Policy Comparison 5 - The Environment

Today we’re going to be looking at some of the parties policies on the environment, but please note I’ve also added a wee update to the democracy section from a few days back. One of the most pleasing developments in recent years is that all the main parties are now recognising and accepting the need for environmental action. It is one of the main things that I will give David Cameron credit for that he has made the tories much greener. Given this concensus, I’m rather hoping that in dealing with the short-term pressure of the budget deficit, whoever is in government doesn’t lose sight of urgent action that is needed on the environment.

BNP

• This Party is the only party to recognise that overpopulation - whose primary driver is immigration - is the cause of the destruction of our environment.
• This Party will make it a priority to stop building on green land. New housing should wherever possible be built on derelict "brown land."
• The removal of unsightly overhead power lines from beauty spots and their burial underground.
• The creation of a bulk transport tax regime that pushes supermarkets to supply more local and seasonal produce.
• The encouragement of an extensive and rapid switchover to organic and low fossil fuel farming techniques.
• The banning of the ritual slaughter of animals without pre-stunning, and the sale of such meat.
• The elimination of the unhealthy, energy intensive and cruel factory farming of livestock.
• The abolition of all "stealth taxes" and other charges on household rubbish collections.
• We encourage the development and use of renewable energy sources other than large-scale wind generators.

The first thing to note is that even the BNP, (who went to Copenhagen to campaign against agreement as climate change is a neo-marxist myth, or something like that) feel the need to have an environmental policy. If we skip smoothly over their outrageous linking of environmental damage with immigration, the policy is a real messy mix of things – some measures which really are about preserving the environment, some are more about preserving beautiful countryside and some are a backhanded attack on muslims and other faiths. The last point is to try and appeal to NIMBYist opposition to such projects, but if the UK is going to seriously develop more renewable energy, wind power is probably going to be an important part of that. So, still offensive, but not too far off the mark in some areas.

LABOUR

• Every home will have a smart meter by 2020, making it easier to cut energy use and save money on bills.
• By 2012 we aim for a further 6 million households to have been helped with insulation.
• By 2011 we will phase out high-energy light bulbs in favour of energy efficient ones.
• Following the introduction of our Clean Energy Cash Back scheme, we will introduce a similar scheme in 2011 to encourage people to switch from conventional heating sources to renewable heat such as ground source heat pumps and solar thermal, which will provide savings over the longer term.
• Under our ambitious policies to support carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology, all new coal-fired power stations will be required to include CCS demonstration, and once the technology has been proven, we will require every coal-fired power station to retrofit CCS within five years.

To be honest, this seems pretty weak to me. Whilst there’s nothing wrong with many of the measures here, they’re good ideas in themselves, but it just doesn’t really seem enough. I know there are further measures in their manifesto about making all new homes carbon neutral, which are more encouraging , but I still feel it is more playing with the edges of the problem than doing enough to solve it. The last point focussing onmaking coal power stations more environmentally sound rather than investing in alternatives seems emblematic of this to me. I want more.

GREEN

• Use the £45 billion investment plan to kick-start a green industrial revolution so that low and zero-carbon sectors of the economy are the new platform for prosperity.
• Transform the energy production landscape by supporting renewable sources, including wind and micro-solar generation.
• Reduce emissions from aviation by ending the £10 billion subsidy of the aviation industry.
• Reduce waste by making waste reduction, re-use and recycling easier.
• Improve public transport and rail to cut emissions from vehicles.
• Retrofit homes, schools and hospitals with energy efficiency measures.
• A massive investment in renewable sources to support development of both large-scale wind and tidal generation and domestic micro-generation - together these measures would create 80,000 jobs in the first year.

As a contrast with Labour, you get a much more comprehensive set of ideas here – investments in public transport, massive expansion of renewable energy, investing in green technology (which to be fair, is a policy shared by Labour although not mentioned here). The costings maybe suspect, but the ambitions are laudable and I feel, lays down the right level of challenge for the others to meet.

