The Conservatives may well be leading the race for victory at the next British general election at the moment, but persisting criticism that the party has changed its face but not its heart could see them lose ground between now and next summer.

Those who would warn voters against a shift towards David Cameron’s ‘Compassionate Conservatives’ are at pains to point out that only the top level of the party has changed tack – and an elite of it at that, with William Hague and David Davis still present and influential – with the majority of the party remaining unchanged in its views.

There are many counts on which that might prove to be true, but on the environment – which the major parties know they have to perform, or at least be seen to perform – there seems to be a worrying gulf between top and bottom level Tories.

Reporting on the uptake of the 10:10 scheme, the Guardian wrote as follows:

“Blue water between the Tories and almost every other political party in the UK is getting clearer and clearer if the local council sign-ups to the 10:10 campaign are anything to go by.

At a national level, the cabinet and the Tory and Lib Dem front benches signed up. So far, so good for our national politicians. After the Lib Dems passed a motion at conference to encourage its councilsEd Miliband urged Labour councils to join. to commit to reducing carbon emissions 10% in 2010,

But so far, out of all the 41 councils that have either passed a motion to join 10:10 or are waiting to do so, but only six of them are Tory-led. This comes as a surprise, given the Tory party’s exuberant greenery. Last Friday, David Cameron made an impassioned speech to the Sustainable Consumption Institute, stressing the importance of council action in reducing emissions from consumers.

Alexis Rowell, the 10:10 coordinator for councils, claims that councillors in Surrey, North Yorkshire and Westminster have declined to join. And yes, their common colour is blue. “When 10:10 was launched,” he said, “David Cameron and the Tory shadow cabinet were very quick to get on board. But there’s a real disconnect between the shadow cabinet and Tory-run councils. On the ground, we’re getting the sense that the Tories don’t give two hoots about climate change.”

Franny Armstrong, founder of the 10:10 campaign, has expressed surprise at the lack of Tory sign-ups: “I think the phenomenal support for 10:10 shows that Britain is ready to take much stronger action on climate change.”

“I’m disappointed that the Tories, who have made such positive strides on environmental policy, are acting as a roadblock to the campaign locally when their leadership has been so publicly supportive of 10:10.”

Perhaps such stories will show that the Conservatives might not quite be the new party that they are claiming to be in the press.

Posted under Climate

If a rich-poor divide is the biggest obstacle in the formation of a successful climate deal at Copenhagen in December, then British calls for a European-US commitment on financial aid less than 50 days from the conference are either the signs of a brave man but foolish man on a doomed and  sinking ship, or the rallying call of a captain setting new wind in the sails.

Whichever the British endeavours turn out to be, Gordon Brown – backed by Ed Miliband and Alistair Darling – is certainly making a concerted effort for a sense of cohesion in anticipation of the talks, and has backed his words up with a €1bn pledge. That move might lead others into a commitment on financial aid – seeing that some one, somewhere, is willing to front the cash – that so many claim is so badly needed if anything worthwhile can be agreed at the December conference.

For their part, the Guardian Newspaper have spoken of Alistair Darling’s own contribution to the debate, reporting as follows:

“The European Union should commit €10bn (£9.1bn) a year in direct funding to help developing countries adapt to the effects of climate change and reduce their emissions, Alistair Darling will say today. The chancellor will use a regular meeting in Luxembourg with his counterparts from across the EU to urge them to contribute to new funding ahead of the climate change conference in Copenhagen in December. Britain will commit €1bn and wants the funding to be delivered by existing institutions, such as the World Bank.

Darling wants developed countries to agree to firm commitments ahead of the Copenhagen conference to convince developing countries the rest of the world is serious about supporting them to meet emissions targets.

“It’s in every country’s interest that we agree tough action on climate change at the Copenhagen conference in December. As the prime minister has said, there are now fewer than 50 days to set the course for that action. “We need to recognise there are responsibilities on both sides. Europe must play a critical role both by showing leadership and by bringing developed and developing nations together around a common action plan.”

Darling’s call for €10bn would represent the EU’s contribution to at least €30bn in direct public funding for developing countries, with the chancellor intending to call for the US to match the EU contribution. Britain estimates the developing world will need at least €100bn a year by 2020, if it is to meet recommended minimum targets to cut emissions to 50% of 1990 levels by 2050“.

