A greener shade of blue? Reflections on new Conservative approaches to the environment

a greener shade of blue?reflections on new Conservativeapproaches to the environment

S3518_wayne_v5 11/5/07 15:01

a gr

eene

r sh

ade

of b

lue?

a greener shade of blue? reflections on new Conservative approaches to the environment

edited by Tracy Carty

Green Alliance is an independent charity. For 28 years we have worked with businesses and other environmentalcharities to make environmental solutions a priority in British politics. We work with representatives of all threeof the main political parties to encourage new ideas, facilitate dialogue and secure new commitments to actionand progress on the environment.

Designed and printed by Seacourt www.seacourt.net on paper with at least 75% recycled content.© Green Alliance 2007£5ISBN 978-1-905869-02-2

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, inany form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Green Alliance.Within the UK, exceptionsare allowed in respect of any fair dealing for the purposes of private research or study, or criticism or review, aspermitted under the Copyright, Design and Patents Act, 1988, or in the case of reprographic reproduction inaccordance with the terms of the licenses issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency.

This report is sold subject to condition that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, resold, hired out orotherwise circulated without the publisher’s prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than in which itwas published and without a similar condition including the condition being imposed on a subsequent purchaser.

Green Alliance36 Buckingham Palace Road, London, SW1W 0REtel: 020 7233 7433 fax: 020 7233 9033email: [email protected]: www.green-alliance.org.uk

Green Alliance is a registered charity number 1045395.Company Limited by guarantee, registered number 3037633

S3518_wayne_v5 11/5/07 15:01

a gr

eene

r sh

ade

of b

lue?

1

contents

easier said than done: the ecological challenge for Conservatism _02Stephen Hale

improving our environment: a social responsibility _09Rt Hon David Cameron MP

paying the price _16Rt Hon John Gummer MP

the role of the state _19Nick Hurd MP

looking after the environment, looking after the economy _24George Osborne MP

the greening of the Tory party: rhetoric or reality? _30Charles Secrett

accidents and achievements: the Conservative environmental record _38Tom Burke

why beauty matters _44Rt Hon Oliver Letwin MP

S3518_wayne_v5 11/5/07 15:01

Conservatism has been a distinct ideological strandin British political life for over two hundred years.The environment was a significant element ofConservative thought at the outset, as DavidCameron notes in his contribution to this collection.

But the nature of the environmental challenge haschanged profoundly over that time.The astonishingspeed of globalisation and economic developmenthas brought a catalogue of environmental impactsthat threaten the foundations of our current andfuture prosperity, and pose a new and urgentchallenge for the philosophy and political parties ofleft and right.

Even two years has proved to be a long time inenvironmental politics. In that time, environmentalissues have moved from the margins to the centre ofBritish politics and public debate.That process beganwith Tony Blair’s decision to make climate change afocus of the G8 Summit in 2005. But DavidCameron has dramatically accelerated the pace ofchange. He is the first leader of a major Britishpolitical party to make the environment a centraltheme of his leadership from the outset. GreenAlliance welcomes that.

This pamphlet brings together an impressive set ofcontributors to look much further ahead and explore

the Conservative’s emerging approach to theenvironmental agenda, as well as the lessons ofrecent history. We are grateful to all of them: DavidCameron himself, George Osborne, Oliver Letwin,John Gummer and Nick Hurd from the ConservativeParty, and two eminent independentenvironmentalists, Tom Burke and Charles Secrett.Together they provide important insights and lessonsfor those concerned with the Conservative’s futureapproach.

This essay explores three issues:

• the ideological challenge that the environmentposes to modern Conservative thinking;

• the approach proposed to that challenge bycontributors to this collection; and

• the lessons for the Conservatives of Labour’sexperience in government.

Why are we doing this?Green Alliance was established in 1979 with amission to green British politics. Government policyis naturally our primary pre-occupation. But we alsofocus on the environmental policies of bothopposition parties, and have hosted speeches inrecent times by Charles Kennedy, David Cameron andhis predecessor, Michael Howard.

easier said than done: the ecological challenge for ConservatismStephen Hale

a gr

eene

r sh

ade

of b

lue?

2

S3518_wayne_v5 11/5/07 15:01

We have chosen to publish this collection on newConservative approaches to the environment becausethe discussion within the party is now entering acrucial phase, and David Cameron’s focus on theenvironment has dramatically raised the stakes. Afterten years of a Labour government, it is clearer thanever that speeches and exhortation alone do notdeliver. A strong philosophical foundation andresolute political leadership are critical to drivingchange across Whitehall and in society.

All roads lead to the shadow cabinetThe policy commissions appointed by DavidCameron report in the summer of 2007.Theappointment of Zac Goldsmith and John Gummer asco-chairs of the Quality of Life Commission hasraised hopes and expectations of this process in theenvironmental community.

But there are of course six policy commissions.Theirmake-up is a reminder that David Cameron’sConservative Party (like Tony Blair’s New Labour) isa very broad church. Despite efforts to build linksbetween them, their reports seem likely to provide afull and often contradictory menu of approaches andspecific proposals.

So all roads lead to the shadow cabinet, and thesmall group of politicians and advisers who are thedriving force behind Cameron’s Conservatives.Theywill pull together a substantive response to thepolicy commissions for approval by the shadowcabinet and publication in early 2008. It will be thefirst real opportunity to assess the prospects forenvironmental policy under a future Conservativegovernment.

A profound challenge for the right (and left) The most urgent issue facing all parties is of courseclimate change, on which we must take decisiveaction globally within the next ten years. If we fail todo so, Nicholas Stern’s report on the economics ofclimate change1 found that it could have a greatereconomic impact than the last two world wars andthe great depression of the 1930s. It could reduceglobal gross domestic product by as much as 20 percent, leaving aside the ecological and humanitarianimpacts. It is a challenge that defies categorisation,with immense economic, social,security and developmentimplications.

Above all, it is already an impendinghuman tragedy.To take just oneexample, a two degree rise in globaltemperatures would increase the areaof Bangladesh annually affected byflooding by at least 25 per cent. Globally, theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Changeestimates that it could create 200 million refugees by2050. Climate change is not simply anenvironmental problem.

But it is also not the only environmental problem.The urgent need for action on climate change is nowacknowledged across the British political spectrum,at least in principle. But the need for action on manyother issues is much less well understood. Currentpatterns of economic life in the UK bring with thema variety of other profound effects, from thedestruction of the rainforests internationally to theloss of countryside to development in Britain andthe public health effects of our addiction to the car.

a gr

eene

r sh

ade

of b

lue?

3

“ David Cameron’sfocus on theenvironment hasdramaticallyraised the stakes”

S3518_wayne_v5 11/5/07 15:01

The underlying issue in all of these cases is theimperative to respect ecological limits. It has beenthe recurring theme of contemporary greenthinking, though interpreted in many different ways.It challenges the economic growth paradigm thatdominates mainstream thinking on both left and

right.Their responses will vary.But both must find new waysto meet our needs that respectglobal, national and localenvironmental limits.

The modern environmentalagenda is associated more

frequently with the left than the right. But theenvironmental case should not be seen as a preserveof the left-liberal parties, for several reasons:

• the global scale and complexity of the challengesposed by climate disruption and other ‘tragediesof the commons’ demand as much intellectualand political ingenuity and energy as we cangenerate;

• parties of the left have not been consistentlyeffective at developing solutions to environmentalchallenges, partly as a result of their roots in thepolitics and economics of production andconsumption; and most importantly

• while the dominant strand in recent Conservativethinking has been highly damaging to theenvironment, there is a Conservative traditionthat places a strong emphasis on stewardship ofthe land and the conservation of natural heritage.

Conservative philosophy and theenvironmentDavid Cameron’s contribution to this collectionopens by arguing that “it is precisely because mypolitical outlook is rooted in Conservatism that I amso passionate about the environment”. He is right toargue that there are synergies between theConservative and environmental agendas. Someforms of Conservatism have placed a strongemphasis on preserving the commons and thecommon good, and taken a multi-generationalperspective that accords a real weight to the legacythat we leave to future generations.The contributionby Oliver Letwin to this collection, on the need toaccord beauty a prominence in our politicaldecision-making, draws on that heritage.

But Conservatism is a broad intellectual philosophy.The neo-liberal version of Conservatism that has hadsuch a strong influence on American and BritishConservative thinking over the past thirty years hasproven very environmentally destructive. It haspromoted ‘market forces’ to the detriment ofcommunities and family life. It has tended to fostereconomic growth without a proper regard for theenvironment, and to be reluctant to intervene inimperfect markets. There are notable exceptions ofcourse, but the dominant underlying ideology hasled to irreversible environmental damage.

David Cameron’s emerging philosophy of socialresponsibility is a significant departure from thisneo-liberal model. But it underpins a familiar call fora smaller state, in line with Conservative traditionsand in contrast to what he argues is Labour’soverbearing statism.

4

“ the environmental caseshould not be seen asa preserve of the left-liberal parties”a

gree

ner

shad

e of

blu

e?

S3518_wayne_v5 11/5/07 15:01

The big issue: the role of the stateMany environmentalists would challenge theapplication of this critique to Labour’s record ingovernment.The environmental critics of thechancellor argue that he has intervened too little, nottoo much.The role of the state is the central issuethat David Cameron must resolve if he is to developan approach to the environment that delivers ingovernment. Does the environmental imperativerequire greater state intervention and, if so, is there aclear Conservative foundation for such action?

This is the focus of both DavidCameron’s and Nick Hurd’scontributions. Nick Hurd tacklessome of the underlyingideological issues head on. Heacknowledges the Conservative’sinstinctive scepticism ofgovernment intervention, andasks how a Conservativegovernment can therefore dealwith the urgent challenge ofclimate change.This tension isparticularly pressing for Nick,who has argued that the UK should aim for an 80per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050. Heoutlines what he sees as the key roles of the state andasks “to what degree are we prepared to championthe freedom of personal choice when those choicesimpose a high cost on others?”

David Cameron’s contribution explores similarterritory. He sketches out the implications forenvironmental policy of his philosophy of ‘socialresponsibility’. He rightly makes a virtue of theobservation that “the state does not have all the

answers.” As he says, we need a step change inpersonal and business commitment and action totackle climate change successfully.

But it also includes signs of his recognition that thisdoes not imply downplaying the role of the state.Indeed, he goes some way to acknowledging thatgreater action by government will be essential toenabling this individual and business action. Heargues that “…of all these responsibilities, thegreatest lies with government, which must give a

lead on the issue and set theagenda.”

George Osborne focuses on therelationship between theenvironment and the economy. Heoffers three reasons whyenvironmental policy can benefitthe economy: it will help tomitigate the damaging economiceffects of climate change; energyefficiency policies have economicbenefits; and global environmentalmarkets offer significant

employment opportunities. These provide a fairlylimited platform for action. A more aggressiveConservative case for intervention has been madeelsewhere.2 As befits a shadow chancellor he is alsocautious about drawing policy conclusions, althoughhe does outline the Conservative’s bold proposals foraviation taxation.

The free market and global growth model hasdominated the thinking of recent Conservativegovernments. Nicholas Stern memorably describedclimate change as the greatest market failure that the

“ The neo-liberal versionof Conservatism that hashad such a stronginfluence on Americanand British Conservativethinking over the pastthirty years has provenvery environmentallydestructive”

a gr

eene

r sh

ade

of b

lue?

5

S3518_wayne_v5 11/5/07 15:01

world has ever seen.There are clear signs here thatthe Conservatives may be ready to tackle this. But itis easier said than done.Their willingness to makespecific policy commitments in opposition willprovide a more meaningful yardstick for predictingtheir behaviour in government.

Beyond the state: challenges to greenthinkingDavid Cameron is right to acknowledge the limits ofstate power and the crucial importance of theattitudes and actions of businesses and individuals.His analysis poses an important challenge to thegreen movement. While some deep green thinkingaspires to small and self-reliant communities, themainstream British environmental movementconsistently focuses on securing decisive action fromcentral government.

Neither Labour nor the Conservatives look likely tooffer a vision of government of this kind. Despite(or because of) the Conservative’s accusations, thechancellor now speaks of an “enabling” governmentand “the servant state.” Unless we can raise the

public appetite for action, theenvironment is not likely tobecome the exception to therule of diminishing stateintervention in markets. Theenvironmental community mustredouble its efforts to persuadeindividuals, businesses andothers to act, if it is to triggerfurther decisive governmentintervention.

So who moves first? Politicians of both left and rightare wary of decisive state intervention and awaitgreater evidence of corporate and public concern.Both emphasise that individuals and businesses mustalter their behaviour and reduce their environmentalfootprint. But government leadership will be criticalto persuading and enabling them to do so. Ourdemocracy needs smarter ways to broker thisdiscussion.

Beyond markets and climate changeThe remaining two Conservative contributions coverdifferent territory and provide importantperspectives for a future Conservative government.

Oliver Letwin’s contribution builds on the need forpolitics and political decisions to take into accountthe beauty of our natural and built environment, andtakes on the critics of that position. It provides avaluable corrective to the dominance of the growthmodel, and is a strong foundation for a differentapproach. It chimes with perhaps the mostintriguing sentence in this pamphlet; DavidCameron’s pledge that “Greener living forcommunities, and better protection of our naturalenvironment will be crucial priorities for thegovernment I lead.” We await further details.

John Gummer opens on similar territory, but goeson to focus on another issue; the environmental casefor the Conservatives to take a positive approach toEurope. He puts his case clearly and forcefully,arguing, “There is no way in which we can solve theproblems of pollution except at a European level.”

David Cameron’s position on Europe now embracesthis view. In his most recent major speech on

a gr

eene

r sh

ade

of b

lue?

6

“ Their willingness tomake specific policycommitments inopposition will providea more meaningfulyardstick for predictingthe ConservativeParty’s behaviour ingovernment”

S3518_wayne_v5 11/5/07 15:01

Europe, he described the environment as one of thethree key areas for common European action. But hemakes the case for common action from a positionof virtual isolation, having announced his intentionto split from the European People’s Party to form anew partnership with the(climate change denying) CzechCivic Democrat party.

