Here follows a medium length saga of your Core Group's
engagement with our MP Mel Stride, as we seek to develop a dialogue
with him over the government's response to the climate emergency.
The context is of rebuilding the economy after the pandemic, and
the latest assessment by the Committee on Climate Change (CCC)
of the government's performance against its target of 'net zero'
greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
Lots of words and few pictures, I'm afraid, but please bear
with, and then join with us in lobbying for urgent action.
Some background: the Committee on Climate Change
The Committee on Climate Change (CCC), is an
independent, statutary body made up of members with relevant
expertise, chaired by John Gummer, the conservative former
secretary of state for the environment.
It was created under the terms of the 2008 Climate Change Act,
which in turn committed the UK to fulfilling its duties under the
Kyoto Protocol to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to a level that
would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate
system. The government of the time initially proposed a 60% cut in
emissions by 2050, amended subsequently to an 80% cut.
The CCC produces an annual progress
report to parliament, in which it assesses the government's
performance in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and recommends
further action. Additionally, in May 2019 the Committee produced
its 'net zero report'
recommending the adoption of a revised target of net zero
greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
In June 2019, the Prime Minister Theresa May enshrined the net
zero target in UK law. There remain serious concerns about the
mechanism by which this may be achieved, especially through the use
of international carbon
credits, and whether even this revised target is sufficient to
avert disastrous global heating. It is however where the government
is currently at.
The CCC's annual progress report
published in June 2020, was not the first such report to be
highly critical of the government's progress in reducing emissions;
of which more, later.
The disaster of the global pandemic is seen by many as an
opportunity to rebuild our economy and society in ways which
address the current environmental crises.
Sustainable Crediton's response:
In July, we wrote to Mel Stride as follows, drawing very
much on the CCC's 2020 progress report:
'Dear Mel Stride,
We are writing as your constituents, and as the Core
Team of Sustainable Crediton to urge you to do everything in your
power to promote a green, sustainable, equitable recovery from the
pandemic crisis, one that will protect communities and climate in
as far as possible.
Sustainable Crediton, as you will know, is a
well-established organisation within the constituency, whose
mission is to help people to lead more sustainable lifestyles, and
work towards a carbon-neutral future. Some ideas we share are set
out below. We would like to ask you to meet a small group of our
members to discuss both these broad ideas and also some of the
practical ideas that we have for Central Devon.
We support the overarching ideas put forward by the
Build Back Better movement and by the Committee on Climate Change.
Firstly, the Build Back Better
movement, as you'll know, is pushing for a New Deal that protects
public services, tackles inequality, provides secure well-paid jobs
and creates a shock-proof economy to fight the climate crisis. The
New Deal needs to prioritise creating secure jobs in renewable
energy and sustainable transport, and investing in initiatives that
aim to end global injustice, conflict and environmental
degradation.
And, whilst there are evidently some constructive ideas
in the government's recovery plans as outlined so far, we are clear
that much greater priority needs to be given to protecting us from
the existential threat of global warming of more than 1.5o. As a
start, following the 6 Key Principles agreed by the Committee on Climate Change:
1. Use climate investments to support economic recovery
and jobs.
2. Lead a shift towards positive, long-term behaviours
(eg home-working, remote medical consultations and improved safety
for cyclists)
3. Tackle the wider 'resilience deficit' on climate
change (reducing the UK's vulnerability to the destructive risks of
climate change to bring benefits to health, well-being and national
security.)
4. Embed fairness as a core principle.(the costs must
not burden those who are least able to pay, or whose livelihoods
are most at risk as the economy changes)
5. Ensure the recovery does not lock-in greenhouse gas
emissions or increased risk. (Support for carbon-intensive sectors
should be contingent on them taking real and lasting action on
climate change)
6. Strengthen incentives to reduce emissions when
considering tax changes.
More recently the Committee on Climate Change has
identified five clear investment priorities for the months
ahead:
1. Low-carbon retrofits and buildings that are fit for
the future
2. Tree planting, peatland restoration, and green
infrastructure
3. Energy networks must be strengthened
4. Infrastructure to make it easy for people to walk,
cycle, and work remotely
5. Moving towards a circular economy.
The CCC also identified opportunities to support the
transition and the recovery by investing in the UK's workforce, and
in lower-carbon behaviours and innovation:
1. Reskilling and retraining programmes
2. Leading a move towards positive
behaviours
3. Targeted science and innovation funding
Please will you let us know what support you can provide
for these ideas, and please would you also agree to meet us to
discuss them.