The first step, it seems, is to foster some solidarity on the part of European nations, and the presence of a set figure might actually get the ball rolling. whether the US will be willing to match that contribution, and indeed whether Europe will put the money forward in time, is another matter entirely.

Posted under Articles, Climate

We are not far away now from the opening of the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference, and progress has yet to be made, even in words.

India, along with China, are still at odds with the US – backed at least in part by European nations. China, separately have their own grievances with the European-American power block.

There have been similar indications of the futility of the talks from smaller nations. The Maldives have made their own point in odd fashion, by holding a cabinet meeting underwater, to vocalise the peril they face from rising sea levels.

And now, the US – who are reluctant to commit to pre-defined international emissions cuts – have themselves spoke of their fear for the lack of a deal.

In essence, it seems that the problem is one of a battle between established powers, seasoned negotiators who are used to having their own way in diplomatic negotiations, and the emerging but powerful nations of China and India, backed by smaller nations.

The Independent summarised the problem as follows:

“In the simplest terms, two sides have to come together to do a deal: the rich, mainly western countries of the developed world, such as the US and Britain, and the poorer (but rapidly growing) nations of the developing world, led by China and India. The argument is about responsibility and fairness, and it turns on the fact that most of the CO2 that is in the atmosphere now (and it remains for a century or more) has been put there by the rich countries, who have been pumping the stuff out since the industrial revolution 200 years ago; but most of the extra CO2 that will go into the atmosphere in the future will be put there by the developing nations, who are now embarked on a period of unprecedented, explosive economic growth, much of it powered by burning coal, with the principal purpose of drawing their peoples out of poverty.

Throughout the 20th- century the US was the biggest emitter of carbon dioxide in the world; but in the last two years China has overtaken it, having doubled its carbon emissions from 3bn to 6bn tonnes in a mere decade, and they will continue to grow. So you might say that China, with India, Brazil, Indonesia and their fellow developing economies, are now making the problem worse – and they are; but that the US, with Britain, and Germany and France and the other rich countries, started the problem in the first place – and we did. (And we too are worsening the problem every day, of course, with our own carbon emissions.)“.

With a dichotomy over rich and poor, so often at the heart of so many problems, reconciliation at Copenhagen seems unlikely at best.

Posted under Articles, Climate

One of the world’s most famous mainstream political activists, Naomi Klein, whose work includes No Logo and The Shock Doctrine, has spoken out regarding the warming of interests between the US Obama administration and the European powers. Interestingly, though, she argues that the unification of a gulf of interests – which, though long term, looked to be at its widest point with Obama’s predecessor George Bush – could cause much graver problems than the ‘two blocs at war’ model.

She stated as follows:

“Let’s start where the stakes are highest: climate change. During the Bush years, European politicians distinguished themselves from the US by expressing their unshakable commitment to the Kyoto protocol. So while the US increased its carbon emissions by 20% from 1990 levels, European Union countries reduced theirs by 2%. Not stellar, but clearly a case where the EU’s break-up with America carried tangible benefits for the planet.

Flash forward to the high-stakes climate negotiations that have just wrapped up in Bangkok. The talks were supposed to lead to a deal in Copenhagen this December that significantly strengthens Kyoto. Instead, the developed countries formed a bloc calling for Kyoto to be replaced. Where Kyoto set clear and binding targets for emission reductions, the US plan would have each country decide how much to cut, then submit its plans to international monitoring – with nothing but wishful thinking to ensure this all keeps the planet’s temperature below catastrophic levels. And where Kyoto put the burden of responsibility squarely on the rich countries that created the climate crisis, the new plan treats all countries the same.

These kinds of weak proposals were not altogether surprising coming from the US; what was shocking was the sudden unity of the rich world around the plan – including many countries that had previously sung the praises of Kyoto“.

It seems, then, that what might have been a diplomatic warming of the two groups – Obama is certainly not short of personal charisma, and perhaps even personal sincerity – has led to the European countries softening their own previously more admirable and beneficial position.

An enthusiastic US is certainly a bonus in climate change negotiation talks; George Bush Jnr’s refusal to sign or ratify the Kyoto Protocol was a big blow to the system, and the desire for the Obama administration to lead climate change talks from the front is theoretically a great thing. But if US inclusion and leadership, with the European desire to keep the US included, goes on to weaken a new climate deal, can this unification of frontiers ever be a positive thing?