Lessons from recent history We can all learn from ourhistories. The contributions here from Charles Secrettand Tom Burke show that the Conservatives cancertainly do so. David Cameron has done so verypublicly in other areas, expressing regret for theapproach taken by the last Conservative governmentto social justice in Britain and to the apartheidregime in South Africa.

He has not publicly repudiated their record on theenvironment. But there are important lessons to belearnt from the retrospective analysis offered by Tomand Charles, in public or private.Their criticisms,and occasional praise, need not be repeated here. Butthey are essential reading for those aiming to dobetter.

Labour’s experience in government since 1997 alsooffers vital lessons for the Conservatives. Hopes werehigh in many quarters for Labour’s environmentalpolicy. Labour had raised expectations through theirpolicy document, which included the now un-achievable pledge to reduce carbon emissions by 20per cent by 2010.3 The 1997 manifesto promised toput the environment at the heart of government.Things feel rather different now. In retrospect, fourlessons emerge.

First, political leadership from the centre isabsolutely critical. The silos of Whitehall defeat anyeffort to deliver that is not driven from the very top.Tony Blair did not provide that until very late on. Hehad not made the personal political commitment as

leader of the opposition that Cameronhas chosen to do.

Second, a commitment to theenvironment needs to be shared acrossboth government and party.This was a

constraint for Blair in 1997, and one that DavidCameron currently shares. A truly ‘sustainable’ viewof the environment is not in the DNA of either party.So Cameron must win hearts and minds in theparliamentary party and beyond. Many Conservativesat both local and national level remain publiclysceptical or hostile to this agenda. For proof of that,look no further than the minimalist approachoutlined in the 2007 Scottish Conservative Partymanifesto.

Third, it is critical to take decisive action from theoutset. The time lag between action and outcome ispainfully long. It takes several years to establishinitiatives and policies that alter theframework for decisions bybusinesses and individuals anddeliver visible changes for peopleand the environment.Thetrajectory of carbon emissions isparticularly difficult to shift withina single parliament.

Fourth, and most importantly, Labour’s experienceproves that change and success is only possible ifnew initiatives and policies are brought forward in

7

“ political leadershipfrom the centre isabsolutely critical”

“ Cameron must winhearts and minds inthe parliamentaryparty and beyond”

a gr

eene

r sh

ade

of b

lue?

S3518_wayne_v5 11/5/07 15:01

ways that deepen public support for action and openup political space for future action. Labour lacked aclear political strategy and has been deterred by unanticipated public reaction on issues such as fuelduty.There is no space here to think through thenature and sequencing of such an approach. Butsuch planning must be done in opposition, inconversation with civil society groups who can helpto build public support for action.

ConclusionsDavid Miliband has consistently infuriated hisConservative counterparts by asserting that Labour’svalues and collective instincts are the only possible

foundation for effective action onclimate change.The Conservativecontributions to this collection offer analternative basis for action. Butexperience since 1997 confirms thatvalues alone are not enough.There are

five critical challenges that the Conservatives musttackle to establish their credibility in opposition, andconfidence that they would deliver in government.They must:

• establish a strong and public intellectualfoundation for government intervention;

• develop an environmental strategy thatincorporates the natural environment and greenerliving, as well as climate change;

• identify in opposition their proposals for earlyaction in government;

• rethink their isolationist approach to Europeanpolitics; and

• develop a political strategy that builds publiccommitment and action alongside their plans forpolicy action.

It is early days.The Conservatives in opposition aremaking an influential contribution to public debateon the environment.They will only succeed ingovernment if they tackle these five issues.Theenvironmental movement has been disappointedbefore.The response to the policy commissions inearly 2008 will be the first real opportunity to assessthe prospects for a future Conservative government. Ilook forward to reading it.

Stephen Hale is Director of Green Alliance.

a gr

eene

r sh

ade

of b

lue?

8

“ values alone arenot enough”

S3518_wayne_v5 11/5/07 15:01

For the first time in British politics, a major politicalparty has given the environment equal billingalongside economic and social matters. When Ibecame leader of the Conservative Party just over ayear ago, I wanted to take that opportunity to pushthe protection of our environment right to the topof the political agenda. I recognised then, as I still donow, that those on the left woulddismiss it as a gimmick. I alsorecognised that those on the rightwould subject me to opencriticism and sometimesvilification. In doing so, bothseemed to be asking the samequestion: what can a Conservativebring to the environment debate?

I am always surprised by this question. It is preciselybecause my political outlook is rooted inConservatism that I am so passionate about theenvironment. Writing in the late 18th century,Edmund Burke, the father of Conservative thought,described history as “a pact between the dead, theliving and the yet unborn.” Put another way, wecannot just think of ourselves as actors in an isolatedmoment of time, but instead as guardians andpurveyors of a vital inheritance. Guardians, in thatwe have inherited it from previous generations, andpurveyors in that we have a responsibility to pass iton to future generations.

Therefore, Conservatism is partly about theconservation of the best our country has to offer:institutions such as parliamentary democracy andcommon law for example. Another important part ofour inheritance is our collective environment. Rightnow, in an affront to our ancestors and to theneglect of our descendants, we are threatening that

legacy. Our generation will rightlybe judged by its response.

There are other reasons whyConservatism and the environmentagenda go hand-in-hand.Conservatives believe in socialorder and security, and it isobvious that our continued

reckless disregard for our planet endangers this.Second, we are optimistic about society’s ability tomeet this challenge. We believe that competitiveeconomics has the potential to produce innovationand scientific progress that can turn tackling climatechange from a threat to an opportunity.

improving our environment: a social responsibility

Rt Hon David Cameron MP

a gr

eene

r sh

ade

of b

lue?

9

“ It is precisely becausemy political outlook isrooted in Conservatismthat I am so passionateabout the environment”

“ we are optimistic aboutsociety’s ability to meetthis challenge”

S3518_wayne_v5 11/5/07 15:01

Third, and most crucially, weunderstand that the statedoes not have all theanswers. All of mankindmust take responsibility forclimate change and all ofmankind must makesacrifices in combating it.

These are simple words to use but, if appliedcorrectly, they will result in a fundamental culturechange in attitudes to our environment and ourability to protect it.

We have already made the first important step. I amproud of the Conservative Party’s role in making thegreen agenda a central part of our political discourse.Scientists, politicians, economists, business leaders,and the general public: the past year has seen thedevelopment of a remarkable consensus andtransformed environmentalism from being a nicheconcern to a mainstream part of our political debate.

Now, we need to make the leap from mainstreamculture to decisive and resolute action. And for thisto happen, we must make sure everyone changestheir behaviour and plays their part.

We should not be naïve about how difficult this willbe. We must recognise that we will be fighting abasic human instinct to satisfy our every want with alack of concern for the consequences.

But if we are to succeed, we cannot afford to handover the agenda to those who believe that old, statistmethods of compulsion are the answer.Conservatives have a vital role to play in the

environment agenda because we havethe right solution: social responsibility.

Social responsibility sums up mypolitical worldview. It is central to myvision of Britain. It is a Britain wherewe do not just ask what governmentcan do, but we ask what people and

society can do. A Britain where we realise that wehave responsibilities, not just to ourselves, but also asocial responsibility to each other.

In order to protect the environment, there are fourkey responsibilities. Government has a responsibilityto establish the framework, businesses to employcorporate responsibility, local communities toinculcate a culture of civic responsibility andindividuals to assume personal responsibility. Andbecause the Conservatives understand the boundariesof government, how business works, the value oflocalism and the importance of individual freedom,we are best placed to effect that cultural change,which is imperative if we are to protect ourenvironment.

Of all these responsibilities, the greatest lies withgovernment, which must give a lead on the issueand set the agenda.This means establishing aframework that sets a long-term price for carbon,incentivising green behaviour by taxing the bad andrewarding the good, and working hard to bring inother countries from around the world to commit tosimilar schemes. Such a long term price for carbonwill make it easier for business to act and forconsumers to respond and change their behaviourand choices.

a gr

eene

r sh

ade

of b

lue?

10 “ Conservatives have avital role to play in theenvironment agendabecause we have theright solution: socialresponsibility”

S3518_wayne_v5 11/5/07 15:01

Setting a long term price for carbon will be madeeasier by annual binding targets for carbonreduction. In this respect, it looks as if thegovernment’s Climate Change Bill will be a cop-out.They are proposing to set carbon emissions targetsfor every decade, despite the fact that in each of theirlast three manifestos they failed on a similarcommitment to reduce emissions by 20 per cent by2010.

Only annual targets will provide the accountabilitythat is desperately required and help us to reduceour emissions by 60 per cent by 2050, in line withthe present recommendations of theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.Theywill create a price for carbon in our economy,meaning that things that produce more carbon willbecome more expensive.This in turn will spurinnovation in the UK production of low carbonproducts, which are the stuff of the emerging lowcarbon economic boom that we want the UK to beat the forefront of.

And establishing the right framework ofaccountability means establishing an IndependentClimate Change Commission, that checks progresson these targets, and the environment secretarypublishing a Carbon Budget Report.

However, targets alone are notenough. Delivery on these targets iswhat really matters, and this willinvolve tough and difficult decisions.In this respect, the governmentshould take a lead in effecting achange in the behaviour of everyonein this country by increasing the

burden of taxation on those things that damage ourenvironment as a replacement for other taxes.In his 2006 Pre-Budget Report, the chancellor’sincrease in air passenger duty, without alleviating thetax burden elsewhere, was simply taxation by stealth.This only gives green taxes a bad name, and will nothelp to change the cultural perception that ‘goinggreen’ is painful and an infringement economically.

The Conservative’s aim is not to increase the taxburden on hard working families but to rebalancetaxation so that the polluter pays and the nonpolluter pays less. It’s time to move taxes fromincome and investment to pollution – pay as youburn, not pay as you earn.

What’s more, we should be careful of a totemicapproach, where we target air travel or 4x4s withoutthinking about the bigger picture of transport policy.At the moment, there are 48 flights every day fromLondon to Manchester. This may seem crazy, but weneed to recognise that people need to be offered analternative to flying and driving.

Currently, a walk-on return ticket on a planebetween London and Manchester will cost at most£179, compared to £219 for a standard open returnby rail. Coupled with the fact that train carriages are

often full to bursting, we cansee why passengers are deterredfrom using the moreenvironmentally-friendlyoption.

We need a twin-track approach:making the costs of carbon clearwhile at the same time investing

“ …targets alone are notenough. Delivery onthese targets is whatreally matters, and thiswill involve tough anddifficult decisions”

a gr

eene

r sh

ade

of b

lue?

11

S3518_wayne_v5 11/5/07 15:01

in and offering a clear substitute. Only this willprecipitate the cultural shift that is necessary totackle climate change.

Government also has one other crucial responsibility– to assume leadership globally.The commonargument of sceptics is that there is little point inacting alone if we cannot guarantee the involvementof our economic competitors in China and theUnited States.

But it is only through showing leadershipdomestically that we can apply the moral pressureabroad.There is an old Chinese proverb: “Tell meand I will forget. Show me, and I will remember.” I

am confident that futureinternational agreement can beattained if we first act nationally,locally and individually.

Sceptics also misunderstand theprofound changes that thesecountries are undergoing. Farmersin China have rioted and helddemonstrations over pollutiondamaging their crops, and last year

the Chinese government spent three per cent of itsgross domestic product on green measures, much ofit related to carbon emissions. What’s more, China isone of the world’s poorest countries in terms ofresources per capita and they introduced laws thisyear that aim to double the use of alternative sourcesof energy. Already their vehicle emissions standardsare higher than those in the United States.

In the United States, there is a new generation ofpolitical leaders who want to assume the mantle ofenvironmentalism. Like me, Senators Hilary Clintonand John McCain have both been on fact-findingmissions to Svalbard to see for themselves themelting of the polar ice caps. And Senator JeffBingham, chairman of the Senate Committee onEnergy and Natural Resources, predicted that climatechange and the reduction of greenhouse gases willbe at the forefront of issues tackled by Congress in2007.

Now is surely the time to intensify the search for aneffective, equitable international agreement tosucceed the current Kyoto targets in 2012. Anyfuture agreement should include setting bindingtargets for the developed world, whilst encouragingChina, India, both of them parties to Kyoto already,and other rapidly developing nations to adopt lowercarbon pathways to growth.

Assuming leadership internationally also meansworking with our partners in the European Unionand with the European Commission. I haverepeatedly said that this is an opportunity for aforward looking and positive agenda in Europe, butinstead of naval gazing over issues such as theconstitution we should be focusing on our collectiveresponsibility towards the planet and re-enforcingthe EU Emissions Trading Scheme.

So government has a massive responsibility to set theframework for carbon trading, encourage greengrowth through fiscal incentives and push forinternational agreement on global targets.

a gr

eene

r sh

ade

of b

lue?

12

“ Assuming leadershipinternationally alsomeans working withour partners in theEuropean Union andwith the EuropeanCommission”

S3518_wayne_v5 11/5/07 15:01

But I want to put down another marker. A greenerfuture may start with the vital need to tackle climatechange, but it does not end there: we need a greenerearth as well as greener skies.

Today, some 15,590 different speciesare known to be threatened withextinction. Of course, species havecome and gone during the evolutionof life on earth, but scientists nowagree that the extinction rate has risenby at least 100 per cent since theindustrial revolution. That’s not someaccident; it is our doing.

As with climate change, this unconsidered cull ofour natural inheritance has implications that reachwell beyond our generation. Losing biodiversity isabout closing down options.This is not just thepleasure we take from the natural environment, butoptions – many perhaps yet to be discovered – abouthealth, scientific discovery, medicine and foodsecurity.

Greener living for communities and betterprotection of our natural environment will be crucialpriorities for the government I lead.This meansaddressing issues such as the pollution of land andrivers and striking a better balance betweendevelopment and conservation in our planningsystem.

But I am a Conservative, and I do not believe thatgovernment has all the answers and must assume allthe responsibility. We all have a responsibility to doour bit.

