At the start of the 21st century, Labour, perhaps more than any other progressive political party anywhere in the world, has advanced the cause of environmentalism. From the world’s first climate change bill, to the ground-breaking Stern report, to pursuing environmental goals as part of our international development and foreign policies, Labour has, for the most part, led the environmental charge in a way other political parties – including the Green party – could not.
Social democratic politics in Britain has always both facilitated, and been nurtured by, environmentalism in theory and in practice and Labour has been the party which has led the response to the inescapable realities of climate change already upon us. This response has consisted of a dual approach: the encouragement of individual citizens to adopt more sustainable and environmentally responsible lifestyles and behaviours, and the effective use of the power of the state through unprecedented subsidies for Co2-free renewable energy generation, the renaissance of nuclear power and more.
Such policies have been, and remain, brave, even controversial. But striking out upon new ground often means leading rather than following public opinion and the consequences for our planet and our life upon it means that the correct long-term policy solutions sometimes lead to difficult short-term political consequences.
It is a measure of Labour’s commitment to environmentalism that we have knowingly invited this, but global economic instability and an increasingly disparate and incoherent green lobby means that Labour has to look again at some aspects of environmental policy. Given our historic concern and our recent environmental policy record, we should do this with some confidence.
One of the largest threats to the effective pursuit of environmental policy goals is the spread of ‘green’ taxation from petrol prices and vehicle taxes to ‘pay as you throw’ refuse disposal suggestions. The climate change threat will not be solved by markets alone or the switch to energy-saving light bulbs. The public demands more tangible, concerted action from the state but, in an era of ‘transactional’ politics, finds it hard to see or feel the consequences of increased family bills in the name of saving the environment.
But the most important issue is this: if politicians of any party make environmental policies overly expensive and inconvenient for ordinary people, then ordinary people will begin to turn their backs on green policies and those who pursue environmental goals. In short, if left unchecked, ‘green’ taxation could poison the progressive, democratic pursuit of environmental aims.
At a time when we need to pursue environmental policy goals to save our planet and our life upon it, and as the most environmentally progressive government in Britain’s history, this is a disastrous scenario. Environmentalism and social and individual aspiration can coexist; the public expects the state to use the power at its disposal. Subsidiarity and social democracy – time for the green ‘third way’.
Mr Reed talks a lot of sense. Does the rising cost of living, not least the crippling cost of energy, now mean that most people can’t afford to be green? If not now then soon. The political party that first accepts that this means people want political leadership and government/market solutions not more personal taxation will steal a real march on the competition.
This article is precisely our problem: more waffle about being green, no specific green policies, and a superficial fear of ‘selfish’ voters not getting green issues.
Here’s a third way: we can’t claim to be leading the world on tackling climate change at the same time as going ahead with a third runway at Heathrow, approving eight new coal power stations starting with Kingsnorth and pouring billions down the black hole of new nuclear. We need to show that we have a vision of a low-carbon future and that we are working towards it – not dithering into business as usual.
How about a cut in or freeze of fuel duty alongside a better articulation of the green uses that fuel tax revenues are being put to? This means flagship renewable energy, energy efficiency and public transport projects billed as the rewards of a progressive green tax system. It’s not hypothecation, just good communications. Voters are wary of green taxes because they don’t believe the money is put to good use.