In the long term, perhaps, it can. Europe, historically more progressive than the US, might sacrifice their own position now so that over time they can bring the US on side in a more radical climate deal. That could bring much stronger benefits. But the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit well no doubt set in place a framework convention that might last as long as the Kyoto Protcol. If it does, then there might not be enough time for such a diplomatic sacrifice.

Posted under Articles, Climate

Barack Obama has been so often been painted as the saving grace of the US, bringing a foreign policy of peace, a fervent desire for nationalised health services, and an eco friendly rallying cry for a US Climate Bill that would look to reduce US CO2 emissions and implement green energy technologies.

As the months have drawn on, such optimism has inevitably garnered a backlash, culminating in the controversy over Obama’s awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize.

The hunt for a US Climate Bill has ground to a halt. From within the White House public statements have promised that it is not off the agenda altogether, but that it is not really on the agenda for this year. Some way that the creation of a US national health service has become the president’s primary concern, and quite understandably; but the lack of a US Climate Bill, and the less than enthusiastic discussions around the deal to be struck in Copenhagen, are leading to doubts about the green credentials of the US.

We have looked to the world’s demi-gods for a deal on climate change and found very little, it seems. China and the US are somewhat reluctant to make commitments, and India – who though classed as a developing country along with China, will be massively important to progression in the talks – are far more explicitly against direct targets for emissions cuts.

If Barack Obama puts in place a national health system in the US, true, it will be one of the greatest achievements that the country has ever seen. So too, would a US Climate Bill. But one administration can’t accomplish everything, and perhaps we are relying to heavily on the work of those nations that hold power and sway, those nations who precisely because they hold power and sway are far less likely to make radical proposals that would limit their own powers.

Today, Suzanne Goldenberg writes in the Guardian as follows:

“There weren’t many signs of progress at the last three big gatherings on climate change. Barack Obama disappointed at the United Nations by failing to press the Senate to move forward on climate change legislation, while Hu Jintao offered no specifics on how far China would go to reduce its future greenhouse gas emissions. At the G20 meeting in Pittsburgh, the industrialised economies fell short of expectations they would produce a package on climate finance. And climate talks in Bangkok this month ended in even deeper acrimony between the developing and developed economies.

But beneath the radar, there have been a few positive steps. Norway, Indonesia, and — as of this week — Brazil have all come forward with new pledges on climate action. The country’s environment minister, Carlos Minc, was quoted this week saying that Brazil would propose capping its greenhouse gas emissions at 2005 levels. Meanwhile, the president, Lula Da Silva, said in a radio discussion that Brazil would take more aggressive measures to save the Amazon forest, aiming for an 80% reduction in deforestation in 2020. “We’re in the process of preparing our proposal for Copenhagen. I foresee that by 2020 we will be able to reduce deforestation by 80%, in other words we will emit some 4.8 billion fewer tonnes of carbon dioxide,” the president said. A formal announcement of Brazil’s new climate position is expected early next week.

It was the third country to come forward with a new proposal since late last month. Indonesia’s president, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, told G20 leaders on September 25 that his government was working on a plan to cut emissions by 26% in 2020 over business as usual projections“.

These are only little steps; the same commitments from the US, China and India would be far greater achievements. But it has already been made clear through months of firing blanks in negotiations, that leading countries are choosing to remain conservative in their efforts, at least until the summit itself.

Let’s start championing the lesser known parts in this soap opera, then, and hope that a move from the bottom can shake the up the foundations underneath the feet of the worlds historic Major Powers.

Posted under Articles, Climate

It’s been circulating the national papers over recent years; heralded as a contributing solution to 2020 E.U. requisites; and has subsequently been supported by home-owners up and down the country. But what has the Government been doing to support the integration of microgeneration into British homes; and have the macrocosmic threats of Climate Change been factored in? Well, actually, yes they have -

As easy as it is these days to point the finger-of-blame at our Labour government, their determination to reach ongoing E.U. deadlines (one of which will see Britain producing a third of its electricity from renewable sources by 2020) has been supported by an uncanny obligation to UK homeowners in their attempts to use microgenerational technologies (Solar Panels, Wind Turbines, UGS Heating Pumps etc.,).

Some of the simplest logic we can apply to these parliamentary steps is that, on average, a correct installation of a microgenerational unit will allow its benefactors to generate a third of their own electricity. Not only does this support the UK’s bid to reduce carbon usage, but the microcosm speaks for itself: if homeowners across Britain are producing 1/3 of their property’s power ‘onsite’, then the need for developing Wind Farms, Water Turbines (the Severne Estuary is one particular location under debate) and outsourcing from more climate co-operative, international countries becomes less drastic – and the 2020 requisites begin to become realistically attainable.

