Climate action in Britain is moving into more politically fraught terrain because the next phase of carbon cuts involves front of house decisions about how we heat our home and what kind of car we drive. And these bring with them tricky questions about individual freedoms, who pays for these changes and who benefits.
Thanks for writing this. Agree that the trade offs are coming more clearly into view, the government will find it harder to match up to their warm words and rhetoric. I think you are perhaps a bit generous when it comes to the previous consensus though. I agree that compared with the US and Australia we have been mercifully spared of the worst elements and the fact the CCC and carbon budgets have survived a decade of Tory rule is something to feel relieved about but from 2015 onwards I would argue that things went sharply backwards. Onshore wind was essentially banned, zero carbon homes standard scrapped, solar industry was nearly strangled at birth and not a single new policy was initiated beyond the long-term, aspirational stuff. I also think the cross party declaration was far more limited. At the time the conservative party was 'all in on fracking' and phasing out coal (along with the development of the capacity market) was policy designed to create space in the grid mix for a fresh generation of gas and nuclear rather than genuine climate consensus. The success we have had is mostly down to the survival of offshore wind (again something we should be relieved about given what happened to support for onshore renewables) and the retirement of ancient coal plants that were destined for retirement either way. I briefly thought that things had changed and the current leadership were genuinely committed to the climate change cause and had realised the scale of the crisis but ever since the budget was announced Im now questioning that and setting expectations very low.
A frequent flyer tax could be effective and equitable. But a Conservative government will be unlikely to implement one as it would affect their donor class. I don't really see a Johnson government being much use on the consumption side.
Thanks for writing this. Agree that the trade offs are coming more clearly into view, the government will find it harder to match up to their warm words and rhetoric. I think you are perhaps a bit generous when it comes to the previous consensus though. I agree that compared with the US and Australia we have been mercifully spared of the worst elements and the fact the CCC and carbon budgets have survived a decade of Tory rule is something to feel relieved about but from 2015 onwards I would argue that things went sharply backwards. Onshore wind was essentially banned, zero carbon homes standard scrapped, solar industry was nearly strangled at birth and not a single new policy was initiated beyond the long-term, aspirational stuff. I also think the cross party declaration was far more limited. At the time the conservative party was 'all in on fracking' and phasing out coal (along with the development of the capacity market) was policy designed to create space in the grid mix for a fresh generation of gas and nuclear rather than genuine climate consensus. The success we have had is mostly down to the survival of offshore wind (again something we should be relieved about given what happened to support for onshore renewables) and the retirement of ancient coal plants that were destined for retirement either way. I briefly thought that things had changed and the current leadership were genuinely committed to the climate change cause and had realised the scale of the crisis but ever since the budget was announced Im now questioning that and setting expectations very low.
A frequent flyer tax could be effective and equitable. But a Conservative government will be unlikely to implement one as it would affect their donor class. I don't really see a Johnson government being much use on the consumption side.