Corporate responsibility means businesses adheringto best practice.The quid pro quo here is that if theydo the right thing, government will interfere less. It’sa simple bargain. We’ll expect business to do its bit

by moving away fromcarbon-heavy sources ofenergy and reducing theamount of energy they usein the first place. And, ofcourse, government mustsupport them in doing thatby providing the marketchanges and long termcertainty that they need.

I am an avowed believer that open markets andcompetition are the most commanding drivers ofchange on the planet, and I believe that business canand must be an enormous force for good in ourworld.

Using their expertise, dynamism and creativity, weshould be optimistic about the development of anew generation of environmentally-friendly productsand sources of energy.That is real green growth –using the power of markets to dictate futureinnovation and progress.

a gr

eene

r sh

ade

of b

lue?

13

“ A greener future maystart with the vital needto tackle climate change,but it does not end there:we need a greener earthas well as greener skies”

“ open markets and competition are the mostcommanding drivers of change on the planet,and I believe that business can and must bean enormous force for good in our world”

S3518_wayne_v5 11/5/07 15:01

For example, new environmental technologies arebringing massive hope to Britain’s farmingcommunity: biomass crops and biogas to provideheat and electricity; and combined heat and powerto make us more energy efficient. Farmers can play aleading role in the technologies of the future.

Instead of being left behind, the Conservatives wantto see Britain lead the green economic revolutionjust as it did the industrial revolution.

Civic responsibility means communities standing upand taking a role in preserving their localenvironments. I understand that environmentalconcerns will be a lost cause if we cannot get peopleto connect with the directconsequences of their actions.And, as a Conservative, Irecognise that this will be bestachieved through drawing onpeople’s attachment to theirlocal community.

Sceptics need only look at theresponse to the ConservativeParty’s local election campaignof May 2005, when we told people to ‘Vote Blue, GoGreen’. Few said it would work, but it was thebulwark of a successful campaign because it chimedwith the aspirations of so many people for a cleaner,greener future.

And there is so much that can be done. For example,Barnet Council is setting a new target for wasterecycling – up from 32 per cent today to 40 per centby 2011. Bromley Council is pioneering a project tocollect used cooking oils from local restaurants and

turn it into biodiesel, to drive council and hospitalvehicles. And Runnymede Council runs a school busscheme with local businesses to cut rush hourcongestion and reduce emissions.

Personal responsibility means us all playing our part,however small, to make a difference. A recent poll inThe Times stated that 75 per cent of people recycledeverything they could – yet this is not played out bythe facts. This shows that there is a desire to do theright thing, but not often the chance to do so.

The Conservatives have always been the party tomatch aspiration with opportunity throughempowerment and not compulsion. Setting the

framework outlined above would givepeople the opportunity to do whatthey believe is right.

It is incredibly empowering forindividuals to know that they canmake a difference right now by usingenergy-efficient light bulbs orrecycling their household waste. Andin the long-term, this could involvecatching the train to work, investing

in green energy or purchasing the latestenvironmentally-friendly products.

The Conservative Party has placed green issues rightat the heart of the political debate. We have a greatteam, including Peter Ainsworth, Greg Barker, JohnGummer, Zac Goldsmith and a host of othercommitted environmentalists, who are working tofind the best solutions to meet the challenges posedby climate change.

a gr

eene

r sh

ade

of b

lue?

14

“ The Conservativeshave always been theparty to matchaspiration withopportunity throughempowerment and notcompulsion”

S3518_wayne_v5 11/5/07 15:01

We all realise that there is cause for great optimismand we want to recapture climate change from thepessimists. Of course it presents huge challenges. Ofcourse the issues are complex. Of course it willrequire us to change. But when I think about climatechange and our response to it, I don’t think of doomand gloom, costs and sacrifice. I think of a cleaner,greener world for our children to enjoy and inherit.I think of the almost unlimited power of innovation,the new technologies, the new products andservices, and the progress they can bring for ourplanet and all mankind. And I think of the excitingpossibilities that may seem a distant dream today –changing the way we live to improve our quality oflife.

David Cameron is a Member of Parliament for Witney

and Leader of the Conservative Party.

a gr

eene

r sh

ade

of b

lue?

15

S3518_wayne_v5 11/5/07 15:01

Environmental policy must not be subsumed into afight against global warming.Yet that is the danger asthe world becomes increasingly concerned about theeffects of greenhouse gases. Climate change is but asymptom of the disease, not the disease itself. If wemerely treat the symptom, the underlying cancerwill remain.The central fact is that there is a cancereating away at the vitals of the planet. That cancer isrooted in mankind’s failure properly to value theresources that sustain us. In this sense, it is marketfailure on a colossal scale that bedevils our lives.

It seems part of the human condition that we canput a price on everything except the things thatreally matter. We have always recognised that truth

when it is applied to anindividual’s health of the body,mind, and spirit. We say thatlove, health, happiness,contentment and so many othernon material concepts are

‘priceless’. Even so, we usually take them forgranted, to be noticed only in their absence. Thentheir priceless importance becomes all too clear.

We understand that these goods are truly outside ourpricing structure. We have learned to live with thatbut we recognise the conflicts it imposes: in ourstruggle for a work/life balance; our realisation ofthe need to ‘work at a marriage’; and our modernconcern with ‘well-being’.These are considerationswhich attempt to deal with the mismatch between

what is priceable – what we earn, the things weown, and the capital and materials we use – andwhat we acknowledge to be priceless.

Pricing the common goodWhat is new to us all is the realisation that there isanother category of really big things on which wedo not put a price.They have been raided by humanswith no account taken of their cost. It is only now,when that cost has mounted until it endangers ourability to live on the planet, that we have taken frightat the enormity of our debt.The air we breathe, thesea that surrounds us, the rivers and aquifers thatprovide our water, the forests that affect our climate,the soils and the fish – everything that we hold incommon.These we take for granted as an unpricedgiven in the equation of life.

And it is an equation. Life depends on thecontinuance of the complex interconnection ofthings – an interconnection which the hole in theozone layer and global warming have thrown intosharp relief. Who would have thought that my actionin using shaving foam in the morning would becapable of challenging the integrity of theatmosphere? One of my ministerial team at theDepartment of the Environment, to this day, finds itimpossible to accept that all those tiny sources ofozone-depleting chemicals could possibly gathertogether with sufficient force and concentration tocreate that hole!

paying the price

Rt Hon John Gummer MP

a gr

eene

r sh

ade

of b

lue?

16

“ it is market failure on acolossal scale thatbedevils our lives”

S3518_wayne_v5 11/5/07 15:01

Communality and individualismTherein lies the real problem.The individualism thathas made life so much better for so many people hasalso meant that we have unlearned what tribalsocieties and village communities knew so well. Wefind it very hard to accept that our privateconsumption, our personal morality, or ourindividual actions can, outside that very narrowcategory of things described by law, have animportant effect on the health of the world as awhole. Indeed, it is part of the trouble withglobalisation that it makes the individual feel that hisactions do not matter because they can’t changethings. We talk about the global village but wehaven’t relearned what the village knew – the hugeeffect that each one of us has on society as a whole.My friend, the ex-minister, would agree that hepoisoned the water for everyone if he peed in theswimming pool – it is thesheer size of the globe thatmakes it hard for us to takeindividual responsibility foractions that, in aggregate,threaten our very existence.

So, if we define our globalproblem as the misuse,wastage, and pollution ofour unpriced resources, wehave to accept that it is aproblem caused by individuals – albeit by billions ofthem, living and dead. So, saying that we have aglobal problem and, therefore, that it demands aglobal solution is true, but only partly true. Just asthe global problem is the result of the sum ofindividual actions, so the global solution willdepend on billions of small changes by billions of

individual people. All of thosechanges will derive from our learningagain that we are all interdependentand our choices and our actions mustreflect that.

Society’s roleNonetheless, we have to be organised.Local, national, regional, and global institutions –public and private – have to create the conditions inwhich it is easiest for us to act and consume in away which recognises the value of all the planet’sresources and safeguards them. Accepting ourindividual responsibility for the common gooddoesn’t mean that we don’t also recognise the valueof corporate action. Indeed, once we understand theinterrelation of all things and the pervasive nature ofthe eco-system, the case for common action

becomes irresistible. Our individualresponsibility is to act in concert. Afterall, our misuse, wastage and pollution iscommon, as well as individual.

And it goes beyond our nationalconfines. We in the UK have dirtied theair of Britain but half that pollution weexport to the rest of Europe and half ofthe pollution we have here has comeover from the continent. There is noway in which we can solve the problems

of pollution except at a European level. There is noplace for the UK Independence Party inenvironmental politics. That perhaps explains why somany of them remain climate change deniers.Selfish, xenophobic individualism won’t solveenvironmental problems that do not respect nationalboundaries.

17“ we are allinterdependentand our choicesand our actionsmust reflect that”

“ the sheer size of theglobe makes it hard forus to take individualresponsibility foractions that, inaggregate, threatenour very existence”

a gr

eene

r sh

ade

of b

lue?

S3518_wayne_v5 11/5/07 15:01

Europe leadsTo say that, does not invalidate individual,communal, local, or national action. All of these havean essential part to play, but the context in whichthey play it has to be determined on a Europeanlevel. For example, HFCs (hydrofluorocarbons) arechemicals with 2,000 times the global warmingpotential of carbon dioxide. Many companies havealready recognised that they should not be used.They ought to be banned but one country on itsown cannot do it. Together, Europe is big enough amarket for refrigeration and air conditioning toinsist and the world will follow. A recent article inThe Wall Street Journal revealed how Europeanenvironmental leadership was increasingly setting

the agenda in the United States.American companies are findingthemselves forced to follow that leadand, as a result, although oftenbegrudgingly, the United Statesgovernment will ultimately followsuit.

So, although we need new globalinstitutions to universalise the drive

to value the world’s resources properly, the means toget the project under way are already in place. Wecan recover individual and local responsibility forour resource use. We can achieve and extend that bya regulatory and incentivisingregime laid down by governmentand parliament. And we can makethat competitively possible byusing the extent and reach of theEuropean Union to change theway in which the world’scommerce works.

However, all of this does demand that we lookbeyond the crisis caused by climate change andconcentrate on its cause. Global warming hashappened because human beings have failed to valueproperly what most matters in the planet thatsustains us. Only by paying the price that will sustainour environment can we hope to survive.

John Gummer is a Member of Parliament for Suffolk

Coastal and is Co-Chairman of the Conservative Quality

of Life Commission.a gr

eene

r sh

ade

of b

lue?

18

“ we can use theextent and reach ofthe European Unionto change the way inwhich the world’scommerce works”

“ Global warming hashappened becausehuman beings havefailed to value properlywhat most matters”

S3518_wayne_v5 11/5/07 15:01

It is argued that little divides the two major partiesin British politics. Under the respective leadershipsof David Cameron and Gordon Brown, thisargument will look increasingly redundant. Already, akey dividing line is being established around the roleof the state. At the 2006 Conservative Partyconference, David Cameron spelt it out. Hisleadership will be defined by the concept of socialresponsibility, which is to be contrasted with thecommitment of a Brown administration tocommand and control politics from the centre.

Since then, the Conservative leadership has madeanother important statement by supporting soexplicitly the Sustainable Communities Bill(promoted by the author of this piece), whose maindriver is a desire to see local communities havemuch greater influence over the sustainabledevelopment of their communities.

This positioning is a welcome reaffirmation oftraditional Conservative scepticism about the degreeto which we should rely on central government tomeet the challenges of the day. But how does this fitwith arguably the biggest challenge – managing therisk of serious climate instability? For the Conservative Party, the climate change issuecould be seen as raising some demanding questions:

• to what degree are we prepared to leave it to themarket when the market fails to put a price onthe damage we do to the natural capital onwhich we depend?

• to what degree are we prepared to champion thefreedom of personal choice when those choicesimpose a high cost on others?

• what is a Conservative vision of the role that theEuropean Union (EU) can play, given ourtraditionally eurosceptic position?

In fact, this contribution will argue that the rightpolicy response to the challenge of serious climateinstability is rooted in principles and instincts thatare distinctively Conservative:

• the central role of government is to set a clearand credible framework. Once the limits havebeen set, the government should leave us free tomake our own choices and focus on making it aseasy as possible for us to make the changes.Rather than preach and complicate, it shouldpersuade and simplify. We cannot rely onpoliticians but have to develop a sense of social,shared responsibility. Rather than imposesolutions from the centre, we should be lookingto empower people to find out what is right for them.

• the market is the most cost effective way to drivebehaviour change and raise standards – butmarkets can be imperfect and it falls to

the role of the state

Nick Hurd MP

a gr

eene

r sh

ade

of b

lue?

19

“ The central role ofgovernment is to set a clearand credible framework”

S3518_wayne_v5 11/5/07 15:01

government to correct market failures.Thepriority now is to ensure that the market puts afair value on carbon. Our freedom to chooseneeds to be based on proper prices.

• there is no national solution to climate changeand Britain’s contribution must be set in thecontext of a credible international settlement.TheEU has shown leadership on the environmentand is well placed to lead an internationalcoalition of the ambitious towards the keysettlement.This is what the EU is meant to be – aforce for peace, prosperity, and effectivecooperation on the issues that cross borders. Aparty that is sceptical about the value ofmonetary and political union should welcomethis opportunity for the EU to redefine itsrelevance to a new generation.

Get the framework rightIn the last nine years, government rhetoric onclimate change has been undermined byinconsistent, overcomplicated and often incompetentpolicy implementation at home, as well as thewidely acknowledged ambivalence of Gordon Brownand the Treasury. As a result, emissions have actuallyrisen since 1997 and there is little credibility aroundthe voluntary short and long term targets. A stepchange of ambition is required, which needs to besupported by greater clarity of purpose andcompetence in delivery.

Get the frame rightClimate change policy needs to be framed in a waythat persuades the broadest possible coalition that itis in our interest to start reducing our emissionsnow. It does not have to be just about averting

disaster. It is also about the opportunity to reduceour energy bills and improve our security, improvehealth outcomes, reduce the need to travel, improvethe local environment, deliver more fairness in theworld and more job and profit opportunities inBritain. In short, this journey can be towards a betterquality of life and a more competitive economy.

