Reform Says We Need To Choose Between Climate And Economy Its Wrong

Reform says we need to choose between climate and economy. It's wrong | Larry Elliott

The party’s deputy leader Richard Tice says we should stop worrying about extreme heat and enjoy it. This dangerous nonsense will wreck our finances and the planet, says Guardian columnist Larry Elliott

silverguide.site –

So now we know: the smart response to the UK’s summer of record temperatures is to do precisely nothing. According to Richard Tice, Reform UK’s deputy leader, the climate crisis is just one of those things. Nothing can be done about it, so we should simply bask in the sunshine.

It is reasonable to assume Tice would not have said anything quite as crass had he been addressing people in Stourbridge who have seen their homes burn to the ground. Or the farmers whose crops shrivel in parched fields. Or the firefighters exhausted from battling wildfires across Britain.

Yet Tice clearly thinks he is on to something. The cost of living crisis has put the government’s commitment to achieving net zero by 2050 under the spotlight. The assumption underlying Tice’s comments is that there is a trade-off between tackling the climate emergency and raising, or even maintaining, living standards – and that for the time being, the latter should take priority.

The government has certainly been acting as if it believes this is the case. While the drought affecting most of England and Wales makes the strongest possible case for hastening 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 an awfully 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 prodded by a letter from green groups calling on him to end his silence.

At one level, the emphasis on putting cash in people’s pockets makes sense. Traditionally, interest in the environment waxes during periods of strong economic growth and wanes when times are tough. Climate breakdown slips down the list of priorities for voters when they are worried about losing their jobs or struggling to pay their bills. Peaks in concern have tended to come at the end of long booms, such as the early 1970s or the late 1980s.

But opinions are changing across the political spectrum. As the Conservative peer David Willetts has pointed out, 86% of Britons see climate breakdown as at least partly responsible for the recent heatwaves, and even 63% of net zero opponents make that connection. More than a third of Reform UK voters said tackling climate breakdown should be more of 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 coming down in recent months, but a poor harvest means that trend could well go into reverse soon.

Meanwhile, a report by the German insurance company Allianz has exploded the myth that governments have a choice between growth and the environment. The study shows that extreme heat poses structural challenges to many rich countries because, as temperatures rise above 30C, 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 hit to economic activity will be considerable: over a five-year period the impact of extreme heat could knock a cumulative 5-7% off GDP.

According to Allianz, the UK has hitherto been below the 30C threshold and has not been one of the countries at risk from extreme heat. But on the basis of this summer, Britain may soon become a higher-risk country alongside 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 on tackling climate breakdown. The longer that action – global as well as domestic – is delayed, the greater the risk that the climate crisis will eventually wreck the economy.

A failure to invest in basic infrastructure needs to be remedied fast. People faced with hosepipe bans have the right to ask why Britain has not built a reservoir in 30 years. The electricity grid was designed and built for fossil fuels rather than renewables, and many green projects are held up by a lack of capacity.

The UK’s housing stock is woefully inefficient. Household bills would be lower if existing homes were retrofitted with insulation. New homes should be subject to tougher building regulations to make mechanical ventilation – which keeps temperatures stable year-round – mandatory.

None of this comes cheap. The state will have to invest in new infrastructure as well as making changes to the planning laws. Subsidies will be required to provide incentives for consumers to go green. No question, there are costs involved in the net zero transition, but they are outweighed by the benefits. 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 dictates. When the security of the nation is at risk, ways to finance extra spending are found. To take one example, ministers have committed to raising defence spending to 3.5% of GDP by 2035 because of the perceived threat from Russia.

But which is the greater threat? Is it Russia, bogged down in Ukraine after more than four years of attritional fighting, or is it the climate crisis? The answer should be obvious.