David Miliband does not appear discouraged. He has been environment secretary for only six months, but he has already achieved the prominence in the debate on climate change you might expect of someone frequently mentioned as a future Labour leader. He bobs in his chair and summarises the hopeful aspects of the current situation, characteristically, in numbered points: "One: climate change is a reality, not a debate now. Two: there is an international process addressing it. Three: green growth is not just a twinkle in the eye of business. And four: the Tories have moved out of the Stone Age." He pauses. "Well, some Tories."
He acknowledges the difficulty, however, of turning a consensus into an acceptable policy. "Climate change is the biggest political challenge, full stop. It is about fundamental change in the way people live and work. An environmental contract between governments and citizens in the 21st century like the social contract between governments and citizens in the 20th." What sort of Britain does he envisage if carbon emissions are drastically cut? "If you are optimistic, we're going to have a higher quality of life. Buildings with natural light are more pleasant. Local, seasonal food is tastier. Smog-free cities are better than smoggy ones. I don't think we have to turn the clock back to 1900."
I ask about carbon rationing. His smile fades for a moment. "I think ration has such a 1940s connotation. I'm not sure it works." The smile returns: "Shared is a better word than rationed. I'm quite excited about personal allowances. Carbon credit cards. I think it's a powerful idea."
If saving the planet is going to work, it is going to have to hurt. And if Ministers can't face up to the fact, then what chance for the rest of us?
By contrast, George Monbiot has a clear agenda here. You may disagree with him; you may think that some of his ideas are potty; but at least he's not pfaffing around like Miliband.
And what did the stock market make of it all? Not much, seems to be the answer here:
Carbon trading, after all, is a market-friendly mechanism only in a limited sense. It relies on governments making emissions targets so tough that the worst polluters are either priced out of business or squeezed to the sidelines.
But, no, there was barely a squeak of protest about the prospect of greater government intervention. The best explanation may be that investors are making a simple calculation that governments lack the will to deliver medicine that will truly change the way we live.
That may be a cold response, but it is not illogical. Brown has not increased rates of fuel duties since protesters took to the roads in 2000. Aviation fuel remains untaxed. The supposedly tough action against 4x4s in the last budget turned out to be a road tax of a mere £210, a sum that would not deter most owners.
Maybe things will be different after Stern but the City will believe it when it sees it. What it can see under its nose is a government that still talks about the virtues of globalisation, free trade and choice for consumers.
Maybe the Government has a cunning plan hidden up its sleeve. But don't count on it...
No comments:
Post a Comment