UKIP

• This Party will ensure secure and affordable energy supplies to safeguard our growing economy.
• We will increase nuclear power generation to provide up to 50% of our growing electricity needs within 10-15 years, and accelerate the planning process to allow new reactors to replace old reactors on the same sites.
• We support efficient extraction of indigenous coal for use in cleaner coal-fired electricity generation plants.
• We will reduce the use of imported gas for electricity generation while maintaining it for direct heating.
• We require any further schemes of large-scale wind generation to be funded by the market, and limit any large-scale wind generation to offshore only.
• We support technologies and practice which improve energy conservation and efficiency.
• We encourage the development and use of renewable energy sources other than large-scale wind generators.

The tone here is very much economy first, environment second. In fact, the reasons for the changes proposed seems as much about cost and sustainability as environmental damage. There’s no serious backing for renewable energy and another vote grabbing appeal to NIMBYist tendancies towards wind generators. Very disappointing. Nuclear power remains a contentious issue in the environmental debate, but I’m yet to be convinced its a good idea.

CONSERVATIVES

• We have pledged to improve Britain's environment by working towards zero waste, providing incentives to recycle, encouraging sustainable water management, and taking action to help our wildlife.
• This party will introduce a Responsibility Deal on waste - a voluntary arrangement among producers to cut back on the production of waste and improve its disposal.
• We will put a floor under landfill tax until 2020 to give businesses long term certainty to invest in new forms of waste disposal and we will encourage councils to adopt a scheme which gives incentives to families that recycle.
• We will encourage greater competition in the water industry to help reduce water bills and improve efficiency and innovation, and we will look at regulatory reform to improve environmental standards.
• As well as targeted help for protected habitats and species we also need to take a broader ecosystem approach which improves the landscape as a whole.
• Having called for the Marine Act, we will work for wholesale reform of the Common Fisheries Policy to get a fair deal for Britain's fishermen and protect our marine environment.
• We are committed to increasing Britain's ability to cope with extreme weather conditions, for example by improving our flood prevention measures.

The opening statement here is great and strong. You can’t argue with them on waste management, but as with Labour I feel its a bit scattergun and doesn’t go far enough. I know they have other environmental policies including a backing of green technology, etc... I like the fact that they raise water management, but not the solution they propose – competition doesn’t solve everything and the desire for profits will sometimes be at odds with the needs of the environment. Similarly, the fisheries is a good issue to bring up and the CFP certainly needs reformed – some of its policies are bad for both fishermen and the marine environment, but the bottom line is that Europe is still over-fishing its waters and it needs to change and there might be a contradiction inherent in this policy between the needs of the environment and the needs of fishermen. The last point is a depressing one, but one that needs making – we do need to start preparing now for the effects of climate change and the more severe weather condition we may face.

LIB DEMS

• This Party will require energy companies to simplify the complicated tangle of different tariffs, requiring them to charge families less for a basic amount of energy used, to encourage responsible use.
• We will also introduce a fair social tariff system for disadvantaged families. We will roll out smart meters to all households within five years and insulate all of Britain's homes to a decent standard within 10 years.
• We will immediately raise the requirements of Building Regulations to ensure that all new homes are energy efficient and use 'Green Loans' to encourage people to invest in home energy efficiency and micro-renewables.
• We oppose construction of further nuclear power stations.
• This Party will drive a massive programme of investment in renewable energy sources such as wind, wave and solar. We will also transform the National Grid into a smart decentralised grid which will respond dynamically to the changing patterns of energy demand.
• We will invest now in the green technologies of the future delivering hundreds of thousands of new and better jobs in the years to come.
• We will prioritise achieving a global agreement providing leadership for an international framework that will enable each country to manage a transition to a low-carbon economy.
• We will help developing countries to mitigate and adapt to climate change.

This policy starts small and gets bigger as it goes, which kind of appeals to me, showing a range of measures from household energy to the global environment. The mention of the smart grid (which is responsive, so a domestic consumer with, say, a wind turbine on the roof, could put energy into the grid at some points in the day and consume from the grid at others) is pleasing as this increasingly the way forward and a number of other countries are considerably ahead of us in this regard. Yes to the support for renewable energy. Its also interesting that they are the one who highlight the need for us to be leaders for the world in this, which is vital, as is the support for developing countries mentioned.