This is not to suggest that the current UK Government is helping us only to help itself. In fact, it’s quite the opposite. There is a cycle-of-change that will see Britain and its united countries combat and defeat Climate Change and the effects of Global Warming. It has no specified start-point. Instead, the emphasis is merely on a start. Once this happens you’ll be able to see the reciprocal nature of renewable energy sources, and the relationship that has developed between Government, councils and end-users to boost its growing success. Here are a few examples of what’s already in place to help you micro-generate a macro-solution:

• Microgeneration
  Low Carbon Buildings Programme (LCBP):
  Launched in April 2006, the LCBP is a £86million grant programme for microgeneration technologies to help tackle some of the financial barriers and encourage the microgeneration market as a whole.
• Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs):
  The ROC is a type of green energy certificate that renewable source generators of electricity are entitled to claim for, if deemed eligible. ROCs have a monetary value. Generators can expect to claim 1 ROC for every 1MW of renewable energy generated, and a microgenerator could expect to receive up to 1-2 ROCs per year. And depending on the contract with the supplier, a microgenerator can currently expect to receive approximately £20-£30 per ROC.
• Levy Exemption Certificates (LECs)
  The LEC is another form of green energy certificate. Generators of electricity, using renewable sources, can also claim 1 LEC for each 1MW produced. Utilities need to source these LECs so they can exempt business consumers from Climate Change levy – which is £4.41 on 1 MWh of electricity.
• Microgeneration Certificate Scheme (MCS)
  The MCS is the only certification scheme to cover all microgeneration products and services. MCS is supported by the Department of Energy and Climate Change as a primary regulator and method for mitigating the UK’s dependency on fossil fuels and carbon dioxide emissions. It is put into action in order to protect consumers, and its thorough criteria and standards are used to evaluate microgeneration products and installers.
• The Energy Saving Trust: Act on CO2
  The Energy Saving Trust incorporates the ‘Act on CO2′ advice service, which includes microgeneration, carbon saving information, as well as advice for homeowners on a range of topics to help their property become more energy efficient.

These are just some of the initiatives available, established and held in place by current UK parliament acts. Their design is in aid of a full integration of microgenerational technologies into British homes and new developing properties. Not only do initiatives, such as these, encourage the switch to renewable energy sourcing, but they also seek to uphold it and protect its users from any potential threats – ensuring that Green markets are beneficial to all.

Source: www.berr.go.uk/energy/sources/sustainable

Posted under Articles, Climate, Gas & Electricity, House & Home, Renewable Energy

In the run up to the Copenhagen climate change summit in December, many nations are making their policies and tactics on the reduction of carbon emissions known. Announced this week, Ed Miliband has unveiled Britain’s answer: the UK Low Carbon Transition Plan. According to the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), the plan will ensure that,

• More than 1.2 million people will be in green jobs
• 7 million homes will have benefited from whole house makeovers, and more than 1.5 million households will be supported to produce their own clean energy
• Around 40% of electricity will be from low carbon sources, from renewables, nuclear and clean coal
• We will be importing half the amount of gas that we otherwise would
• The average new car will emit 40% less carbon than now.

Indeed, in an appeal to environmentalists across the UK, the DECC has stated quite explicitly on their website that the UK Low Carbon Transition Plan is the “most systematic response to climate change of any major developed economy, and sets the standard for others in the run up to crucial global climate talks in Copenhagen in December”.

Keen to be seen as proactive ahead of the important summit, Miliband, the DECC and the UK government seem to have been rigorous in their planning. The scheme will mean major overhauls in several areas, and the cost to the consumer could be high.

In that respect, the government must make sure it sells the scheme to the UK public; that cost must be justified in terms of the scale of the problem. Certainly, the benefits are substantial. But, in difficult financial periods, problems like climate change – which for rich countries is still something of a conceptual problem – are not easily addressed with taxpayer’s money.

With bills likely to rise as a result of the more expensive renewable energies, this friction could become apparent.

Nonetheless, the scheme will look to make genuine emissions cuts in five key areas. These are:

• Energy Generation
• Industry and Business
• Homes and Communities
• Farming
• Transport

With transport and energy generation counting for 20% and 35% of UK carbon emissions respectively, the Low Carbon Transition Plan is certainly looking to tackle the problem in key areas. In terms of energy generation, major reforms will include switches to green and clean electricity, and renewable energy sources. For transport, the government will focus on increasing energy efficiency for road vehicles.

