What a month it’s been for “the first ever green chancellor.” Rachel Reeves marked the hottest January of living memory, at 1.75C above preindustrial levels, by announcing carbon-guzzling expansions to a raft of London airports, including Heathrow’s long-touted new runway. In the days prior, the government sank the long-awaited “Climate and Nature Bill” which would have made our climate commitments legally binding; now, however, Reeves is practically piloting Concorde through them. (Still, at least she also announced a new “Silicon Valley” for the southeast: I’m sure all the ex-Labour voters now leaning Reform across northern and midland England will be delighted.)
Apparently, the new runway is needed for “growth,” but that doesn’t quite pass the smell test. Compared to, say, a new high-speed railway connecting England’s great Northern cities, how does the growth benefit stack up? How about using that pot of cash for our flailing public services? It’s hard not to see the Heathrow announcement as what it really is: an ill-conceived fig leaf hastily plastered over an economic strategy that is all cuts, no thrust. Tellingly, few within Labour seem to expect it to ever be built, anyway: it’ll take too long to plan, too long to build, and will fail its climate tests anyway. Like a bad Boeing jet, it’ll never get off the ground.
But worse is on the way. Last month, the Court of Session ruled that the previous Westminster government assented to two new fossil fuel projects, the Rosebank oilfield and Jackdaw gas field, unlawfully. This ought to see the two developments rejected — yet reports are cropping up that suggest Starmer and Reeves are keen to see the two pushed through.
Tessa Khan, executive director of Uplift, observed that “science is crystal clear that we can’t create new oil and gas fields if we’re going to stay within safe climate thresholds.” Very true. But if the government doesn’t care about safe climate thresholds, then all bets are off, never mind the future consequences. Which, by the way, look desperate: there’s a reason we need to transition to renewables, and there’s a reason experts at the UN keep using those stomach-churning phrases like “liveable future.”
James Hansen, one of the world’s most renowned climate scientists, has just said that the Paris Agreement’s 2C target is “dead,” and that our current trajectory would lead to “the point of no return” being passed within the next 20-30 years when global heating derails the Atlantic’s circulation mechanism, freezing Britain. None of which is encouraging. But it’s also a bit too Just Stop Oil for Labour, is it not?
Perhaps Reeves would prefer to hear from high-powered City thinkers and economic sophists. Like the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries, who recently released a report stressing that humanity is on track to breach the boundaries of a liveable world sooner rather than later, with “catastrophic to extreme” impacts. Reeves wants Rosebank and Heathrow for “growth,” so you’d think she’d be concerned to hear the actuaries’ projection that by 2070-90, 50 per cent of global GDP may be lost, alongside horrific impacts: billions of deaths and forced migrations, mass wildlife extinctions, state failure, crop failures, water crises, collapsed ocean circulation… it is a lot. And bear in mind that the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries are a staid, stolid, centuries-old actuarial overseeing body. They’re hardly glueing themselves to roads.
Cast in this light, approving Rosebank, Jackdaw and Heathrow appears for what it truly is: an act of total economic illiteracy. But Reeves has constructed her castle on short-term sand. She cannot envisage these catastrophes befalling Britain — and nor can most of us — but being unable to imagine something does not mean it will not happen.
Our generation deserves a liveable future. We all do. And we are lucky enough to live at a time where we still have a chance of securing one, however slim. Labour must commit to the green transition, despite their reservations. There is no choice anymore. The government must do what is best for the country: sit down, shut up, and eat their greens.
“Edinburgh Climate March COP27 November 2022” by Friends of the Earth Scotland is licensed under CC BY 2.0.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Related
Rachel Reeves: Green Chancellor or Climate Change Chancer?
What a month it’s been for “the first ever green chancellor.” Rachel Reeves marked the hottest January of living memory, at 1.75C above preindustrial levels, by announcing carbon-guzzling expansions to a raft of London airports, including Heathrow’s long-touted new runway. In the days prior, the government sank the long-awaited “Climate and Nature Bill” which would have made our climate commitments legally binding; now, however, Reeves is practically piloting Concorde through them. (Still, at least she also announced a new “Silicon Valley” for the southeast: I’m sure all the ex-Labour voters now leaning Reform across northern and midland England will be delighted.)
Apparently, the new runway is needed for “growth,” but that doesn’t quite pass the smell test. Compared to, say, a new high-speed railway connecting England’s great Northern cities, how does the growth benefit stack up? How about using that pot of cash for our flailing public services? It’s hard not to see the Heathrow announcement as what it really is: an ill-conceived fig leaf hastily plastered over an economic strategy that is all cuts, no thrust. Tellingly, few within Labour seem to expect it to ever be built, anyway: it’ll take too long to plan, too long to build, and will fail its climate tests anyway. Like a bad Boeing jet, it’ll never get off the ground.
But worse is on the way. Last month, the Court of Session ruled that the previous Westminster government assented to two new fossil fuel projects, the Rosebank oilfield and Jackdaw gas field, unlawfully. This ought to see the two developments rejected — yet reports are cropping up that suggest Starmer and Reeves are keen to see the two pushed through.
Tessa Khan, executive director of Uplift, observed that “science is crystal clear that we can’t create new oil and gas fields if we’re going to stay within safe climate thresholds.” Very true. But if the government doesn’t care about safe climate thresholds, then all bets are off, never mind the future consequences. Which, by the way, look desperate: there’s a reason we need to transition to renewables, and there’s a reason experts at the UN keep using those stomach-churning phrases like “liveable future.”
James Hansen, one of the world’s most renowned climate scientists, has just said that the Paris Agreement’s 2C target is “dead,” and that our current trajectory would lead to “the point of no return” being passed within the next 20-30 years when global heating derails the Atlantic’s circulation mechanism, freezing Britain. None of which is encouraging. But it’s also a bit too Just Stop Oil for Labour, is it not?
Perhaps Reeves would prefer to hear from high-powered City thinkers and economic sophists. Like the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries, who recently released a report stressing that humanity is on track to breach the boundaries of a liveable world sooner rather than later, with “catastrophic to extreme” impacts. Reeves wants Rosebank and Heathrow for “growth,” so you’d think she’d be concerned to hear the actuaries’ projection that by 2070-90, 50 per cent of global GDP may be lost, alongside horrific impacts: billions of deaths and forced migrations, mass wildlife extinctions, state failure, crop failures, water crises, collapsed ocean circulation… it is a lot. And bear in mind that the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries are a staid, stolid, centuries-old actuarial overseeing body. They’re hardly glueing themselves to roads.
Cast in this light, approving Rosebank, Jackdaw and Heathrow appears for what it truly is: an act of total economic illiteracy. But Reeves has constructed her castle on short-term sand. She cannot envisage these catastrophes befalling Britain — and nor can most of us — but being unable to imagine something does not mean it will not happen.
Our generation deserves a liveable future. We all do. And we are lucky enough to live at a time where we still have a chance of securing one, however slim. Labour must commit to the green transition, despite their reservations. There is no choice anymore. The government must do what is best for the country: sit down, shut up, and eat their greens.
“Edinburgh Climate March COP27 November 2022” by Friends of the Earth Scotland is licensed under CC BY 2.0.
Share this:
Like this:
Related