The government needs to think about how to framean ongoing communication strategy thatdemonstrates these positive outcomes and links themto reducing emissions, so that there is a collectivesense of ‘we would want to be doing this anyway’.

The right destinationIf the government is to set the direction of travel, itneeds to know the right destination. When it comesto managing the risk of serious climate instability,the politics must fit the science and not the otherway round.The Conservative Quality of Life policygroup believes that it is wrong to give up on thechance to limit global temperature increase to 2°Cversus pre-industrial levels. The most credibleanalysis, not least the Stern and IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change reports, tells us that therisks and costs rise substantially above that threshold.Our understanding of the most robust scienceavailable today tells us that the appropriate long termstabilisation target range for carbon dioxideatmospheric concentration is 400 – 450 parts permillion carbon dioxide-equivalent, rather than the450 – 550 parts per million cited by the Sternreport. Consequently, we believe that the UK goal ofa 60 per cent reduction in emissions by 2050 islikely to prove inadequate and that developedcountries, or states within countries, will be obliged

a gr

eene

r sh

ade

of b

lue?

20

S3518_wayne_v5 11/5/07 15:01

to follow California in considering how we canreduce emissions by at least 80 per cent by 2050, atthe minimum cost to our prosperity and quality oflife.

A better process for setting limitsUnder pressure from the opposition, thegovernment has agreed to a Climate Change Bill thathas the potential to radically improve the way inwhich targets are set and performance accounted for.A statutory medium term target is particularlyimportant for shaping the key investment decisionsthat will be taken over the next 15 years in replacingour energy generation infrastructure, and which willshape our ability to meet long term goals. A betterprocess for setting targets needs to be matched by amore profound reform of departments, agencies andregulators so that the state is much more effective inthe way that it coordinates its response to this mostcomplex of political challenges.

Process is no substitute for policy though, whichshould be focused on putting a fair value on carbonand stitching it into the economics of daily, globallife.

Put a fair value on carbon Emissions tradingTo date, emissions trading appears to have emergedas the policy tool of choice over the concept of acarbon tax, which would be simpler and raise moremoney for government but arguably lacks thecertainty and cost efficiency potential of a cap andtrade scheme.The EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EUETS) is the most mature scheme but, while its firstphase has been helpful in testing the mechanics, it

has been a comprehensivefailure in terms of reducingemissions or drivinginnovation.The failure hasbeen a political one in that acap and trade scheme is onlyas good as the cap, negotiatedin this instance by nationalgovernments.

It is for governments tocorrect that failure and send asignal to the market about how the scheme willevolve to deliver a significant and sustainable pricefor carbon beyond 2012.That evolution shouldinclude a ratcheting down of free allowances topollute in favour of more auctions. Political riskshould be reduced by the development of aconsistent and transparent methodology fordetermining caps, based on absolute emissionreductions, and allocating any allowances.

A mosaic of emissions trading schemes is beingcreated around the world. If the mechanism provesto be effective in reducing emissions, thengovernments can play a useful role in facilitating thelinkage of carbon markets to maximise depth andliquidity, by encouraging a common set of designstandards and scaling up mechanisms such as theclean development mechanism.

Constructive regulation by outcomeThe decarbonisation of any developed economy willrequire a transformation in the energy efficiencystandards of the products we rely on, from the car tothe kettle. To achieve this transformation,

21“ If the government is toset the direction oftravel, it needs to knowthe right destination…the UK goal of a 60 percent reduction inemissions by 2050 islikely to proveinadequate”

a gr

eene

r sh

ade

of b

lue?

S3518_wayne_v5 11/5/07 15:01

government must shake conservative industries outof their comfort zones by taking a more radical andsimple approach to regulation.The role ofgovernment should be to set the desired outcomeand a timetable for achievement. It should not be inthe business of telling industries how to do it. The

Conservative instinct is to leavethat to the market: confident thatcompetitive pressure will stimulatethe innovation that we need.Theconstruction industry, for example,should be set free from a web ofcomplex regulations telling themhow to build and simply face therequirement of deliveringbuildings to a set of requiredstandards.They will then compete

more aggressively to achieve the outcome in themost efficient way, and that will be good forcustomers and good for the industry.

Show government is seriousIn the first place, government must be seen to leadby example. Within realistic timescales the real estateand asset base of the public sector should set thestandard for energy efficiency. A publicprocurement budget of £150 billion ayear needs to be leveraged moreaggressively in favour of pushingsuppliers towards reducing their carbonintensity.

Stronger signals should be sent by theinvestment priorities of government. A2004 report from the New EconomicsFoundation claims that global fossil fuel

subsidies amount to approximately $235 billion ayear. Diverting a small fraction of that money torenewable energy, carbon capture and storage orpromoting energy efficiency would make anenormous difference. Every year the governmentgives some £6 to £8 in fossil fuel subsidies for every£1 to support clean and renewable energy, and atypical British taxpayer pays at least £1,000 a year tofund perverse subsidies to the fossil fuel industry.Surely it is time to bury the past and invest inconserving the future?

The Treasury has been extraordinarily complacent inthe face of opportunities to send stronger signalsthrough the tax system.The Climate Change Levyneeds to be turned from a tax on energy into a taxthat incentivises lower carbon choices. Air passengerduty is an inefficient tax that sends noenvironmental signal and should be recast as anexplicit green tax. Why do we tinker around withvehicle excise duty when we can send reallypowerful price signals through vehicle sales tax?Why do we still not have an aggressive tax incentivefor people to insulate their homes, when all theevidence suggests that this one single action canmake such a big impact?

Finally, government must beseen to take a consistentapproach across the bigstrategic policy issues. Agovernment which plansextensive house building onflood plains and adopts apredict and provide approachto the fastest growing sourceof emissions (aviation) will

22

“ The role ofgovernment shouldbe to set the desiredoutcome and atimetable forachievement”

“ Every year thegovernment givessome £6 to £8 infossil fuel subsidiesfor every £1 tosupport clean andrenewable energy”

a gr

eene

r sh

ade

of b

lue?

S3518_wayne_v5 11/5/07 15:01

struggle to persuade people that it is serious aboutthe journey towards a low carbon future.

Help people make low carbon choicesThe information landscape needs de-cluttering sothat people can get easy access to objective advice onwhat will make a difference and work for them.High impact actions need to be identified and theincentives aligned to make that action not just easybut absolutely compelling for the largest number ofpeople. A useful precedent would be the way inwhich a Conservative government prepared thetransition from leaded to unleaded petrol.

Last but not least local government, who have beenthe agents of change in terms of attitudes torecycling, should have greater freedom and resourcesto innovate and engage their communities with theopportunity to reduce carbon.

Secure international agreementThere is no national solution to climate change.Therefore, in the context of managing climate risk,there are necessarily two dimensions to the role ofgovernment: home and abroad. Both are importantand are interconnected in a complex way. We havereached the stage where international leadership canonly be built on a credible domestic track record, anawkward point for a British government that haspresided over a rise in emissions since 1997.However, we will not take the British people with uson the journey unless they feel they are part of acollective international effort.

A critical role for government therefore lies incontributing to the development of a credible

international agreement on climate change that doesnot compromise our national interest.

The UN dialogue is the right vehicle for the finalagreement but that process is cumbersome andproceeds at the pace of the least willing.The showmust be kept on the road, but there is a need tobuild a coalition of the ambitious and the significantnumber of people who see it as being in theirnational interest to take a moreeffective lead. It is right forBritain to seek a leadership rolein that process but we cannotgo it alone.The most effectiveposition for us is as thebackbone of the EU; pushing itto lead the coalition of theambitious: driving the reform of the EU ETS as thestepping stone towards a global carbon market; andleveraging the single market to deliver a revolutionin product standards and a scaling up of the marketsfor low carbon technology. Such a constructive viewof the EU’s role is quite consistent with traditionalConservative messages of scepticism about the valueof single currencies and constitutions. More effectivecooperation on the big issues that cross borders iswhat Europe is meant to be about. A Conservativegovernment committed to getting Europe to workon climate change would be helping the EU redefineits relevance to a new generation.

Nick Hurd is a Member of Parliament for Ruislip-

Northwood, a Board Member of the Conservative Quality

of Life Commission and convenes the Commission’s

working group on climate change.

23

“ we will not take theBritish people with usunless they feel theyare part of a collectiveinternational effort”

a gr

eene

r sh

ade

of b

lue?

S3518_wayne_v5 11/5/07 15:01

Climate change is one of the greatest challenges thatwe face. Unfortunately, as environmentalcampaigners have argued, the Labour governmenthas proved to be incapable of rising to thischallenge. With emissions higher today than in1997, and even Tony Blair’s own environmentaladviser describing his policies as “muddle-headed”,it’s clear that a new direction is needed.4

The Conservative Party is committed to providingthat new direction, both by setting out clearleadership on green issues, as well as by developinginnovative policies to cut emissions, tackleenvironmental degradation and promote greengrowth.

It’s clear that action to address climate change isurgently needed. As the Stern report has shown, therate and scale of 20th century temperature increasesis unparalleled in recorded human history. Globally,the ten hottest years ever experienced have all takenplace since 1994.The high temperatures weexperienced last year, amongst the warmest everrecorded in Britain, could be commonplace withinfifty years and unusually cool by the end of thecentury.

But just as the reality of climate change is nowalmost universally recognised, so too is the cause:

man-made pollution. Carbon dioxide emissions haveincreased from 6 billion tonnes a year in 1950 to 24billion tonnes a year in 2004 – a significant driverof rising temperatures.

The scientific consensus is that this level of pollutionis unsustainable. With greenhouse gases now at theirhighest levels for 650,000 years, studies suggest thatwe may be approaching a climate change tippingpoint.

Researchers at Tomsk State and Oxford universitieshave found that a million square kilometres ofpermafrost in western Siberia – an area the size ofFrance and Germany combined – has started to meltfor the first time in over 10,000 years. If leftunchecked, this process could release billions oftonnes of methane into the atmosphere, rapidlyaccelerating the rate of climate change, withdramatic consequences for life on our planet.

Environmental groups have long been aware thatwinning the battle against climate change means firstof all winning the battle of ideas. Working alongsidegreen activists, the Conservative Party is playing itspart. As newspapers revealed recently, before DavidCameron became Conservative leader, Mr Brownmentioned the word ‘climate’ only 11 times – anaverage of once per year. By contrast, under

looking after the environment, looking after the economy

George Osborne MP

a gr

eene

r sh

ade

of b

lue?

24

S3518_wayne_v5 11/5/07 15:01

pressure from David Cameron, Mr Brown madereference to ‘climate’ 15 times in his 2006 Budgetalone, and has since continued to emphasise hisgreen credentials.

But helping to push environmental issues up thepolitical agenda isn’t enough. We are also committedto taking on those who seek to undermine the casefor green policies. Some of the most vocal opponentsof environmental action are those who claim thattackling climate change will inevitably damage theeconomy. As one commentator recently claimed,environmental policies could have an economiceffect that is “worse than arecession.”5

This view is deeply misguided.Here are three reasons why.

First, unchecked climate changecould have a massive negativeeconomic impact. As the Sternreport has shown, the extremeweather conditions caused byglobal warming could cost theUK economy billions of poundsover the course of this century.The Thames barrier, originally planned to be raisedonce every six years, is now being raised six times ayear. If one flood breaks through, it could costLondon upwards of £30 billion – a cost which isindeed “worse than a recession”.

Of course, it’s not just Britain that will be affected.The economic effects of climate change will reachfar beyond our shores, affecting some of the mostvulnerable people in the world.The incidence of

drought has doubled over the past 30 years, and thechanging climate is predicted to reduce African grossdomestic product by 10 per cent in the years ahead.

Climate change may also alter the patterns of theIndian monsoon, which could have a huge impacton the lives of hundreds of millions of people inSouth-East Asia. Weak monsoons, for example, couldlead to poor harvests and food shortages among therural population of India. Heavier-than-usualmonsoon downpours also have devastatingconsequences, as shown by the flooding in Mumbailast year, when more than 500 people perished.

Second, using energy efficientlydoesn’t just have an environmentalbenefit; it can also reduce energy billsat a time of higher oil prices. As smartcompanies all over the world arerecognising, this means that investingin energy efficiency can help boostprofitability.

The CEO of Walmart recently notedthat improving the fuel efficiency ofthe company’s distribution vehicles byjust one mile per gallon would save

over $50 million a year – a useful advantage in acompetitive market.

Similarly, BT has introduced energy saving andenergy efficiency programmes that have reduced itscarbon dioxide emissions by 60 per cent from 1991levels. Not only has this been good for theenvironment, it’s been good for the bottom line too:BT estimates that it has resulted in energy savings ofover £100 million.

a gr

eene

r sh

ade

of b

lue?

25

“ Some of the mostvocal opponents ofenvironmental actionare those that claimthat tackling climatechange will inevitablydamage theeconomy….This viewis deeply misguided”

S3518_wayne_v5 11/5/07 15:01

These benefits are not confined to large businesses.Research by Envirowise estimates that UK businessescould increase profits by as much as £1,000 peremployee if their waste was eliminated at source,rather than being dealt with through disposal orrecycling.

The third economicargument for green policiesis that the global market fornew environmentaltechnologies represents animportant opportunity forthe UK economy.This marketis expected to be worth

trillions of pounds over the years ahead and couldbe a significant source of new jobs and revenues.

General Electric, one of the largest companies in theworld, is just one of many that have benefited fromthis trend.Its revenues from environmentally friendlytechnology, such as pollution controls and windpower generators, were over$10 billion in 2005, up from$6.2 billion in 2004 – withorders nearly doubling to $17billion.

So, rather than green policiesstifling economic growth, it’sclear that the converse is true: astrong economy can go hand inhand with environmentalism.Unfortunately, Gordon Brown has been all too slowto realise this. As a result, Britain is falling far behindother countries when it comes to taking advantageof the vast new green technologies market.

