During his Autumn Statement the Chancellor made explicitly clear where the environment sits in his list of priorities. There are just more important things to worry about right now: jobs, growth and deficits. The tenor of his speech was confrontational and made no concession to the green growth and sustainability as championed by David Cameron when this Government came to power with the aim of being the greenest government ever.
The Chancellor’s message was clear: environmental regulation hinders UK Plc and now is not the time for worthy but costly causes. Of particular concern to those with a green hue was the sentence “We will make sure that gold plating of EU rules on things like habitats aren’t placing ridiculous costs on British businesses.” This was a shot across the bow to environmental groups. They responded in kind. In a letter to the Observer RSPB, the Campaign to Protect Rural England, Greenpeace, Wildlife Trusts and Friends of the Earth criticised the short-term mind-set of the Chancellor. Another letter signed by prominent green campaigners said this government was on course to be “the most environmentally destructive government to hold power in this country since the modern day environmental movement was born”. No love lost here.
One day before the Autumn statement a report was released by the Aldersgate Group. Pricing the Priceless – The business case for action on biodiversity presented the arguments that protecting biodiversity and ecosystem services (BES) is critical for future well being and economic development. The report had five main findings, each undermining the assertions made by the Chancellor:
- Future economic prosperity depends on BES
- BES must be brought into the decision making process
- Certain thresholds are irreversible
- Environmental regulation is an opportunity not a threat
- Loss of BES is a business risk.
The findings and recommendations of this report are not new. This document adds to the growing library that emphasises the importance of ecosystems and biodiversity to economies and business, see TEEB, the Natural Environment White Paper, The National Ecosystem Assessment for instance.
Moreover, a week before the Chancellor’s statement, the Ecosystems Markets Task Force launched. A business led government supported independent group looking at how to improve both the environment and the bottom line. This work further contradicts the sentiments and ideas expressed by the Chancellor.
Why are these reports, initiatives and their findings not making their way into the Treasury? Is the Chancellor on the wrong side of economic thought and momentum? Or are these reports only making headway within the circles that want to hear them? Why is the government supporting and recognising the importance of ecosystems on one hand and ignoring them on the other?
I expect answers to such questions require delving deep into the institutional makeup and spheres of influence within British politics.
Leave a comment