Whitehall Watch

Great to see Gordon Brown speak with such conviction on the environment, says Peter Madden. So what’s he doing about it?

In his wide-ranging speech in November, the prime minister set out a vision of a fourth technological revolution. He made a tokenistic pledge on plastic bags. And he talked tough on climate change. One highlight was the promise that he will consider increasing the UK’s target for CO2 emissions cuts by 2050, from 60% to 80%.

Such long-term signals of intent are important. They help businesses make sensible investment decisions. They guide public policy. And they are extremely valuable in international climate change negotiations, where we need to persuade other countries, particularly those in the developing world, that we are serious about doing our bit.

But long-term targets are not enough on their own; we also need action, now, to meet them. It is all too easy for politicians to set ambitious targets for 40 years hence. Who is going to hold them to account?

"One might be forgiven for some scepticism about how future targets will be met."

If we look at what is actually happening, on the targets already set during the last ten years of Labour government, one might be forgiven for some scepticism about how future targets will be met. On electricity generation, for instance, the government promised to generate 10% of electricity from renewable sources by 2010. With two years to go, the UK is only about half way there. On transport, John Prescott promised “far fewer journeys by car” and “a reduction in road traffic”; instead we saw nearly 20% growth. Overall CO2 emissions have actually increased by 2% since the government took power in 1997 – they crept up again last year.

There are some reasons for this. The ambitious government targets are not reflected in spending: less than £10 billion goes on environmental protection and enhancement, compared to the hundreds of billions spent on security, health and education. The same is true of taxation. Friends of the Earth calculates that, despite Gordon Brown’s promise to the contrary, green taxes as a percentage of overall taxes have actually fallen under Labour (from 9.4% to 7.7%).

Nor are the big government departments doing much to help. Many seem to have reverted to type. The Treasury in its ‘Sub-National Review’ of economic development can barely be bothered to give a nod to sustainability issues. John Hutton’s Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) has annexed much of climate policy to itself, yet seems most concerned with getting nuclear power stations built. Within Communities and Local Government, whilst some new ‘eco-towns’ are promised, the overwhelming focus is on increasing housing numbers.

At Defra, Hilary Benn is clearly a powerful advocate – but his department remains relatively weak and poor in Whitehall terms. Brown missed the opportunity to strengthen it when he took power. Nor has he done anything to beef up the government agencies responsible for tackling climate change.

To be fair, the prime minister does face a difficulty with voters: they tend to be green in the abstract, but anti-green in the particular. They profess concern for the wider issues, but when it comes to restrictions in behaviour or increases in cost, people are less supportive. Yet Ken Livingstone has shown with the Congestion Charge in London that bold political leadership can work.

The Climate Bill might change some of this. It is a valuable piece of legislation, it has been widely welcomed as “groundbreaking” by the NGO community, and it will certainly have more of an accountability framework than the last two UK climate change strategies. But in the end, the Bill is about more targets (it even has targets for its targets). It is surely time for action. Is Hutton’s sudden urgency on offshore wind a sign of the times?

Peter Madden is chief executive of Forum for the Future.

21 December 2007

Peter Madden