A Green New Deal?

Am I causing climate change? If I’m honest I don’t know the answer to this but the likelihood is I am. It sounds like I am denying the existence of climate change, but the truth of the matter is it’s hard to comprehend such a change due to my own actions.  If we agree that climate is changing what can we, and more importantly government, do about it? I propose that we and the government can do a lot to mitigate and reverse the effects of climate change.

We are told consistently by politician, scientists, and the media that to prevent climate change we need to radically alter and change our way of life now! However, despite these warnings, little changes that will be radical enough to reverse the effects of climate change that have already taken place. To me all this sounds like a big undertaking and a direct challenge to our current consumer society. However, can this radical change be beneficial not just to the planet but to our economy and indeed our lives? I believe that this can be the case.

I came across a book Environmental Debt by Amy Larkin. This book (although written in 2013) has, in my opinion, presented a clear and consistent argument of how we as citizens and the business community can change the way we consume and in effect create an economic system that will create sustainability. As Larkin illustrates, the business community can be a force for good and bad change in the economy. Larkin sights the CEO Paul Polman stating “we cannot choose between economic growth and sustainability – we must have both”. Although this book may seem out of date, it highlights the fact that business have been aware of the damage of climate change but as a whole the world continues to consume and extract natural resources at an alarming rate. Convincing me that economies have to change in order to create sustainability will little impact on the natural world.     

My views on climate change are not from an entirely environmental standpoint but also an economic standpoint. We all know that in the near future natural resources (e.g. oil, natural gas, metallic ores, and water) will become scarce, so it is my opinion that we should make changes now so that we can live for tomorrow and still enjoy some of the highest standards of living in the world. We as individuals can change and reduce our carbon footprint. But to make effective and long lasting change, across society, government needs to step in and support and implement policies that can see these changes happen.

It is discouraging to hear that solar panels could face an 800% tax increase and that the good work of the UK Green Investment Bank could be sold to a private corporation; meaning the UK government has passed the responsibility onto someone else. Government should take a leadership in this fight against climate change by creating a Green New Deal. This New Deal in renewable energy transformation has the potential to rejuvenate the economy and propel Britain into creating sustainable economic growth.

Over the past decade renewable energy has become the cheapest form of energy. For instance, over ten years ago, solar energy cost $600 per MWh now it only costs $100 for solar and $50 for wind power. This reduction in the cost of producing green energy has advantages in reducing energy cost for both ordinary consumers and businesses across Britain. Although this may seem like a logical way for the UK to satisfy its energy requirements, the UK government has followed a policy of trying to ‘Kill off the UK solar industry before it becomes the cheapest form of electricity’.

This has been demonstrated in Germany where the policy of Energiewende has produced remarkable results in the production of renewable energy. Other countries such as the United States and China have also followed a policy of producing cost-effective renewable energy. It is my belief that the UK government, when confronted with this logical solution to energy, will not challenge the Big Six monopoly on energy. Energy has become an integrated part of our lives and to separate the two, in the modern world, will be catastrophic. Thus the UK government should confront the Big Six, invest heavily in renewables, and in return should take a share of the profit (which can then be reinvested in producing new renewable power sources). This can produce sustainable energy at a lower cost to all that use it in the UK.

Moving away from fossil fuels as a way of producing our energy can, in the long term, make us less reliant on oil, natural gas, uranium and from repressive and authoritarian regimes from across the world. Although I recognise the importance of these resources it is increasingly clear that in the future these resources are becoming more scare.  

Larkin effectively sums up my argument: “today, it seems, there finally may be enough financial self-interest and environmental awareness that traditionally antagonistic groups are motivated to work in tandem to solve entrenched problems”.

I recommend you read this book for more information of how business and financial self-interest can still function and make money, but in an environmentally friendly and sustainable way - A. Larkin, (2013), Environmental Debt: The Hidden Cost of a Changing Global Economy, New York, Palgrave MacMillan.       

General Election 2017: Final thoughts and analysis on the campaign

The election campaign enters its final few days with the polls (well most of them) consistently showing a small percentage point lead for the Conservatives. In most elections of the past, that would be considered a fairly good position for the incumbent government to be in, heading into the final few days of campaigning. However, when Mrs May called the election, she did so on the back of a 20 point plus lead in the polls. Now with Mr Corbyn and Labour closing in with only a few days remaining, could Labour really snatch power from the Tories?

