The reform says that we must choose between climate and economy. It’s wrong | Larry Elliott
Yes Now we know: the smart response to the UK’s summer of record temperatures is to do precisely nothing. According to Richard Tice, deputy leader of Reform UK, the climate crisis is just one of those things. Nothing can be done about it, so we should just sunbathe.
It is reasonable to assume that Tice would not have said anything so rude if he had been addressing people in Stourbridge who have seen their houses burnt down. Or the farmers whose crops wither in the parched fields. Or firefighters exhausted from fighting wildfires across Britain.
However, Tice clearly thinks he’s onto something. The cost of living crisis has brought into focus the government’s commitment to achieving net zero emissions by 2050. The assumption underlying Tice’s comments is that there is a balance between tackling the climate emergency and raising, or even maintaining, living standards, and that for the moment, the latter should take priority.
To be sure, the government has been acting as if it believes that to be the case. While the drought affecting most of England and Wales makes the strongest possible argument for accelerating the green transition, Andy Burnham’s focus has been on reducing prices for consumers, including by cutting VAT on electricity bills.
It took the Prime Minister a long time to use the words “climate change” to explain this summer’s heatwaves. He did so only after the devastating fires in Stourbridge and when he was prompted by a letter from environmental groups asking him to end his silence.
On some level, the emphasis on putting cash in people’s pockets makes sense. Traditionally, interest in the environment increases during periods of strong economic growth and decreases when times are tough. Climate breakdown takes a backseat to voters’ priority lists when they worry about losing their jobs or struggling to pay their bills. Spikes in concern have tended to occur at the end of long booms, such as those of the early 1970s or late 1980s.
But opinions are changing across the political spectrum. As Conservative peer David Willetts has pointed out, 86% of Britons consider climate breakdown to be at least partly responsible for the recent heatwaves, and even 63% of net zero opponents make that connection. More than a third of UK reform voters said tackling climate breakdown should be a priority in a recent poll.
There are good reasons for the high level of public concern. The rate of food price inflation has also been declining in recent months, but a poor harvest means that trend could well reverse soon.
Meanwhile, a report by German insurance company Allianz has debunked the myth that governments can choose between growth and the environment. The study shows that extreme heat poses structural challenges for many rich countries because, as temperatures rise above 30°C, workers struggle to do their jobs and their productivity suffers. The higher the thermometer rises, the greater the losses.
For the most exposed countries – especially those in continental Europe – the impact on economic activity will be considerable: over a five-year period, the impact of extreme heat could reduce a cumulative 5% to 7% of GDP.
According to Allianz, the UK has so far remained below the 30°C threshold and has not been one of the countries at risk of extreme heat. But from this summer, Britain could soon become a higher risk country along with France and Spain.
To be sure, Britain is responsible for only a small fraction of the world’s CO2 emissions, and there is a legitimate debate about how to achieve net zero. But the warning signs are flashing red. Now is not the time to go slow in addressing climate breakdown. The longer that action – both global and national – is delayed, the greater the risk that the climate crisis will ultimately destroy the economy.
The UK housing stock is woefully inefficient. Household bills would be lower if existing homes were retrofitted with insulation. New homes should be subject to stricter building regulations so that mechanical ventilation, which keeps temperatures stable all year round, is mandatory.
None of this is cheap. The State will have to invest in new infrastructure and make changes to planning laws. Subsidies will be needed to provide incentives for consumers to go green. There is no doubt that the net zero transition involves costs, but the benefits outweigh them. These include cheaper running costs for electric vehicles and lower energy bills for homes where gas boilers are replaced by heat pumps.
Governments can always find the money when the occasion demands it. When the nation’s security is at risk, ways are found to fund additional expenses. To give one example, ministers have committed to increasing defense spending to 3.5% of GDP by 2035 due to the perceived threat from Russia.
But what is the biggest threat? Is it Russia, stuck in Ukraine after more than four years of exhausting fighting, or is it the climate crisis? The answer should be obvious.