Summary

For me these policies break into three pairs - the Green and the Lib Dems seem the most committed to far-reaching environmental action, Labour and the Tories are moving in that direction but limited in the scope of what they would actually do, whilst UKIP and BNP seem to have no real commitment other than superficially to back up the issues they really want to talk about. So my rating would be:

1. Lib Dems - just edging it through greater recognition of the global aspects

2. Greens - wide-ranging set of proposals covering a lot of things I'd like to see.

3. Conservatives - partly I'm giving them credit because I feel they've made a greater movement towards green than labour, who possibly started slightly closer. Partly, and sadly, I think that they're right that we need to start planning now to deal with the effects of climate change.

4. Labour - some good ideas, but doesn't go far enough.

5. UKIP - I just couldn't bring myself to put the BNPanything other than last, but this policy is very weak

6. BNP - racism dressed up as concern for the countryside and animals.

The next issue to be looked at will be the one nobody apart from UKIP wants to talk about - Europe. Might not happen for a while - volcanic ash allowing, I'm heading to France for a few days tomorrow, but might have time to do it before leave. Check back tomorrow to see.

The SNP budget - broken promises?

So, what to make of the SNP's first budget in power. All in all, I see it as a bit of a mixed bag - some good, some not so good. Yes, they have backtracked from some promises, especially over student debt, and completely fudged the issue of new police officers and reducing classroom sizes. To a certain extent this was inevitable - even without getting less money than they would have like from Westminster, it was always going to be debateable whether they could afford everything they'd promised, so, yes, I accept the argument that they have to prioritise what they think they can get through parliament.

And there is some good stuff in there - free prescriptions must surely be listed among these.

On the cautionary side, I would say that they are giving out a very mixed message environmentally - scrapping schemes which would promote air travel, putting more into public transport, but at the same time embarking on large road building/improvement schemes and removing tolls from the forth and tay bridges. The net result of which is probably a zero sum equation - little done to lower carbon emissions, but neither should they increase. My personal view, that's not good enough.

I also think, as Unison have warned, its a very tight budget for public services and it wouldn't take much in the way of unforeseen circumstances to break it.

I have yet to be convinced that the freeze on council tax is little more than an eye-catching gimmick until there are concrete plans to replace it. It will be interesting to see which authorities go along with it - given their dire financial situation currently, here in Edinburgh will be the most interesting one to watch.

Now, to get it through committee and parliament. From his responses to the various party leaders, Mr Salmond is clearly trying to woo the support of the Tories. He was far less dismissive to them and the tax incentives for small businesses will appeal to them. It remains to be seen if he has offered enough to get the greens on board as well. I kind of doubt it, which by my maths leaves him a vote short, but I may have got that wrong. Expect more serious negotiation - this is not the finished budget yet.

"There's something inherently romantic about...

TRAMS"

Go on, admit it, that wasn't quite what you were thinking of, was it. That's a quote from a guide to Riga i discovered on my recent trip there. In Edinburgh, on the other hand, it seems like there is something surprisingly controversial about trams.

For as long as I've been in Edinburgh they have been talking about reintroducing the tram and just when it looks like it might actually happen, along comes a new SNP administration to throw a spanner in the works. The other four political parties (tories, green, labour and lib-dems) all seem in favour of the tram and the reasons seem sound - a quicker, greener transport system for Edinburgh. So just what is the Nats problem with the good old tram.

• The cost is very high - £700 million for a system with just three routes that will leave vast swathes of the city unserviced. For that money you could completely replace all Lothian Regional Transport buses with more environmentally sound vehicles, increase services and still have few hundred million in change they argue. This would serve a much greater number of people in Edinburgh
• Trams are noisy - a bone of contention for those who live next to the proposed routes.
• There is also an under-acknowledged class element to this. One of the columnists in the Scotsman reported on attending a community meeting where she had been surprised to discover that the concensus was rather against than for the tram and one of the strongest feelings was that the tram was for those people who think they're too good to get on the bus with the rest of us.

The counter argument, I guess, is that the efficiency and attractiveness of the tram would be a greater incentive to get people out of their cars and onto public transport, which is surely better for the environment. You see, maybe it does all come down to romance after all. It is still undoubtedly true that more needs to be done in a city like Edinburgh to reduce car usage. I'm just not convinced that a limited tram service provides the best option for the money in order to do this.

One thing is sure - unlike the trams, the argument looks set to rumble on and on.