I think firstly the reasons behind the tightening of the polls should be considered if we are using them to attempt to predict the result. Mrs May went in to the election on the wave of triggering article 50, being credited with a good standing within her own party and looking every inch a PM in waiting. Mr Corbyn on the other hand waved through article 50 (much to the disgust of many in his own party), had a vote of no confidence in him by the majority of Labour MPs only the previous year and looked every inch a sitting duck ready to be fed to the lions. That just shows how quickly things can change in politics.

Fast forward a few weeks and Mrs May now certainly looks more weak and wobbly than strong and stable and it is clear that Mr Corbyn has come into his own on the campaign trail. Add to that a fairly uninspiring Tory manifesto against a bold Labour one and compounded by several policy u-turns already by the Tories; as much as Mrs May says she isn’t, she probably is regretting actually calling this election.

All that will change, of course, if she secures a majority of 30 plus and has a mandate for a hard Brexit. But even a few weeks ago, a 30 plus majority would have been considered a poor result for the Tories – that would only be a small increase on the majority of 17 she enjoyed in the previous parliament.

Whatever people think of Mr Corbyn (and let’s be completely frank expectations were very low going into the election) he has performed admirably well. He has arguably had the better of the televised Q&A’s against Mrs May and has looked assured on the domestic policy front. However, he has repeatedly been tripped up over his views on trident, security and defence and his past views on the IRA and Hamas. Add to that past comments made by John McDonnell and Diane Abbott and suddenly his leadership team takes on a different look. But his domestic policies have certainly given the electorate food for thought and even if they do not break through completely this time around, he may have brought himself some time to form the opposition and have a go again.

On the other hand Mrs May has struggled on the campaign trail and has refused to take part in the head to head debates with the other party leaders. Personally, I haven’t gained too much from the other party leaders during the debates and most have descended into an out-of-control slanging match but it doesn’t look great that the PM wasn’t there. It wasn’t a good look for her and made it seem like she was hiding from the debate. But perhaps more worrying for Mrs May is the way her manifesto has gone down with many of her core voters. The dementia tax, more cuts to public services and a potential free vote on fox hunting have all left a sour taste in the mouths of voters who only a few months ago would have certainly voted for her. Alongside this, I think the Tories have been surprised by the apathy towards Brexit and the fact people also want to talk about other policies. That certainly wasn’t in the script. Whatever happens on Thursday, the campaign has dented Mrs May’s standing within her own party and with the electorate. The Tories have been forced to abandon their quest for Labour-held seats to concentrate on making sure they hang on to their own. Unlike Mr Corbyn, Mrs May will almost certainly see her political career ended by defeat on Thursday.

With all that said, the next question to consider is how will the campaign affect the result of the election and the gut feeling of most is Mrs May’s gamble will probably pay off. Looking at it on simple maths alone, Labour would need to secure big wins in Scotland, Wales, the North-East and West of England whilst ensuring they maintain seats in the traditional big cities. They’d also need the Lib Dems to take seats off the Tories in the South-West. It does seem somewhat unlikely all of that will happen. It is almost impossible for Labour to win the election without those things happening as the maths just doesn’t add up for them. When you add to that the fact the West Midlands elected a Conservative metro major in May and the Tories did very well in last month’s council elections, the picture doesn't look great for Labour. Yes, there has been an undeniable backlash to the Tory manifesto and that has damaged the Tories and probably stopped them winning by a landslide. But the feeling is Labour were just too far behind to catch the Tories this time around.

So we can assume Mrs May will be given the keys to Number 10 once again on Friday morning for the next five years. But she will be walking in there knowing full well her personal reputation has been dented both within her party and with the electorate and knowing she faces a Labour opposition riding a wave of support. It will certainly make PMQs a different proposition this time around...

The eyes of the UK, the EU and the world will be on Mrs May once again. Let’s hope she doesn’t continue to buckle as this next five years is so important for our country. Will the seemingly u-turn queen begin to channel her inner Iron lady and lead us to greater things? Or will she crash and burn under a leadership contest after more weak leadership? The Tory backbenchers will certainly begin to smell blood very quickly if her administration gets off to a shaky start.

Although, I assume we will find out the answers to these questions with Mrs May in Number 10, rather than opposition.