It is Japanese and American companies, not Britishones, that are leading the world in the field of fuelcells. British firms are also falling behind Germanand Swedish companies in the development and saleof wind turbine technologies.

In total, UK firms have less than a five per cent shareof the global market for green goods and services –less than France, Germany, Japan and the UnitedStates. This means that Britain is missing out oncrucial jobs, investment and revenues and, of course,it also means that emissions are higher than theyshould be.

So promoting green growth is at the heart of ourenvironmental and economic agenda. However, weunderstand that achieving this will not be easy andwill require a careful combination of policies andmethods.The Conservative Party’s Quality of Lifepolicy group is developing detailed policies in therun-up to the next general election, but three keyelements of our environmental agenda are clear.

First, there needs to be a long-termframework for tackling climatechange. Labour’s inconclusiveenergy reviews and failure toprovide a stable regulatory systemhave deterred businesses frominvesting in new environmentaltechnologies because they are unableto calculate whether the investmentis viable.This has proved to be bad

for the environment and bad for the Britisheconomy.

26

“ the global market fornew environmentaltechnologies representsan important opportunityfor the UK economy”

“UK firms have less thana five per cent share ofthe global market forgreen goods andservices – less thanFrance, Germany, Japanand the United States”

a gr

eene

r sh

ade

of b

lue?

S3518_wayne_v5 11/5/07 15:01

That is why the Conservative Party is committed tointroducing a robust Climate Change Bill that putsour long term carbon reduction targets into thestatute book. Unlike the Labour government, webelieve that progress towards these targets should beassessed by an independent body, which should alsoprovide binding year-on-year rate of change targetsin order to ensure that progress is being made.

Second, much more needs to be done to promoteinternational cooperation on environmental issues.After all, climate change does not recognise nationalboundaries or halt at border checkpoints. Effectiveaction on climate change requires countries workingtogether, for instance, by agreeing common goals andsharing environmental technologies.

The Conservative Party is committed to internationalcooperation on climate change. Our Interim EnergyReview, published last summer, set out the long-termgoal of creating a global market in tradable carbonpermits by building on the European Union’sEmissions Trading Scheme.This approach will involvethe auction of emission certificatesand the creation of a transparentdiminishing cap on the number ofcertificates available. As emissionstrading schemes across the worldhave shown, the interactionbetween these mechanisms can actas a powerful driver for loweremissions and technological innovation.

Third, the tax system needs to be rebalanced so thatit properly takes into account the environmental costof pollution. As David Cameron has said, we must notbe afraid of using the tax system and market

mechanisms to encourage investment in, and take upof, clean new technologies that will create newmarkets and reduce our impact on the planet.

In practice, this means rebalancing the tax systemaway from investment and income, and towardspollution and emissions;higher taxes on things we allwant to discourage enablinglower taxes on things wewant to encourage.Unfortunately, Gordon Brownhas done precisely theopposite. Since 1997, theproportion of governmentrevenue raised byenvironmental taxes has fallen from 7.7 per cent to6.2 per cent, while business investment has fallen tothe lowest levels ever recorded. As Friends of theEarth recently commented: “For 10 years, GordonBrown has failed to provide a green budget.” 6

We need to do better. That is why David Cameronand I have launched a Conservative Partyconsultation document on the taxationof aviation.The government’s ownfigures show that even according to the‘best case’ scenario, aviation willaccount for 24 per cent of the UK’scarbon emissions by 2050.

Those who argue that we must stop flying altogetherare wrong. But we will be unable to meet ournational and international targets for reducinggreenhouse gas emissions unless we reduce the rapidpredicted future growth of aircraft emissions andtackle dirty engines.

27

“ we must not be afraid ofusing the tax system andmarket mechanisms toencourage investmentin, and take up of, cleannew technologies”

“ promoting greengrowth is at theheart of ourenvironmental andeconomic agenda”

a gr

eene

r sh

ade

of b

lue?

S3518_wayne_v5 11/5/07 15:01

Any solution will require a combination ofinternational cooperation and national action.Thefocus of this consultation is what can be done at thenational level. In particular, the current system ofaviation taxation in the UK is fundamentally flawed– air passenger duty (APD) is not directly linked tocarbon emissions and provides no incentives forairlines to use more fuel-efficient aircraft. Even theGovernment admits that it is a “blunt instrument”.7

Our consultation asks for submissions in response tothree main policy ideas:

• charging fuel duty and/or VAT on domesticflights

• replacing APD with a per-flight tax based moreclosely on actual carbon emissions

• introducing a ‘Green Air Miles Allowance’ so thatpeople who fly more frequently pay tax at a

higher rate

As with all environmentaltaxes, any new aviationtaxes that we propose willbe replacement taxes, withany extra revenues offsetby equivalent reductions inother forms of taxation.

We are pleased that theproposals have attractedwidespread cross party

support, for instance from Tony Blair’s former headof policy, Matthew Taylor, who described them as a“Fantastic Policy...the right policy...a progressivepolicy.”8 If only Gordon Brown was similarlycommitted to taking substantive action.

As well as reducing taxes on investment and income,and increasing taxes on pollution, it will also benecessary to replace Gordon Brown’s flawed ClimateChange Levy.

As David Miliband’s special adviser has said, theClimate Change Levy isn’t fit for purpose.The keyproblem is that the rates paid by businesses on theirenergy use do not reflect the carbon emissions fromthat energy. Instead of taxing businesses according tothe amount of carbon they emit, it’s simply a tax onthe energy consumed by business. As the RoyalCommission on Environmental Pollution has said,this means that the Climate Change Levy is a “bluntinstrument” that is “not effective in reducing carbondioxide emissions.”9 And as experts have pointedout, coal use actually increased following theintroduction of the Levy – further evidence that areplacement is urgently required.

That is why we have published a consultation paperon a new Carbon Charge. Unlike the Climate ChangeLevy, this Carbon Charge would distinguish betweenhigh and low carbon production of energy, and soencourage companies to switch to cleaner energysources. It is also designed to be fiscally neutral,meaning that it will not result in a higher tax burdenfor British businesses.

So this is our direction of travel: encouraging greengrowth and environmental protection throughinternational cooperation, long-term targets andeffective market mechanisms.

We understand that tackling climate change won’t beeasy – but we also recognise that although thechallenge ahead is great, the stakes are even greater.

a gr

eene

r sh

ade

of b

lue?

28

“ this is our direction oftravel: encouraging greengrowth and environmentalprotection throughinternational cooperation,long-term targets andeffective marketmechanisms”

S3518_wayne_v5 11/5/07 15:01

When Theodore Roosevelt said these words onehundred years ago, he captured the challenge facingour generation today.The options are stark: we canpromote economic prosperity whilst also acting asresponsible stewards of our planet, or we can courteconomic and environmental ruin.

We are committed to meeting this challenge.Future generations will not forgive us if we fail.

George Osborne is a Member of Parliament for Tatton

and Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer.

a gr

eene

r sh

ade

of b

lue?

29

“ The options are stark: we canpromote economic prosperity whilstalso acting as responsible stewardsof our planet, or we can courteconomic and environmental ruin”

S3518_wayne_v5 11/5/07 15:01

In a matter of months during 2006, David Cameronmanaged something that no previous oppositionleader (or party) has succeeded in doing in decades– he has thrown the government continuously onthe defensive about its environmental record andelevated climate change to mainstream parliamentarypolitics.

There must be much gnashing of teeth and tearingof hair amongst Liberal Democrat supporters andtheir ‘greenest’ MPs, such as Matthew Taylor,TomBrake and the indefatigable Norman Baker, who haslong waged an almost one-man campaign inparliament to make this break-through. After all, theLib-Dems are no ‘Johnny-come-lately’ to theenvironmental cause, having had by far the greenestpolicies and manifestos of the three major parties forthe past 15 years. The trouble is that, as anopposition party, they have failed to make politicaland parliamentary capital of this distinctiveadvantage – and for that Paddy Ashdown and,especially, Charles Kennedy and his campaignstrategists should hang their heads in shame.

One of New Labour’s weakest and most exposedflanks has been their feeble environmental record,particularly given their failure to deliver on clear-cut,unambiguous manifesto promises made in 1997:“We will put concern for the environment at theheart of policy-making, so that it is not an add-onextra, but informs the whole of government, from

housing and energy policy through to globalwarming and international agreements.”10 But liketheir equally vaunted ‘ethical foreign policy’ andguaranteed 20 per cent cut in carbon dioxideemissions on 1990 levels by 2010, this welcomegreen mandate quickly withered once ingovernment.

In addition, the Tories were cast into the politicalwilderness by the 1997 election - with their deepunpopularity confirmed in 2001, and again in 2005– and the position of Her Majesty’s OfficialOpposition was there for the taking. But it looks asif the Liberal Democrats have blown their chance tofill the vacuum, and must watch from the sidelinesas Cameron wraps himself and his resurgent party intheir green policy clothes.This in itself is a Cameroncoup.

Through media-savvy events like his well-publicisedtrip to the Arctic, and politically significant decisionslike his backing of statutory targets to reduce carbondioxide emissions, Cameron has forced the cabinetto play catch-up. New Labour is now bringingforward its own Climate Change Bill, after years ofstalling, and David Miliband, as secretary of state forthe environment, is trying to gain the initiative by

the greening of the Tory party: rhetoric or reality?

Charles Secrett

a gr

eene

r sh

ade

of b

lue?

30

S3518_wayne_v5 11/5/07 15:01

publicising a host of suddenly revealed New Labourproposals: from promising all new homes to bezero-carbon rated by 2016 to introducing personalcarbon allowances for every citizen and the types ofsubstantive eco-tax reform advocated in thispamphlet by Cameron, Hurd and Osborne.

Of course, David Cameron has had a lot of outsidehelp – not least from the 130,000 constituentsmobilised by Friends of the Earth’s (FoE) Big Askcampaign, who lobbied MPs of all parties to backmandatory carbon emission cuts; as well as thestream of authoritative scientific evidence andconstant media coverage of looming climate changeand sea-level rises.

The media has always prominently covered greenissues, and pressure groups like FoE and theAssociation for the Conservation of Energy have longbeen successful in drafting innovative green bills andbuilding sufficient constituency pressure to see themenacted as law, even in the face of government

blocking tactics. To namejust three of many,TheRoad Traffic Reduction Act(1997),The Warm Homesand Energy ConservationAct (2000), and Parts IIIand IV of the Countrysideand Rights of Way Act(2000), covering habitatand wildlife reserveprotection, were allachieved in this way.But this is the first timethat the environmentalagenda has been elevated

from a second-rate parliamentary concernto a first-rank priority. And for that,Cameron deserves real praise.

Notwithstanding the inequities ofBritain’s simple majority voting system,which is as effective at protecting thetwo big parties from successful electoral(though not political) challenges by the LiberalDemocrats and the Green Party as the lack of moneyis in preventing every other football club frombreaking the stranglehold of the ‘Big Four’ on thePremiership, it is surprising that the ConservativeParty has taken so long to treat environmental issuesseriously.

Since the late 1980s, if not earlier, a majority ofcitizens and scientists have repeatedly registered theirconcerns about accelerating habitat destruction,rapidly diminishing wild species populations,growing mountains of waste and pollution threats ofall types, as well as the undeniable evidence of theeconomic and social harm that trails in their wake.The votes seemed to be there for the taking bywhichever party stepped up to the plate. Instead,every now and again over the past 20 years, seniorConservative and Labour politicians (most notablyMargaret Thatcher and Tony Blair) pop up to reassureus that something must and will be done... beforebusiness as usual resumes.

So the question we have to ask is: is the Cameroninspired Tory-green revolution for real or anotherfalse dawn?

The short – but not very interesting – answer is thatit is too early to say.The Conservative policy groups

31

“ this is the firsttime that theenvironmentalagenda has beenelevated from asecond-rateparliamentaryconcern to a first-rank priority. Andfor that, Camerondeserves realpraise”

“ is the Cameroninspired Tory-green revolutionfor real oranother falsedawn?”

a gr

eene

r sh

ade

of b

lue?

S3518_wayne_v5 11/5/07 15:01

are still beavering away, but have not reported.TheQuality of Life Commission (a people friendly termwhich covers the awkward polysyllabic agenda ofsustainable development, biodiversity protection,localisation et al) is led by two prominent green-blues with impressive track-records: John GummerMP, one of the three best environment secretaries ofstate this country has had, and Zac Goldsmith,campaigning editor of the Ecologist, one of the threebest green magazines available.

We’ll have to wait and see what ends up in thegeneral election manifesto before knowing wherethe Conservatives stand - and whether the Quality ofLife Commission’s conclusions on energy, transport,economic management, taxation, public spend andglobalisation mesh with the other lead groups inthese critical policy areas. Unless the Conservativemanifesto embeds carbon dioxide reduction andother environmental priorities as responsibilities forall the main Whitehall departments to delivertogether, and convincingly demonstrates how theyintend to use regulatory and fiscal policy to deliversignificant carbon emission cuts, clean fuels andpower, fewer flights, minimal waste and maximumresource-use efficiency throughout the economy,then we will have to conclude that Britain’s currentlyunsustainable development path will continue muchas before.

And then, after the manifesto is published, there isalso the vexatious conflict betweenwhat opposition parties say and whatthey do once in power. It is a loteasier to promise from thebackbenches than deliver ingovernment. Remember another

famous line from New Labour’s 1997 manifesto?“The Conservative’s broken promises taint allpolitics. That is why we have made it our guidingrule not to promise what we cannot deliver; and todeliver what we promise.”11 Enough said.

Cameron’s Turquoise Tories are not Blair’s NewLabour, so things may be different next time round,should the Conservatives win the next election. Aswe try to gauge how meaningful the Conservativegreen revolution is – and from the leadership atleast, it seems sincere – my point is that you cannever really tell what a politician or political party isgoing to do until he, she or it grabs the reins ofpower.