In explaining the plan, and the potential costs, the DECC stated that,

“The Transition Plan takes a cost effective route to reducing carbon and keeps the overall impact on the consumer to a minimum. Today’s plan will not increase average energy bills by 2015, compared to now. By 2020, the impact of ALL climate change policies, both existing and new, will be to add, on average, an additional 8% – or £92 – to today’s household bills. Since 2000 £20 billion has been spent tackling fuel poverty, assisting millions of households in the UK. ”

In the lead up to Copenhagen, and beyond, the UK Low Carbon Transition Plan could form the bedrock on which other environmental policies in the UK rest.

More Information on the UK Low Carbon Transition Plan

Posted under Articles, Climate

Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, whose influence can still be felt reverberating through the infrastructures he set in place as Head of State and chief of New Labour, has delivered a statement of sinister ambiguity to the BBC, on the question of carbon emissions and global warming. On the subject of the upcoming G8 summit, and by extension, the Copenhagen climate change talks, he stated that,

“This is now at the stage where it’s been taken out of the hands of campaigners and into the hands of the people who are going to have to get the job done”.

Something about his statement reflects a presumably not deliberate notion that the creation of policy is not a matter of negotiating, arbitrating and tailoring  ideas amongst a number of qualified sources both inside and outside of government, but that the role of the politician is to take on board – and then dislocate – the thoughts and the role of the campaigner.

What he is indirectly suggesting is that the campaigner acts as some sort of impetus, a lighter to the touch paper, and that from there, the work of policy – ultimately what shapes the outcome of the issue – is undertaken by politics only, as it is “taken out of the hands” of those who campaign and lobby government figures.

The Role of the Environmental Campaigner Before Copenhagen

Tony Blair was talking to the BBC about the duty of politicians in the lead up to the G8 summit on Wednesday, at the summit itself, and later, at the Copenhagen climate change summit in December. Is Blair essentially saying, then, that the role of environmental campaigners, in deciding the best way to approach a carbon emissions reduction policy worldwide, in providing sustainable, renewable energy, or in tackling climate change in general, is now defunct?

If that is the meaning behind the implication, then it constitutes a very worrying example of the democratic process and the propagation of free ideas. It would imply that there is nothing more the environmental campaigner can do, once talks at the G8 summit and beyond, have begun. To repeat the phrase: it is now “our of the hands” of environmental campaigners.

Further, the BBC’s piece highlighted a worrying flaw in this ‘pass the buck’ system, in which campaigner cedes control to politician. The BBC report stated that,

“Mr Blair added that ‘practical policy making’ was now needed if the fight against global warming was to be effective.”

Surely the notion of ‘practical policy making’ is tautological? If it is not, then policy must exist that has no practical purpose at all, and has no chance of being effective.

With Blair calling for the time in which the carbon emissions issue must be “taken out of the hands” of campaigners, we cannot be sure that politicians, who in such a scenario, it seems, have sole responsibility for the outcome, are going to make good Blair’s claim that “practical policy making” is the way towards an effective solution.

Copenhagen is a genuine opportunity. Without a genuine canvas of ideas, that opportunity could be lost.

Posted under Articles, Climate

Organised as part of the Manchester International Festival, July 4th and 5th saw key environmental thinkers discussing, in a free and open event, potential solutions to the problem of climate change and global warming. With question time allotted to those who participated in the audience for the discussions, The Manchester Report acted as a forum in which those who are concerned about global warming and climate change – from audiences to experts – had a chance to propagate their views.

The Manchester International Festival website summarises the aim and ethic of the Manchester Report, and the democratic structure of the event itself:

“Manchester was at the heart of the Industrial Revolution which boosted fossil-fuel use, so it is only fitting that the city should take up the challenge of spearheading efforts to address climate change. Manchester International Festival and The Guardian invited scientists, engineers, campaigners and members of the public to submit their climate-saving ideas during May 2009. A short-list of 20 of the most promising applicants have been invited to present their ideas, which involve everything from algae to cloud seeding to hydrogen fuel. “

The presentations and findings, plus the questions and discussions, are what will form the eventual Manchester Report, leading to a genuinely all inclusive report which will represent a diverse range of interests and opinions.

