scientist; Director, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies; member of the prestigious US National Academy of Sciences; 2007 Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility of the prestigious American Association for the Advancement of Science) has bluntly stated "If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm” (see: http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1126 ).

In relation to the recent book “Climate Code Red. The case for emergency action” by David Spratt and Philip Sutton (Scribe, Melbourne, 2008; see: http://www.climatecodered.net/ ) Dr James Hansen has stated: “A compelling case … we face a climate emergency.”

Yet profligate Governments are still arguing about targets for INCREASED atmospheric CO2 - there is a horrible disconnect between what the politicians and corporations are saying VERSUS what top world climate scientists are saying (e.g. see Climate Emergency: What Top World Scientific Experts Say c/- of the Melbourne-based Yarra Valley Climate Action Group: http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/c... ) .

If it were a life-threatening medical emergency there is no doubt that sensible people would take very seriously the advice of top medical experts at the cutting edge of the relevant area. However when it comes to man-made climate change, money gets in the way, money buys public perception of the "truth" and money buys time for climate criminals making money from Planet-threatening fossil fuel burning. Dr Hansen has suggested criminal prosecution of these people who are putting billions of people at risk in highly irresponsible pursuit of their selfish, personal financial interests.

Oli33
11 October 2008 at 23:55

I cant decide which is Mr Jekyll and Mr Hide when i see the Millibands.

Carl Jones
12 October 2008 at 00:28

Oli33, it doesn`t matter, they are both DANGEROUS.LOL

fairplay
12 October 2008 at 03:19

carbon tax coming

the way out for the NWO after the credit debacle

dont trees feed on Co2? what a load of nonsense. get rid of oil dependence and we will be fine

Elizabeth
12 October 2008 at 04:43

Give every home a washing line, restrict the use of tumble driers. Even in sunny, windy California they use tumbl;e driers, hanging out the washing has become a thing of the past for many homes in the developed world. Using a washing line and wash stand indoors saves loads of money and Co2

Cybertiger
12 October 2008 at 12:37

@Elizabeth

Tumble driers are an issue of freedom for Americans. It is simply un-American to be tumble drier free. It’s simple: freedom and democracy dictates that Americans must continue to use a tumble drier, even in sunny, windy California.

navel-gazer
12 October 2008 at 15:21

I’ll start to believe in “human caused climate change” the day they can show me a picture of the Weather-man behind the curtain pulling the levers and shouting in the megaphone. I’ll put it up on my wall right beside the perfectly framed in-focus shots of the UFO and Bigfoot and just above my Y2K compliance certificate and my ozone hole insurance guarantee.

However on the other side of the argument, energy efficiency and less pollution are, in effect, identical to better infrastructure; and how can you argue against better infrastructure?

Switching back again, who can tell in this spaghetti tangle, which proposals, if any, can actually deliver cheaper cleaner energy? Is it Fluff, Propaganda, a Gaian religious pamphlet, Nigerian Carbon-Sink Scam 3.5 or “I’ll just keep on polluting while you discuss it amongst yourselves” Carbon Trading Scam 4.1?

In a free market the cheapest energy should “theoretically” be the one which the market picks as cheapest, but the current bursting bubble shows just how un-objective and perhaps, un-free the market may be.

Perhaps we should be looking for ways to identify & remove obstacles from the investigation, development & introduction of better energy systems. I know lots of “experts” are willing to tell us for “free” but has anyone even suggested setting up an “independent” research program to figure out where we can save the most energy?

After reading those “Darwin Award” scenarios and from the history of “human intelligence”, I wouldn’t mind betting that more than half of the world’s energy is being wasted churning out useless widgets to put in yet more landfill sites; excessive amounts of fertilisers and weed killers to poison the water table and extortionately expensive yet ineffectual drugs to sell to desperate people. Certainly the amount of paper I see being thrown out, because after 30+ years no one seems to be able to invent a simple, universal computer - printer interface, seems to support that thought.

Carl Jones
12 October 2008 at 17:59

naval-gazer; well said. The real problem is that we do have serious alternative energy sources, but this is SUPPRESSED TECHNOLOGY....inventors have been mudered, they`ve been brought off by governments and big corporations.

The hydrogen fuel cell car is a scam.....they want you/me to buy over complicated, over expensive hydrogen fuel cell cars that have PROBLEMATIC storage systems......yet, over ten years ago, the technology existed to simply fill your tank with water....it would then be SPLIT under the bonnet and the only waste is WATER!! LOL

But oh no, we can`t let the people have this level of control over their energy.....ANYONE CAN DO WATER....we can`t free the people, we can`t free the world from NWO control....THE MUST HAVE USELESS HYDROGEN FUEL CELL TECHNOLOGY.LOL

GO ON, TELL ME THEY ARE SERIOUS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING.LOL

Of course, this is just the tip of the ENERGY SUPPRESSION ICEBERG.LOL

There are estimated to be over 30,000 electrical storms EVERY SINGLE DAY!! All this energy is wasted. Another prospect they don`t want you to know about is the FACT that we live in an electric universe.

The axe was brought down on British railways because they wanted YOU to buy cars and burn oil. Along time ago, cars and tyers could be made from Flax...very green, but the corporations want to use steel and rubber...

....today the are using the cost of energy and the scam of global warming so that you will accept new, expensive and over complicated technology.....have you heard Mr Lynas write about using flax...I thought not, if he did, he`d soon find himself locked out.LOL

I`ve said it before and I`ll say it again, I`m still waiting for the elite to do something serious towards their alledged concern over global warming....until this happens, I will continue to mock the entire green movement, because they are really just as disinterested as the elite.

sweety
06 November 2008 at 02:10

Buzz words to be used tipping point, window of opportunity, planet-threatening, Kyoto, akin to the Ying tong,ying tong on the Goon show.

We need a system like Sweden, which actually is the only country in the world with a small, yet apparently viable population. Their rivers are pure, the Nutcracker feeds on the tops of the majestic Larch.

Only the BBC is worried about the Great Lemming Crash of 2008. Swedish health care is second none. Scatter this social democratic, Kingdom, of shiny happy people with Cheernoble fallout and bomb dust since the Soviet days. In the words of Le Monde "We are all radioactive now". France has fifty plus, and eventually fast breeders If the balloon goes up in France the Greenpeace Offices in London will be safe!

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

You may enter up to 2000 characters (about 300-350 words)

Characters left:

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

Read More

Vote!

Will China rule the world?

Suggest a question

View comments

© New Statesman 1913 – 2009

Tracker