In his interview with the Sunday Telegraph proclaiming himself to be pro-car, Rishi Sunak made an interesting point: that this was not about post-Uxbridge opportunism but about his values. ‘I have a set of principles and values that are important to me, and that anchor my approach to life and to government.’ He added, as a drive-by, that “I don’t see that across the despatch box”” – but let’s set Starmer aside. What are his values? I’d say that his driving principle is what you might call tradeoff-ism: a belief in the need to be frank about the choices facing a country and its government. And those values may rub up against the Net Zero agenda.
To govern is to choose: that’s an old saying. But Rishi Sunak would take it further. If you do X it means you won’t do Y and a politician who doesn’t spell this out, who promises the ends without discussing the means, is basically lying. Hence his anger at Liz Truss: he thought she was hawking tax cuts without coming up for a means of paying for them, therefore selling a lie. Hence his concerns about lockdown. Sunak thought the public were being sold anti-Covid measures without the costs of these measures being calculated, let alone explained. When Boris Johnson ordered robust action against Russian gas during the Ukraine crisis, Sunak was fuming that No.10 did not explain that this would mean higher energy costs.
The net zero agenda is from the same intellectual family as lockdown, using the so-called ‘precautionary principle’ approach rather than the cost-benefit analysis that normally governs decisions. Precautionary principle arguments normally deploy hyperbole in the face of uncertainty – ‘we lock down, or we let it rip and millions die!’ ‘we do net zero, or we fry!’ – rather than making a rational case by quantifying how effective the policies will be, or how this is worth the price paid. When there is no rational case for a policy, advocates rely on appeal to authority ‘experts say X, ergo X – and if you disagree, then you’re a populist’.
For example, Sadiq Khan says he is proceeding with ULEZ expansion because 4,000 die every year due to air quality issues. So verbally, he juxtaposes his policy vs 4,000 deaths – but how robust is that figure? And how much would ULEZ expansion set to reduce that 4,000 by? I might have missed this in the original report, but I’m unaware of any such calculation. Others have also looked in vain. And this may be why so many Londoners regard ULEZ as hot air. Normally, public health interventions require a high calibre of evidence. But when this requirement falls, so does confidence in those interventions.
Failure to properly consider trade-offs or conduct a rational cost-benefit analysis risks lumbering a country with expensive solutions that do not address the problem. Rational thinking, red-team challenges and ruthless application of imagination and logic are the virtues that allow mankind to solve the greatest problems of our age. The bigger the problem, the calmer and more level-headed the analysis needs to be. Using the hyperbolic method – “if you don’t back ULEZ, you want 4,000 to die!” – seldom leads to a proper solution. And seldom convinces.
In a democracy, rationalism tends to assert itself in the end: you can’t fool all of the people all of the time. The cost of lockdown is now, all too apparent. Expensive policies that don’t really work are brought down because they are rumbled by voters.
We can see this happening now with net zero. Green policies have strong support from the public, shown not just in opinion polling but everyday consumer decisions that have ushered in an era of stunning progress. But does it need to be accelerated at huge cost that will hit the poorest hardest? As Tony Blair says, what about China? The UK, in a global context, is surely unable to move the global warming dial:-
Theresa May signed up to net zero in her last few weeks in office with minimal debate – which also indicated a lack of thought and seriousness. Boris Johnson hated being pinned down on anything, so rushed out his ideas ("Jet Zero" etc) without any policy backing. But now his 2030 deadline is approaching which focuses the mind.
Green policies agreed upon at a time when hard questions were not being asked (or answered) face proper scrutiny now. Protests in the Netherlands, Germany and Slovakia have seen the EU roll back on its targets. Sweden's young environment minister is rolling back her targets. The backlash to Ulez , seen in the Uxbridge election result, doesn’t come so much from affected motorists (there aren't very many of those) but voters who feel their intelligence is being insulted. Starmer wants Khan to soften on Ulez (and Blair wants Starmer to soften on net zero) because they want Labour to win elections. Corrective democratic forces are starting to work. This means a move towards what I’d call green realism.
I'd like to bring in here Chris Stark, who runs the Climate Change Committee. A strong advocate of the net zero target, but accepts the need to discuss trade-offs. Today’s Sunday Telegraph reports him saying that his committee 'actually said 2032 was the more appropriate date to phase out sales' of petrol and diesel cars but Boris Johnson preferred a round number of 2030. This, sadly, squares with the record of the Johnson government – huge declarations made without a clue about how to achieve them, in the belief that if the commitment is there, then a plan will just have to follow.
The refusal to acknowledge such sacrifices is central to the magical thinking of the Boris-era of net zero pledges. That’s why they are, in many ways, an illusory agenda. It also tends not to acknowledge the huge progress made by the UK so far in cutting carbon emissions faster than any G20 country – to the lowest since Victorian days.
In an interview (again with the Sunday Telegraph) Philip Hammond identifies a 'cross-party disease' of politicians refusing to level with voters about the 'significant' cost of net zero. As Chancellor, he once commissioned a rogue report putting this at £1 trillion – to the fury of May, who wanted to dodge this question. Hammond is not being pro or anti green here, simply saying that voters deserve to know how much an agenda will cost. After all, it’s their money that politicians are spending.
For years, advocates of net zero have tried to shy away from proper debate about that cost. They can no longer do so. The result, as we say in a Spectator leading article, is an overdue debate, and perhaps the start of a new era of green realism. Both Labour and the Conservatives know this is on its way, and that they’ll have to adjust. But who will do so first, and more convincingly? In his new crusade over "anti-car" measures, we can see Sunak reposition himself as a green realist. In confronting Khan over Ulez, we can see Starmer seek to do so as well. Both think this could be central to winning the red wall, but both need to do enough to keep the Green Party off their back. It's a difficult balance to strike, but both parties seem to be trying move beyond "Net Zero by 2050" and find a more credible and politically deliverable form of environmentalism.
Comments