Looking backSo, we should look at what the Conservatives saidand did on the environment when they werepreviously in charge, for clues as to whetherCameron will succeed in greening the Conservativesand to get a clearer picture of the obstacles he has toovercome.

As well as modernising the Conservative party,Cameron’s other significant challenge is to hold itsvarious wings together – and none may be moreinimical to the green agenda than the 30 per centsolid minority for whom Mrs Thatcher and herbrand of modern Conservatism is still the be-all-and-end-all of political achievement.Thatcher’s

philosophy can be summed up crudelyin nine words: deregulation,privatisation, individuality, nationalsovereignty, more market, less state. And,all too often, it was putting this ideologyinto practice that prevented her

“ Cameron’sTurquoise Toriesare not Blair’sNew Labour”

a gr

eene

r sh

ade

of b

lue?

32

S3518_wayne_v5 11/5/07 15:01

administrations from delivering on their greenmanifesto pledges, as some typical examplesillustrate.The 1979 Conservative manifesto stated:“The quality of our environment is a vital concern toall of us.The last Conservative government had aproud record of achievement in reducing pollution,and protecting our heritage and countryside. We shallcontinue to give these issues a proper priority. Subjectto the availability of resources, we shall pay particularattention to the improvement and restoration ofderelict land, the disposal and recycling of dangerousand other wastes, and reducing pollution of ourrivers and canals. We attach particular importance tomeasures to reduce fuel consumption by improvinginsulation.”12

Sadly, the reality of delivery was somewhat different.The 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act was intendedto protect Britain’s most important (as well as typical)wildlife habitats and species and, in particular, ourbest wildlife reserves – the national network of sitesof special scientific interest (SSSIs). The act was basedon the ‘voluntary approach’ where, instead ofprohibiting damaging land-use operations, land-owners were compensated on the basis of the profitsforegone from not ‘improving’ the agricultural orother development value of the reserves. It didn’twork. In 1984-85, 255 SSSIs were seriously damaged(a typical annual figure) by inimical land-uses,mostly agricultural and forestry. By 1989, little hadimproved, with 228 SSSIs suffering the same fate inthat year.

Throughout the 1980s, river pollution incidentsbecame ever more frequent. Government figures for1988 show a 15 per cent rise on 1987, with the total– 26,926 cases – more than double the 1980 figure.

Every year between 1980 and 1988, Britain dumpedsome eight million tonnes of sewage sludge,containing large amounts of poisonous heavy metalslike lead, cadmium and mercury, into the North Sea.We were the only marine-border state to do so. In1989, a joint study by the Observer and FoEdemonstrated that millions of people’s drinking waterbreached European statutory limits for contaminants,including lead, aluminium, nitrates and pesticides.Until the European Economic Community (EEC)forced the government to change, pesticide approvalwas controlled solely by a voluntary agreementbetween pesticide manufacturers and the Ministry ofAgriculture. Even when weak control regulationswere brought in, the government had to admit in1989 that over 100 pesticides were still beingapproved for sale based only on rudimentary safetytests carried out in or before 1965.

Again in 1989, the Department of the Environment(DoE) admitted to the Commons EnvironmentCommittee that only 23 of 79 waste authorities hadcompleted the statutory waste disposal plans requiredby the 1974 Control of Pollution Act. The first reportof the Hazardous Waste Inspectorate in 1985 declaredthat “all too many major hazardous waste landfillsites … exude an atmosphere of total dereliction anddecay, are under-equipped, undermanned and operatewith a notable lack of professionalism.”13 Perhapseven more tellingly, the first annual report of HerMajesty’s Inspectorate of Pollution in 1987/88confirmed that there were still no reliable statistics onthe country’s waste generation and disposal. The newinspectorates were welcome first steps – but notmuch good if the state wouldn’t provide the moneyfor clean-up or ensure that private sector polluterspaid instead.

a gr

eene

r sh

ade

of b

lue?

33

S3518_wayne_v5 11/5/07 15:01

As for reducing fuel use by improving insulation, orother energy efficiency measures, the government’sattitude throughout the 1980s was summed up by aDepartment of Energy comment on a globalwarming report from the Commons EnergyCommittee in November 1989: “The Governmentbelieves that since energy efficiency is above all amatter for decisions and actions by individuals …then the best way forward is through the operationof the market, lubricated by information andadvice.”The trouble is that it wasn’t – and millionsof low-income families and other vulnerable peoplesuffered the debilitating effects of fuel poverty anddied prematurely in their thousands during coldwinters, as carbon dioxide emissions rose.

Similar promises in the 1983 and 1987 manifestosalso foundered on the rocks of rigid principle.Deregulation of the bus industry outside of Londonled to significantly reduced services, particularly inrural areas, declining passenger numbers and cheap,poorly maintained vehicles belching out dieselfumes and cancerous particulates. Local councilswere prohibited from spending central governmentgrants on subsidising public transport - and roadswere definitely the order of the day over rail. In1985, Nicholas Ridley, then transport secretary,proclaimed that government spending on roads hadrisen by 30 per cent in real terms since 1979; in1989, Paul Channon, his successor, published ‘Roadsto Prosperity’, which promised to double roadsspending with a ten year, £12 billion programme.Mrs Thatcher was notoriously proud of Britain’s“great car economy”, apparently not understanding(or caring about?) the enormous health andenvironmental costs of piling ever more polluting

vehicles onto an expanding road network.Privatisation of the water and energy sectors pushedenvironmental necessities further down the ladder ofpriorities. During the 1980s, discharge consentswere relaxed for 1,800 of Britain’s 6,600 sewageworks. In 1989, in the run-up to water privatisation,consents for nearly 1,000 more works were relaxed– otherwise the government would be selling offillegal sewage plant and the companies would havefaced private prosecutions under the 1974 Controlof Pollution Act. The situation had grown so badbecause of Whitehall enforced financial constraintsthroughout the 1980s, which prevented the publicwater authorities from spending on essentialmaintenance and modernisation.

The regulatory framework for the privatised energyindustry, as set out in the 1989 Electricity Act, waseven more barmy. As the act went through theCommons, the government rejected all amendmentspromoting energy efficiency and greatly watereddown the only successful one from the rebelliousLords. Not only did the act fail to promote – or atleast set a level playing field - for renewable power, itpositively encouraged the industry (as had happenedwith the sell-off of British Gas in 1987) to make itsprofits by persuading companies and householdersto use as much electricity as possible. Discounts ofup to 25 per cent were quickly offered to large-scaleusers (factories and mega-stores) whoseconsumption exceeded 1MW annually. Similarincentives were available to gas users who exceeded25,000 therms per year.

Finally, there was Europe. Most of the UK’s falteringenvironmental progress in the 1980s was due to EEClaws. But the government went down fighting in its

a gr

eene

r sh

ade

of b

lue?

34

S3518_wayne_v5 11/5/07 15:01

considerable attempts to keep at baythe malign influence of ‘Johnny-foreigner’s’ perverse desire to protectand clean up the naturalenvironment and improve thequality of life for all. To take just afew brief examples from many: theDoE vetoed the EnvironmentalImpact Assessment Directive for five years, eventhough it merely sought to formalise existing bestpractice. Britain blocked implementation of theEmissions from Large Combustion Plant Directive forfour years, even though we were the largest polluterof sulphur dioxide, one of the principle ingredientsof acid rain.The government designated just 27beaches (out of hundreds) under the Bathing WaterDirective, and it authorised a highly selective andinadequate implementation of the Drinking WaterDirective.The list goes on. Even when Europeanpolicies were implemented, the DoE overwhelminglypreferred to use administrative mechanisms ratherthan primary or secondary legislation. By the mid-1980s, it was not surprising that Britain had earnedthe unenviable reputation as the ‘dirty man ofEurope’.

Being a green leaderThe continuing influence of Mrs Thatcher’sconsiderable legacy can be seen not only in NewLabour’s adoption of a similar set of guidingprinciples in government (albeit with a lot moregovernment spend on health and education) but alsoin the performance of many Conservative runauthorities today. At the local level, as well as in theunreconstructed rump of his parliamentary party,David Cameron faces some of his biggest challengesto successfully and convincingly greening his party

at all levels. Just last year,Torybackbenchers ignored his lead bytalking out the private member’sClimate Change and Sustainable EnergyBill.

As Chris Huhne, the current LiberalDemocract environment spokesman,

has recently catalogued in The Guardian, localConservative administrations have a long way to goto match their leader’s words with appropriateaction. For example, the Scottish Conservative 2007election manifesto was awarded 0/10 for its greencredentials by an independent NGO adjudicator.TheConservative’s 2004 European manifesto scored thelowest of all the parties when judged byenvironmental yardsticks. In Cameron’s ownconstituency, West Oxfordshire council is cutting itsrecycling budget, even though it has one of thepoorest records of any in the country.There werefewer Conservative councils in a recent Guardiansurvey of good local authority green performancethan any of the other main parties. London Assemblyand (west London) Richmond Council Conservativesoppose higher parking charges for gas-guzzlers.Conservative-led Swale Borough Council is blockingthe ‘London Array’ (strongly endorsed by KenLivingstone as The Mayor of London), which will bethe world’s largest wind farm. The farm itself willbe 12 miles off shore, but SwaleBorough Council is refusingpermission for an essential electricitysub-station in their territory, withTory councilors comparing theiractions to “defending the Kent coastfrom Nazi invasion.”14 Recently, inScotland, Caroline Spelman, the Tory

a gr

eene

r sh

ade

of b

lue?

35“ Most of the UK’sfalteringenvironmentalprogress in the1980s was due toEEC laws”

“ Tory administrationslocally have a longway to go to matchtheir leader’s wordswith appropriateaction”

S3518_wayne_v5 11/5/07 15:01

communities and local government spokeswoman,called for a moratorium on all wind farms. Despiteher government’s appalling domestic environmentalperformance, Margaret Thatcher, along with MikhaelGorbachev, was the first world leader to respond tothe global environmental crisis that first unfolded inthe late 1980s.

Then, as now, newspapers, radio and TV fell overthemselves in their scramble to broadcast the eco-disasters that the scientific community and greenNGOs had been documenting and warning about foryears. Climate change also first hit the headlines backthen. 1988 was the fifth of (the then) ‘five warmestyears on record’: all occurring during the 1980s. Assevere droughts and forest fires swarmed across theUnited States and China, and floods decimatedBangladesh, James Hansen, of NASA’s GoddardInstitute for Space Studies, made global warmingworld news when he told a Senate Committee, “Thegreenhouse effect has been detected, and it ischanging our climate now.”15

But, like Tony Blair over the past decade, MrsThatcher made her international reputation as a‘green leader’ through prominent speeches and notdecisive action.Three seemed especially important atthe time. Like Blair, her rhetoric was impressive. On27 September 1988, she told the Royal Society: “Wemight have begun amassive experiment withthe system of this planetitself”, and went on toassert that “the health ofour economy and thehealth of our environmentare totally dependent on

each other.” In October, she continued the theme inher speech to the Conservative annual partyconference by declaring that Conservatives were “notmerely friends of the earth, but its guardians andtrustees for generations to come.” And a year later,on 8 November, she addressed the UN GeneralAssembly, declaring that it was “mankind and hisactivities which are changing the environment ofour planet in damaging and dangerous ways … theevidence is there … the damage is being done.” andconcluded that “the repair work needs to startwithout delay.”

Then, as now with Cameron’s parliamentary break-through, the environmental movement in Britainthought their time had come, and that action wouldbe taken to resolve the crisis before it was too late.

But it was not to be.Then, as now, the reality ofgovernment in power gave the lie to the fine words.Blair must be given credit for making, on average,one really big speech on the environmental crisisannually since his first major effort in the run-up tothe 1997 election.Today, senior politicians, officialsand journalists in many other countries credit Blairfor keeping climate change on the internationalpolitical agenda.

But if Blair wins these plaudits then ChancellorBrown – in effect the principaldeterminer of what actually gotdone by New Labour ingovernment – must take the blamefor ensuring that nothingmeaningful has been achieved toreduce carbon dioxide and othergreenhouse gas emissions through

36

“ …like Tony Blair over the pastdecade, Mrs Thatcher madeher international reputationas a ‘green leader’ throughprominent speeches and notdecisive action”

a gr

eene

r sh

ade

of b

lue?

S3518_wayne_v5 11/5/07 15:01

considered policy (as opposed to opportunisticallyrealised carbon dioxide reductions due to the declineof British manufacturing industries and the ‘dash-for-gas’). There have been no effective tax incentivesfor firms and householders to make and userenewables and clean fuels, no carbon pricing, noregulatory drivers for energy and fuel efficiency inbuildings, machinery and appliances, no greenprocurement, no VAT reduction on energy-efficientgoods and materials, no polluter-pays penalties. Or atleast none worth the name. Sure, there have beentoken gestures – the climate levy, marginal changesto fuel duty and road tax, slightly reduceddifferentials for gas-based fuels, derisory increases inair passenger duty, small allocations for renewableenergy – but nothing that persuades business andconsumers to change behaviour significantly.

As long as it is cheap, legal and convenient to wastecarbon dioxide and natural resources, then that iswhat the majority will continue to do. Above all else,the Treasury has to change for Britain to go green.

It is not that the solutions are absent. Britain, likeevery other wealthy country, has the money,technical expertise, industrial infrastructure, publicsupport and knowledge to cutcarbon emissions to the levelsdetermined by best science: upto 60 per cent reductions on1990 levels by 2025 and 90per cent by 2050. And we arecapable of doing so in waysthat will invigorateproductivity and wealthcreation through innovation,greatly enhanced efficiency and

increased competitiveness, as Britain moves towardthe low carbon, low waste economy required forthis century. It can be done, as Ken Livingstone hasshown with his recently published London ClimateChange Action Plan.

The only thing missing from the policy cocktail isthe political will to make the transition, and to usethe tools of government (regulation, fiscal policyand leadership by doing, not talking) to set Britainon a sustainable trajectory.That is the ultimatechallenge that Mr Cameron faces if he becomesprime minister – to move on from the Thatcheriteapproach to government and whip the Treasury intoline – and it will be the truest test of his greencredentials.