Yours sincerely,
Dee Ross EX17
1DS
Esther Mann EX17 2DL
John Craythorne EX17
2DA
Caroline Romijn EX17 5NX'
Mel Stride's response:
In August, we received the following reply:
Thank you for your email.
In my capacity as Chair of the Treasury Select Committee
I am involved in the Climate Assembly and the production of its
report. I think that the publication of the report would be a good
time for me to meet a small number of representatives so as to
ensure all constituency climate change groups are involved.
You will appreciate that I have received several requests to meet
from groups across the constituency.
On this basis I will come back to you shortly and would
be grateful if you could convey this message to the others in your
group.
Rt Hon.
Mel Stride MP
Member of Parliament for Central Devon
A bit more context: the Climate Assembly UK
The Climate Assembly (CA) UK was set up by the government,
bringing together 100+ people from all walks of life and of all
shades of opinion to discuss how the UK should meet its 'net zero'
emissions target.
The assembly members met over six weekends in Spring 2020. They
heard balanced evidence on the choices the UK faces, discussed
them, and made recommendations about what the UK should do to
become net zero by 2050. Their final report was published on
Thursday 10 September 2020.
The CA was convened by six select committees of the House of
Commons, Mel Stride being chair of the Treasury Select
Committee.
Mel's further letter: September
'Dear Ms Romijn,
I write further to my e-mail on the Climate
Assembly (report) launch meeting, to which I, as
Chair of the Treasury Select Committee, will
contribute.
The meeting will take place on Thursday, 10
September, commencing at 9am. It will be available to view on
the Parliamentary YouTube channel and potentially on parliament.tv,
too. There will be a Q & A session at which key
stakeholders and the press will be given an opportunity to ask
questions.
In addition to this, the Treasury Committee
announced on 24 July that it would relaunch its inquiry
'Decarbonisation of the UK Economy and Green Finance' to seek
additional written evidence on how and whether the UK's response to
coronavirus should take the Government's net zero carbon emissions
target into account.
My comments as Chair were as
follows:
"The Committee has received a great deal of
evidence since launching this inquiry over a year ago. But with the
impact on the economy of coronavirus, clearly much has changed.
The Climate Assembly's report published last month said
that post-lockdown steps to aid economic recovery should drive
progress to achieve net zero.
So now is the time to ask whether the Government
can seize the opportunity presented by the crisis to further green
the economy to achieve net zero by 2050.
Whether the level of HMT support should depend on
how much companies pollute, or if it should directly fund green
infrastructure, are some of the issues that we would like evidence
on."
I hope that you will be able to participate.
Submissions can be made until Tuesday 6 October on the Committee
website here:
https://committees.parliament.uk/work/96/decarbonisation-and-green-finance/.
I would be happy for you to share your submission
with me as your Member of Parliament - and do share this
information with the others in your group.
Many thanks.
With best wishes,
Mel
Rt Hon. Mel Stride MP
Member of Parliament for Central Devon'
Our response to the Treasury Select Committee, copied to
Mel Stride, 5 October. Note that some of the on-line pro-forma
details have been edited out for the sake of clarity.
Organisation name:
Sustainable Crediton
Core Group comprises:
1. Dee Ross, Chair
2. Esther Mann, Treasurer
3. John Craythorne, Communications
4. Caroline Romijn, Secretary
Introduction
Sustainable Crediton is a well-established organisation
in the constituency of Central Devon, with a membership of 750 and
a mission to help local people to lead more sustainable lifestyles
and work towards a carbon-neutral future. We write now to support
financial policies and investment that will help us to Build Back
Better following the Coronavirus crisis.
We support measures that will protect public services,
tackle inequality, provide secure well-paid jobs and create a
shock-proof economy to fight the climate crisis. We need to create
secure jobs in renewable energy and sustainable transport, and
invest in initiatives that aim to end global injustice, conflict
and environmental degradation , and to support
biodiversity.
Response to Question 1: Should the Treasury's support package to
business distinguish between companies based on how much they
pollute?