Energy Bonds – An Interesting Proposal from the Manchester Report Discussions

Of the twenty ideas proposed, one in particular has been picked up, partly because of its radicalism and partly because of its potential, as an interesting potential solution to some of the world’s climate change and global warming problems. Proposed by the Welsh think tank, The Public Interest Research Centre, the suggestion details a system under which the British government could sell energy bonds – modelled on the war bonds scheme of the 1940s – as a way to raise money for renewable energy sources, and as a way to galvanise support for the implementation of renewable energy.

The thinking behind the proposal is that a move to renewable energy will come at great economic and cultural cost, and that the movement is more viable if it is one that includes the social, communal element that a bond scheme can provide.

Head of the Public Research Interest Centre, Tim Helweg-Larsen, summarised the idea:

“To finance renewable energy on the scale required, Britain is going to need hundreds of billions of pounds. Energy bonds are a way to unlock large amounts of money from individuals and institutional investors…Make no mistake, this is an incredibly expensive project, but it also has very good rates of return on investments. We should be creating the opportunity for the people of Britain to invest in their own future and a secure climate”.

With some arguing that the only way New Labour can save itself from election disaster is to begin a process of social investment, the energy bonds scheme could prove to be genuinely appealing. Certainly, there is an argument to say that a social inclusion in a move towards renewable energy is either a necessary, or massively desirable, route towards a genuine solution to the problem of carbon emissions in the UK.

The problem, though, could be that the process could clash with moves made by New Labour to part-privatise a number of previously nationalised British industries; sceptics have already argued that the scheme could require the UK government to re-nationalise, for example, a number of energy companies. This would be a radical step, and renders, in the eyes of some, the energy bonds scheme impractical.

The findings from the two days are will be published as The Manchester Report in the run up to the Copenhagen climate change summit.

For further information on The Manchester Report, please visit the website.

A Guardian Report on the Festival.

Posted under Articles, Climate

As the oldest think tank in Britain, and one of the antecedents of the Labour Party, the Fabian Society often discusses and shapes New Labour policy long before it reaches the ears of cabinet. Many environmental thinkers, then, watched the Road to Copenhagen discussions closely. Chaired by Ed Miliband, current head of state for the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), his words on the future of environmental policy in Britain, particularly ahead of the climate change summit, are priceless.

In his speech, Ed Miliband stated that,

“If we leave climate change to a question of managerialism around targets, finance and technology, we will be sunk. You cannot sustain radicalism for decades or even for months without an appeal to the deeper reservoir of people’s values. At the core of action on climate change is a fundamental moral question about whether we care about the legacy we leave to future generations: about whether we think it is fair or just to take advantage of the planet’s resources as if there were no tomorrow.

The question we must pose is whether we break the bond of the human race over our time on this planet: that the earth is held in trust by each generation for the next. This is an issue of equality, of fairness, of morality and we should say it. As we seek to advance our political argument, we should not shy away from this and we should honestly ask people how they want to be remembered by history.”

What is clear, then, is that Miliband’s agenda is one that targets social as well as environmental form, a view held by many as the key to the climate change problem. This group includes, not least, the Green Party in the UK, but to some extent, the Obama Administration in the US.

The Copenhagen summit will put in place an action plan that will render the Kyoto Protocol, the current benchmark for carbon emissions policy worldwide, obsolete.In a system that focuses mostly on targets, it has had its ups and downs. What Ed Miliband, and others,  are advocating, is a policy that includes the general public as much as it sets targets for governments and businesses.

This has pros and cons. Whilst a sense of alienation from government policy is never a good thing, there is a fear that – in a social reform that includes greater responsibility on ordinary people, for environmental issues – the government and businesses would lose accountability.What must be clear at Copenhagen is that a wider inclusion of populations in environmental reform, should not lower the responsibility placed on companies and on the governments.

Miliband also stated in his speech that, “the political argument must appeal to people’s values and people’s interests.”

This is absolutely true, and general populations must not feel that, rather than being given a greater chance to cooperate, they are being passed the buck. There is more for the business sector to do, before responsibility even reaches general populations, and this must be reflected in the Copenhagen climate change summit.

Nonetheless, with the Fabian Society uniquely placed as a think tank with an almost exclusive precursor to New Labour policy, the speech delivered by Ed Miliband at The Road to Copenhagen is a welcoming one.

For more, visit the Fabian Society website

Posted under Articles, Climate