Charles Secrett is Environment Advisor to The London

Mayor’s Office and Visit London, and previously Director

of Friends of the Earth (1993-2003).

37

“ the ultimate challengethat Mr Cameron facesif he becomes primeminister is to move onfrom the Thatcheriteapproach togovernment and whipthe Treasury into line”

a gr

eene

r sh

ade

of b

lue?

S3518_wayne_v5 11/5/07 15:01

Finding myself working for a Conservativegovernment was one of the more unexpected turnsin the thirty five years I have spent as anenvironmentalist. This was not a predictable fate for aformer member of the Labour Party’s national policycommittees on both energy and the environment.But it did give me a matchless opportunity toobserve close up how the environment was dealtwith by government. It also confirmed the enduringtruth of a remark by the historian, Macaulay, whowarned us to “Remember that argument isconstructed in one way and government in entirelyanother.”

There are a limited number oftools available to government toachieve its environmentalobjectives.The most important ofthese is cash. Governments canspend money to achieve theirgoals. They can regulate to controlunacceptable behaviours.They canappoint people to public officesof one kind or another. Often

overlooked is their ability to create – and sometimesdestroy – institutions.They can develop policies thatset out their environmental goals and the paths theyintend to follow to achieve them.These policies mayor may not be derived from general ideologicalpositions that define their broad approach to

tackling the problems in question.They can alsosimply shout at people – exhorting them to dobetter. Finally, though not properly a tool ofgovernment, real progress can be made by accident.

The importance of this latter point should not beunderestimated. When Ted Heath led Britain into thethen Common Market in 1973 improving theenvironment was far from the top of his reasons fordoing so.Yet, arguably, Britain’s membership of theEuropean Union (EU) has been, and remains, themost significant political decision ever taken toprotect our environment.This will becomeincreasingly apparent as Gordon Brown continues tovandalise the planning system. The fact that SpecialProtection Areas and Special Areas of Conservationare defined by European legislation and protectedfrom whimsical repeal by the European Court ofJustice is a powerful barrier to expedient policies.Ironically, it was a Conservative environmentsecretary, Michael Howard, who discovered,empirically and expensively, just how powerful adefence this could be. He granted planningpermission to a development on a protected site andthe Royal Society for the Protection of Birds went tothe Court and won.

Mrs Thatcher’s abolition of the Central ElectricityGenerating Board (CEGB) and defeat of ArthurScargill during the miner’s strike are more examples

accidents and achievements: the Conservativeenvironmental recordTom Burke

a gr

eene

r sh

ade

of b

lue?

38

“Britain’s membershipof the EU has been,and remains, themost significantpolitical decisionever taken to protectour environment”

S3518_wayne_v5 11/5/07 15:01

of the power of political accidents to protect theenvironment. It was certainly not her intention inprivatising the electricity industry to kill Britain’snuclear industry.Yet, that is what she accomplished.Investors took one look at the CEGB’s books and,much more loudly and effectively thanenvironmentalists, said ‘Nuclear Power, No Thanks’.And they continue to hold this view, despite thecurrent government’s desperate search for a way ofcovertly bribing them into taking the risk. MrsThatcher’s attack on the miners was purely politicalin motivation but one of its wholly unintendedconsequences was to reduce Britain’s greenhouse gasemissions way beyond what they would otherwisehave been.

If Conservative political accidents have accomplishedmuch for the environment, the same cannot be saidfor their willingness to spend cash. In fact, an area ofsurprising, if tacit, agreement between all of Britain’spolitical parties, has been the belief that a highquality environment can somehow be achievedwithout much public expenditure. In the days whenthe very rapid and, for many, painful re-structuringof Britain’s economy was bringing massive windfallbenefits in terms of improving air and water quality,this may have had some justification.Those days are,however, long gone.

Total public spending on the environment has barelyincreased in real terms under both Conservative andLabour governments. We currently spend about £8.5billion a year on environmental protection.Thiscompares rather badly with the £89.4 billion a yearthat we spend on health and the £67.9 billion thatwe spend on education.

The Conservatives have been luckier than Labourthough. During their long period of dominance inthe eighties and nineties they were dealing with theeasier politics of the environment.These could bemanaged largely by regulation.The harderenvironmental politics of the 21st Century, as westruggle to maintain the productivity of theecological foundations of the economy, will requirean as yet undiscovered willingness to make largepublic investments. For example, the only real test ofa government’s climate change policyis to ask how much, on what, bywhen. When we see Conservative andLabour politicians competing witheach other over how much we needto spend on the environment, as theycurrently compete to out do eachother on welfare spending, theenvironment really will be at thecentre of politics.

Public institutions embody, promote and protectvalues. Policies come and go as governments andtimes change. Institutions remain. Over time, theirmission becomes clearer and their capabilities grow.Conservative environment policy has a good trackrecord of institution building. It was Ted Heath thatbrought together the Ministry of Transport and theMinistry of Housing and Local Government, whoseremit included public works and planning, to createthe Department of the Environment (DoE) underPeter Walker in 1970.This endured as an increasinglypowerful piece of government machinery until itsdestruction by Labour in 1997.

39

“ the only real testof a government’sclimate changepolicy is to askhow much, onwhat, by when”

a gr

eene

r sh

ade

of b

lue?

S3518_wayne_v5 11/5/07 15:01

Prior to this, environmental policy was in the handsof a small unit, the Central Unit on EnvironmentalPollution, in the Cabinet Office. Making the DoE abig spending department gave it real political cloutand ensured that its leadership was in the hands ofa senior politician. Furthermore, by giving itcontrol of planning policy it placed in its hands apowerful and effective tool for managing theenvironment on a small and very crowded island.

This bore fruit as the environment inched up thepolitical agenda and the DoE became an ever moreattractive perch for ambitious politicians and civilservants – both of the current cabinet secretary’spredecessors were permanent secretaries at DoE. Italso stands in marked contrast to the currentconfused, diminished and demoralisedarrangements surrounding today’s Department forthe Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). Itis an unexpected paradox that we now have weakerinstitutions to manage our environment than wedid ten years ago, despite Labour’s much morevocal and consistent commitment to green issues.

The creation of the National Rivers Authority(NRA) was a not quite accidental outcome of waterprivatisation and another example of howimportant membership of the EU has been to theenvironment in Britain. Water privatisation tookcontrol of Britain’s freshwaters out of the hands oflocal authorities, who had taken to exemptingthemselves from having to comply with waterquality regulations that they found overlyburdensome. The Conservative government’soriginal intention however had been to make thenewly privatised water companies responsible forthe enforcement of pollution controls. To the

Council for the Protection of Rural England thiswas clearly an attempt to sell the police force to themafia. Their threat of a judicial review backed bycounsel’s opinion that this would be a breach ofEuropean legislation was enough to cause a hastyretreat by the DoE.

The NRA, under the leadership of a formerConservative cabinet minister, Lord Crickhowell,went on to become a widely respected and effectiveprotector of the environment. Indeed, so powerfuldid it become that part of the political motivationfor later merging it with the Pollution Inspectorateto create the Environment Agency was to clip itswings. Nevertheless, whatever the motivation, thecreation of the Environment Agency established apowerful and independent body that is able tomanage a wide range of environmental regulationson air, water and wastes free of short term politicalinterference.

As the environment rose up the political agenda,particularly during the somewhat scary moment inthe late eighties when the Green Party in Britainsecured 15 per cent of the vote in the EuropeanParliament elections, the temptation to exploit theelision of Conservative and conservation was toogreat for many Conservative politicians to resist. Thiswas not enough however to save the NatureConservancy Council (NCC), the body then chargedwith protecting Britain’s biodiversity, from the wrathof Environment Secretary Nicholas Ridley. Under thechairmanship of William Wilkinson, a formerbanker, the NCC had become a potent andauthoritative champion of nature and a significantthorn in the government’s side. In a deliberate, butultimately unsuccessful, attempt to weaken its voice,

a gr

eene

r sh

ade

of b

lue?

40

S3518_wayne_v5 11/5/07 15:01

Ridley discovered a previously unrecognised appetitefor devolution and broke the NCC up into fourseparate bodies in England, Scotland, Wales andNorthern Ireland.When politicians talk amongthemselves a dominant topicof conversation is who getswhat job. Control of localgovernment finance gave theenvironment secretaryconsiderable clout withconstituency party chairmen.This, together with control ofthe planning system, made it adesirable office for anambitious politician. MichaelHeseltine, Michael Howardand Chris Patten were amongthe leading Conservativepoliticians of their generation to hold the post. JohnGummer, a former party chairman, held the officefor four years and left with his wider politicalreputation much enhanced when his contemporarieswere having theirs diminished. Not all wereremembered kindly. Nicholas Ridely remains to thisday one of the worst environment secretaries everand some, like Kenneth Baker, are barelyremembered at all.

Profile in the headlines is not always a good measureof progress. John Major is an unlikely candidate forany green political award.Yet, with his support,Britain played a leading role in the run up to the1992 Earth Summit, even going so far as to providea $1 million bail out to the NGO forum thataccompanied it. Michael Howard’s negotiating skillswere central to bringing the United States into

signing the Framework Convention on ClimateChange, which was the most important success ofthe summit. In Europe, John Gummer set out to, andsucceeded in, reversing the ‘dirty man of Europe’

label that had been attached toBritain during the previous Labourand Conservative administrations. Bythe end of the Major years, andunnoticed by the media, Britain hadbecome the leading promoter of theenvironment globally.

Substantive environment policy hasalways presented Conservativethinkers with something of aproblem.The primary tools ofenvironmental management arepublic spending, regulation andtaxation. If you are ideologically

disinclined to use any of these tools it is difficult toget beyond piety and exhortation.This vacuum droveConservative environmental policy to develop theuse of market based economic instruments toachieve environmental goals. These are mostlynothing more than rather inefficient regulations anddisguised taxes but they sound more compatiblewith a business friendly approach.

Mrs Thatcher embodied this unresolved tension inConservatism; wanting simultaneously to glorify themarket and return to Victorian values. She neverunderstood that economic opportunity corrodessocial ligatures; that an expanding realm ofindividual choice leads to a triumph of transactionsover relationships.The creative destruction of themarket is inherently anarchic.The aspiration toVictorian values reflected a desire for order and

a gr

eene

r sh

ade

of b

lue?

41

“The primary tools ofenvironmentalmanagement are publicspending, regulationand taxation. If you areideologically disinclinedto use any of thesetools it is difficult to getbeyond piety andexhortation”

S3518_wayne_v5 11/5/07 15:01

predictable behaviours wholly at odds with thisimpulse.The current prime minister’s neo-Thatcherism makes the same error, just as he findshimself driven to ever more draconian and intrusive

measures to correct the socialconsequences.Dealing with a sharedenvironment requirescollective action above all. Theeconomy and its markets,which are its most powerfulinstruments, rest onecological foundations.Theseare the six bio-geophysicalsystems that provide us withall the goods and services notprovided by fossil fuels and

non-fossil minerals – croplands, rangelands,forestlands, freshwaters, oceans and the atmosphere.Undermine the productivity of these six systems andyou ultimately undermine the productivity of theeconomy and the ability of markets to deliver.

Meeting this challenge sits oddly with a politicalphilosophy that asserts the imperialauthority of individual choice. It is amore comfortable fit with an older strandof Conservatism which recognises, valuesand seeks to sustain the richercomplexity of relationships embedded inculture and tradition.The environmentposes a deeper and more definingchallenge to Cameron’s Conservativesthan simply coming up with some popular, headlinecatching policy prescriptions.

What the Conservatives did manage to do, for the

first time in Britain, was to set out a comprehensivepolicy for the environment.The Chris Patten whitepaper, ‘This Common Inheritance: Britain’sEnvironmental Strategy’ was the first attempt tobring together both the resource and pollutionaspects of the environment into a comprehensivestatement of public policy. It is an achievement thatten years of New Labour has not managed to repeat.Michael Heseltine’s creation of the MINIS system ofpublic reporting on the achievement of DoE goalsalso created a much missed device for monitoringgovernment performance. For the late editor of theEnvironmental Data Service, Marek Myer, it was agift that he used relentlessly to expose the gapbetween rhetoric and reality.

There is much that David Cameron could learn fromthe track record of his predecessors. Institutionbuilding has been a Conservative strength and hecould win many friends by promising to restore aproper Department of the Environment with a clearmandate and the tools, especially management of theplanning system, to do the job.The lack of any clearstatement of the government’s overarching

environmental policy is one of the manyreasons why Defra is such a feeble playerin Whitehall. A promise to produce anearly white paper on the environment isanother easy win for Cameron to exploitthe vacuum left by Labour.

Restoring Britain’s leading role inEurope will be more difficult for him, as

will finding a way to raise and spend the large sumsof public money that will be required if we are tomeet the 21st Century’s environment problems,especially climate change, with any hope of success.

42

“ The environment posesa deeper and moredefining challenge toCameron’s Conservativesthan simply coming upwith some popular,headline catching policyprescriptions”

“ Institutionbuilding hasbeen aConservativestrength”

a gr

eene

r sh

ade

of b

lue?

S3518_wayne_v5 11/5/07 15:01

Euro-scepticism is not readily compatible withenvironmentalism, but environmental taxation,provided it delivers environmental outcomes, willcreate opportunities for tax cuts, as well as newspend. Cameron has been right to identify theenvironment as an issue on which he could win anargument with Labour. So far, he has used thisopportunity well. But the proof will be in how hegoverns, not in how he challenges a weakopposition.

Tom Burke is the founding Director of E3G, previously

Special Advisor to three Conservative secretaries of state

for the environment and Director of Green Alliance from

1982 – 91.

a gr

eene

r sh

ade

of b

lue?

43

S3518_wayne_v5 11/5/07 15:01

A couple of years ago, I gave a speech arguing thatpolitics should take the beauty of our natural andbuilt environment into account.There was muchmuttering in the politicaldovecots. “Always knew he wasan eccentric...What’s he doingburbling on aboutbeauty?…Can’t he think ofsome more crunchy issue totalk about?”That, at any rate, was the gist of it.