Yes: the support package must distinguish between
businesses on the basis of an agreed range of measures of impact
& pollution, and should aim to develop a circular
economy.
Carbon output & energy use: The Treasury should
support businesses that use renewable energy sources/ low energy
processes and sustainable (ideally local) distribution methods.
Also businesses that directly provide sustainable public transport,
and not airlines that promote unsustainable air travel. Also
agricultural businesses that follow measures to decarbonise. There
should be no support for building/ construction companies which do
not comply with government's own Future Homes
Standards.
Use of resources and materials: The Treasury should use
the package to support and encourage innovation in new materials
use, minimising usage of precious resources and materials, and the
recycling and repurposing of materials.
Plastics and packaging: The Treasury should support only
those businesses which reduce the amounts of plastic and packaging
they use. This can include charging companies for plastic they
produce, and introducing requirements for them to take back/
recycle their packaging. Support should be provided to companies
that use or switch to more sustainable systems.
General environmental pollution and impact on
biodiversity: The Treasury should disincentivise / avoid supporting
badly polluting sectors eg coal mining, fossil fuel energy,
businesses that use and discharge polluting chemicals. This should
be accompanied by stronger regulation of manufacturing pollution
and waste. Support should go to businesses which are seriously
investing in cleaning up their act and reducing their negative
impact on biodiversity.
Response to Question 2: Should the Treasury be directly funding
Green infrastructure as part of its coronavirus spending
package
Yes: in our view the Treasury should definitely fund
green infrastructure projects.
Energy: The Treasury should directly fund renewable
energy projects (wind, solar, tidal, ground and air heat source
etc). We need investment in large scale projects and also
incentives/ support for individuals/ small companies to install.
Also investment in research and development in the new technologies
including battery design, and investment in a network of car
charging points.
Housing & construction: As a minimum, the treasury
should use funds to incentivise builders and construction companies
to meet or exceed the Future Homes Standard, in its entirety, with
immediate effect, before the statutory implementation in 2025. Even
better if the Future Homes Standard could be introduced with
immediate effect for new starts, and applied not only to new
housing, but also to industrial and commercial buildings. Also
greater use of wood and local building materials (zero energy
building) to be incentivised or mandated. We also need funding or
compulsion to ensure that the layout of new housing developments
prioritises pedestrian, cyclist and public transport access over
private transport. Funding should also be made available for
retro-fitting housing with insulation and sustainable heating
systems.
Transport: The treasury should use funds to
re-prioritise public transport (to make it adequate and affordable)
and to pay for 'coronavirus' adaptations to current bus and train
stock: spaced seating, improved ventilation, and new cleaning
standards, to make travel covid-safe so that usage levels rise
again. And, as coronavirus has driven many public transport users
to use private vehicles again, the Treasury should support measures
to reduce fossil fuel vehicles, promote the use of electric
vehicles, and support investment in charging points. In fact this
is a good opportunity to invest in the development and introduction
of electric/ other energy for all vehicles: cars, lorries, air
travel and shipping. Alongside this the Treasury should invest in
cycle routes, and promote cycling with investment in secure cycle
parks, cycle purchase schemes and funding for Cycling Proficiency
Training.
Local Shopping: During the pandemic there has been a
beneficial rise in the use of 'local' shops, with the advantage of
reducing food miles, reducing shopping miles, and promoting sales
of local products. We need the Treasury to support this trend with
tax breaks/ incentives to support small traders.
Home working/ flexible working/ access to high speed
internet: In order that the benefits of increased home working and
flexible working (less time wasted on commuting, less carbon output
from travel) can be sustained, we need the Treasury to support more
rapid development of High Speed Broadband.
Reforestation, farming and fisheries. The importance of
woodlands, peatland and gorselands in carbon storage is well
understood. Additional arguments for providing financial support
for tree planting and 'managed biodiversity' in this era of
coronavirus are that , with travel overseas reduced, the amenity
value and health benefits of green spaces and woodland for
recreation and for 'holidays-at-home' are now more widely
appreciated. Treasury should definitely invest in this, as well as
in support for organic farming and fisheries
protection.
Social behaviours: Coronavirus has revealed that the
public are open to adopting more ethical and altruistic,
community-minded behaviours. The Treasury could invest directly in
education campaigns to
promote green and ethical behaviours. Recycling
requirements for businesses could be made more stringent and
promoted. The Treasury could fund local councils/ local assemblies
to address local issues.
Investment in school buildings, sports buildings,
medical centres - with new designs to allow distancing and
ventilation
Question 3: Are there any green-related policies that the
Treasury should change or commence due to the Coronavirus in order
to facilitate the transition to meeting net zero?
Planning legislation: Recent proposals to reduce local
authority control of Planning should be reversed; in the interim
until 2025 when the Future Homes Standard is introduced, local
councils are unable to stipulate that new builds should be carbon
neutral.
Public Transport fares and subsidies: Government needs
to set an affordable level for fares, and subsidise as necessary in
order to get people back onto public transport. Aircraft fuel
should be taxed at the same or a higher level than other fuels, so
that airfares become more realistic, and train fares are
competitive. The Treasury could set targets for usage levels on
public transport, once affordable fares are in place.
Recycling incentives: Requirements for recycling by
businesses should be stepped up, with financial
incentives.
Agriculture: Farm subsidies to be dependent on both
biodiversity measures and also on progress towards decarbonisation
of agriculture.
Question 4: In which ways will the new economy post-coronavirus
allow the government to change the way it finances meeting the Net
Zero target?
Supporting new business start-ups and social
enterprises: Increased financial support for new green businesses
and social enterprises which meet sustainability targets. Such new
businesses will be much needed to replace businesses which have
gone bankrupt during coronavirus. Bottom up consultation via
democratic participation so as to include public investment in and
adoption of greener practices is the way forward. We should revisit
LA21 process, enabling participation and understanding of problems
and solutions.
International dimension - cooperation and
diversification: Coronavirus has brought home the interdependency
of countries in tackling the virus. Nobody's economy will improve
until all do. Similarly for climate change and Net Zero. Therefore
we need international cooperation, continuing funding of aid
budgets, and investment in thorough preparations to make COP26 a
success. National specialisation in specific sectors (eg financial
services for the UK) is no longer sustainable; we need to diversify
the economy and increase 'sustainable' manufacturing.
Question 5: Are there outcomes from the coronavirus that will
enable the treasury and HMRC to meet the Net Zero target more
easily?
Tax rises: It seems inevitable that tax rises will be
necessary post coronavirus. Just now, while there is awareness that
the low-paid, who have suffered disproportionately during the
pandemic, should not be further penalised, this is the right moment
to introduce Wealth Taxes and higher taxes on luxury spending. It
is also a time when political will may be found to change taxation
to favour greener behaviour: stiffer penalties for non-compliance
with green regulations; taxes on polluters and on businesses with
an excessive carbon footprint including airlines and
oil-tankers.
Home and flexible working: Helps by reducing emissions
from commuting, as long as continuing encouragement/
incentivisation is provided. Home working during the winter will
entail greater use of household heating; therefore Treasury needs
to invest in support for house insulation and
retrofitting.
What happens next?
It's hard not to be concerned at the apparent lack of actual
action. It is concerning that the Treasury Select Committee is not
only asking how, but 'whether' the Government can seize the
opportunity presented by the (Covid) crisis to further green the
economy to achieve net zero by 2050: as if it is optional, if we
are to avoid climate breakdown and bearing in mind that the
government as reported by the CCC, is currently well off course
from achieving its net zero goal.
Presumably all of the six select committees which convened the
Climate Assembly will now be considering their response to its
report.
In October 2016, Boris Johnson set up the Cabinet Committee on
Climate Change. What role that will play in decisions about
'greening' the economic recovery is unknown.
We will continue to be asking questions and making contributions
to the debate, on behalf of our membership.
What we want you to do
Firstly, thanks for staying with this to the end of the rabbit
hole! What we really want you to do however is to now press the
case for change in whatever ways are available to you:
firstly, by emailing your thoughts to Mel Stride:
mel.stride.mp@parliament.uk . It only takes 15 minutes to put an
email together, so why not do it now?!
secondly, do whatever else you can to call for action on climate
change. How about the local paper: Crediton Courier:
editor@creditoncourier.co.uk
Or, if you aren't already, get active within Sustainable
Crediton and help with this stuff. It all takes time, but the more
people who are active the less there is for everyone to do: good,
eh?