Disentangling the serious argument from the usualpolitics, there were, I think, two main lines of attack:

• some people argued, or implied, that beautydoesn’t matter very much – that it’s a luxury itemwhich can’t compete with prosperity or justiceor security or climate change or health oreducation.

• other people argued that, even if beauty didmatter as much as these other things,there wasn’t much point in politicianstalking about it, because politicscouldn’t have any real effect on howbeautiful our country is.

In the intervening two years I havespent quite a lot of time thinkingabout these two criticisms, and I havecome to the conclusion that they areboth wrong. But I now recognise that,instead of just making the speech,

I have to make the argument. So here goes.Why does beauty matter as much as prosperity orjustice or security or climate change or health or

education? My answer is that beauty is,like all these other things, a significantcomponent of general well-being.

To live surrounded by what one findsugly is to live a deprived life. At the

extreme, sensory deprivation (living without naturallight in a blank cell) is a form of torture that isdesigned to drive the subject mad. But even muchless extreme forms of aesthetic deprivation haveenormous effects on psychological and spiritualwell-being.

A child who is brought up in the aestheticdesolation of some of our urban tower-blocks, achild whose daily landscape does not include thebeauty of garden squares or the sunlight comingthrough leaves in a park, a child who has no accessto the grand scenes of the countryside, of themountains and the lakes, of the cliffs and the sea, isdeprived – not in the way in which a child whoseparents are living hand to mouth in poverty isdeprived, but in a different and important way.

In the modern city, poverty and ugliness ofsurroundings often go hand in hand. But theugliness is itself a deprivation, additional to thepoverty.

why beauty matters

Rt Hon Oliver Letwin MP

a gr

eene

r sh

ade

of b

lue?

44

“ people argued thateven if beauty didmatter there wasn’tmuch point inpoliticians talkingabout it, becausepolitics couldn’thave any real effecton how beautifulour country is”

“ beauty is a significantcomponent of generalwell-being”

S3518_wayne_v5 11/5/07 15:01

Do people differ in this? Is beauty a more importantcomponent of well-being for some people than forothers? Yes, of course it is. For some, it is theessence, at the centre of their being; for others, it ismerely a component; for others yet, perhaps, it isonly of secondary importance. But this is true ofevery aspect of quality of life. It hardly takes a surveyto show that different things matter to differentpeople.

The fact that beauty matters more to some than toothers puts it in the same class as prosperity, justice,security, climate change, health and education – eachof which also matter more to some than to others.Some people devote their lives to being rich, othershave no such inclination. For some, health is aconstant preoccupation, others cavalierly disregardtheir health and compromise their security for thesake of adventure.

“But this is missing the point” say the critics. “Thereal issue about beauty mattering differently fordifferent people is that, unlike prosperity or security,beauty only matters for the rich whoalready have the other aspects ofquality of life. Just ask people in hard-pressed estates what they care about –and they’ll tell you pretty quickly howmuch importance they attach tobeauty.”

My answer to such critics is that it isintensely patronising to imagine thatpoor people don’t care about beauty.The peoplewho care about beauty are the people who careabout beauty. Some of them are rich and some ofthem are poor.There is nothing about being poor

that implies lack of aesthetic passion. Indeed, theconsiderable literature on the effects of designingout crime in social housing shows very clearly thatintroducing beauty into ugly and decrepit estates hasan enormous effect on the social cohesion and well-being of the people living in them.

Surprise, surprise: poor people care about what theirsurroundings look like, just like rich people.

Of course, it is true that beauty matters less atcertain times than at others. If you are being attackedby a man with a knife, security is likely to beuppermost in your mind. Beauty will at thatmoment seem irrelevant. But this, too, is true of allthe components of well-being.

If you are starving, it is food and the means to get itthat will be at the forefront of your attention,security at that moment will seem an irrelevance. Ifyou are well fed and secure, but locked in a blank,windowless cell, it is the beauty of sunlight forwhich you will most long.

Well-being is kaleidoscopic. Itspatterns change with each shake oflife. But beauty is one of its mostsignificant elements: a life amidstugliness is one of the most importantforms of deprivation and the searchfor beauty is one of the greatmotivations of the human spirit.

“But”, say the politically anaesthetic, “even if weaccept your argument that the beauty of our naturaland built environment matters as a component ofwell-being, how can we take seriously your assertion

a gr

eene

r sh

ade

of b

lue?

45

“ Surprise, surprise:poor people careabout what theirsurroundings looklike, just like richpeople”

S3518_wayne_v5 11/5/07 15:01

that politics has an important role to play? Surely,beauty is in the eye of the individual beholder, andthere is nothing that politics – which is collectiveaction – can do to bring it about.”

This critique rests on three propositions:

• beauty, being in the eye of the beholder, is not anobjective good;

• since beauty is not an objective good, it cannotbe realised by collective action; and

• since politics is collective action, it cannot bringabout beauty.

I believe that each of these propositions is mistakenin an interesting and important way.

The status of aesthetic judgement is a deep and age-old question. Whether beauty is a matter ofsubjective taste, or whether aesthetic judgement is(as it at least pretends to be) an assertion that iscapable of being true or false, is an issue we canleave to the philosophers.The important point, so faras the political debate is concerned, is that even ifaesthetic judgements are merely expressions ofsubjective taste, they define what are, from theperspective of public policy, objective goods.

The view from Lyme Regis, across Lyme Bay to theGolden Cap, and Portland Bill beyond may be, insome absolute sense, beautiful. Or it may simply beto the taste of a large number of people. But, eitherway, it has an objectively measurable monetary value.To put it crudely, people will pay for this view.

In the market-place, the objective monetary valueattached to aesthetic preference is well understood.

The estate agents understand it, and trade on it. Thefashion designers understand it and trade on it. Alarge part of the economy – from auction houses tohistoric houses – is founded upon the recognitionthat people attach value to what they considerbeautiful. However subjective the underlying tastesmay be, the market translates them in its inevitablycrude, but nevertheless powerful way, into realeconomic forces.

So why, in the public sphere, should we beembarrassed about recognising the value of beauty?When we designate some parts of the country asareas of outstanding natural beauty (AONBs), we areimplicitly recognising that it is possible to make apolitical decision about what is beautiful. Is this anunwarranted imposition of the subjective preferenceof some committee upon the nation? Would Britainbe a better place and government a fairer thing if werefrained from such designations and let thebulldozers tear up the loveliest of Britain’scountryside? Surely not.

Go back to the view and its monetary value.Theplaces that are designated as AONBs would attract apremium in the market, because they are widelyperceived as especially beautiful. The law, inaccording them a special designation, is merelyrecognising that objective fact about aestheticpreferences. Public policy is anticipating market fact,and translating it through regulation into publicgood.

“But”, say the critics, “even if this works for thepreservation of beauty, it will never work for thecreation of beauty.You may be able to determinewhat existing natural scenery and artefacts people

a gr

eene

r sh

ade

of b

lue?

46

S3518_wayne_v5 11/5/07 15:01

attach a high value to, and hence find an objectivereference point for public policy decisions aboutpreservation, but you will never find a similarobjective reference point when it comes to creatingwhat doesn’t yet exist. So you can’t take account ofthe value of creating beauty in politics, even if youcan take account of the value of preserving beauty.”

This argument, too, is flawed.

Of course, I do not suggest that politicians shouldestablish a cultural health and beauty executive forthe purpose of making Britain more beautiful. Thatwould be an example of crude statism, all too likelyto produce the opposite of its intended effect. It isnot easy to find a Lorenzo de Medici to head suchan executive, and it is not easy to see how such aLorenzo would operate successfully in a moderndemocracy.

But it is giving up too easily to conclude that,because crude statism won’t work, a modern liberaldemocracy has no means of making its towns, citiesand suburbs more beautiful. There are at least twocomplementary and mutually reinforcing approachesthat we can take.The first consists of the state takingaccount of beauty in its own activities. The secondconsists of promoting the consciousness of beauty asa social responsibility.

The state itself has a direct role in creating beautyand ugliness. Public housing, public buildings andother public construction are classic examples. Whentaxpayers’ money is used for construction, there aretwo possible attitudes: build what is cheap,serviceable and durable without undue regard tobeauty or the environment. Or, build what is

beautiful and eco-friendly and, within thatconstraint, make it as cheap, serviceable and durableas possible. Who can honestly claim that it hasalways been the second attitude rather than the firstwhich has guided decisions about public sectorconstruction?

If it becomes predominant in public sectorconstruction, will the second attitude (the beauty-first attitude),inevitably produce what is later widelyregarded as beautiful? No.The prize for architecturalmerit awarded to the towers built by the Departmentof the Environment in Marsham Street in Londonsome decades ago – and now mercifully demolished– is a testament to the difficulty of making ex anteaesthetic judgements. But if the effort is at leastmade, through the adoption of the beauty-firstprinciple, there is every reason to suppose that theaverage aesthetic quality of publicconstruction (which continues to form asignificant proportion of totalconstruction) will rise. And if the testapplied by those responsible for thepublic construction is the objective testof aesthetic preference (will people paymore to live near, or in what is beingdesigned?), the likelihood of animprovement in peoples’ experienced quality of lifewill rise and the danger of aesthetic catastropheengendered by the establishment fad of the momentwill diminish.

But building the beauty-first principle into publicconstruction is only half the battle. Building thecreation of beauty into the idea of socialresponsibility is at least as important.

a gr

eene

r sh

ade

of b

lue?

47

“ The state itselfhas a direct rolein creatingbeauty andugliness”

S3518_wayne_v5 11/5/07 15:01

“Aha”, I can hear the critic saying, “so you don’tbelieve your own argument about the objectivemonetary value of beauty. If you did, you wouldthink that there was no need to talk about socialresponsibility in this context – the market would dothe trick all by itself.” But the critic is missing a vitaldistinction between two things: internal rate ofreturn and the externalities.

Just as those commissioning public sectorconstruction projects have choices to make aboutwhether to take account of beauty and ecology ormerely practicality and cost, so a private constructorhas to make a judgement of profitability. Increasingthe beauty of any project will tend to increaserevenue, but it may also increase cost. Who is to saywhether, in a given case, the profit is to bemaximised by the cheap and ugly or by the more

expensive and more beautiful? Evenif the choice is marginal, it may goin favour of the cheaper and uglier.And, once the fashion has been set,a more imaginative solution (ascheap, but more beautiful and henceactually more profitable) may noteven be considered at corporateheadquarters – ‘not the way we dothings here’.

The underlying point is that theimpacts on the constructor’sprofitability and on the prospective

purchaser’s desire to purchase are not the onlyeffects of the construction. It also has a social effect– its beauty or ugliness will impinge on the rest ofus. And, although the social effect is objectivelymeasurable (by discovering how much, for example,

the neighbours would pay to have the beautifulversion rather than the ugly version next to them),this measurement does not enter the calculations ofthe constructor.The constructor’s business is basedon the internal rate of return on his investment, noton the consequences his investment has for partiesexternal to the transaction. From the point of viewof society as a whole, there is a market failure.

What is needed is some means of bringing home tothe constructor his social responsibility to make hisconstructions not only eco-friendly but alsobeautiful. It is, in other words, the business ofgovernment to provide mechanisms that will correctthe market failure by ensuring that the socialresponsibility to build beautifully is priced intoprivate profit calculation – and thereby progressivelyto promote cultural change that makes it graduallyfashionable to build beautifully rather than merelypractically.

There is, in short, a solid argument for supposingthat the beauty of our natural and builtenvironment:

1. matters;2. has an objectively measurable effect on well-being;3. can be affected by government preserving beauty

where it exists;4. can be affected by public procurement policy; and5. can be affected by government tackling market

failure to recognise externalities and promotingthe consciousness of beauty as a socialresponsibility.

If that isn’t crunchy, what is?

Oliver Letwin is a Member of Parliament for West Dorset

and Chair of the Conservative Party Policy Review.

a gr

eene

r sh

ade

of b

lue?

48

“ What is needed issome means ofbringing home tothe constructor hissocial responsibilityto make hisconstructions notonly eco-friendlybut also beautiful”

S3518_wayne_v5 11/5/07 15:01

references

1 Nicholas Stern, 2006, The economics of climate

change HM Treasury

2 John Gray, 1993, Beyond the new right: markets,

government and the common environment, Routledge

3 Labour Party, 1994 In Trust for Tomorrow

4 Jonathan Porritt, 9 January 1997, World at One,BBC Radio

5 Rupert Darwall, 16 July 2006, Saving the planet is

bad economics, stupid, www.FT.com

6 Ed Matthews quoted in, 6 December 2006,Brown’s green measures feeble www.news.bbc.co.uk

7 James Healey, 8 February 2007, Evidence givento the House of Commons Treasury Committee -Climate change and the Stern review:implications for HM Treasury policy

8 Matthew Taylor quoted in Anthony Browne,March 12 2007, Travel firms and backbench MPs

attack Tory plans to raise air taxes, The Times

9 The Royal Commission on EnvironmentalPollution, 10 June 1999, News Release

www.rcep.org.uk

10 Labour Party, 1997, New Labour because Britain

deserves better

11 Ibid.

12 Conservative Party, 1979, General Election

Manifesto

13 Hazardous Waste Inspectorate, 1985, First report

14 Polly Toynbee, 2007, Nimbys can’t be allowed to put

a block on wind farms, The Guardian

15 James Hansen, 23 June 1988,Testimony to the United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

a gr

eene

r sh

ade

of b

lue?

49

S3518_wayne_v5 11/5/07 15:01

Green Alliance is an independent charity. For 28 years we have worked with businesses andother environmental charities to make environmental solutions a priority in British politics.We work with representatives of all three of the main political parties to encourage new ideas,facilitate dialogue and secure new commitments to action and progress on the environment.

ISBN 978-1-905869-02-2 £5

S3518_wayne_v5 11/5/07 15:01

A greener shade of blue? Reflections on new Conservative approaches to the environment

Documents

Transcript of A greener shade of blue? Reflections on new Conservative approaches to the environment