Climate Action 2009-2010

Melting ‘people’ ice sculptures for Oxfam’s UN
Climate conference campaign in Poznan 2008.
POLICY
Lights,
camera,
inaction!
THE POLITICAL CLIMATE
CHANGE IMPASSE
© net_efekt/Flickr
Colin Challen MP, Chair, all Party
Parliamentary Climate Change grouP in the uK
Parliament and labour mP for morley and
rothwell, uK
If dramatised, the road to Copenhagen might resemble
the early parts of a war film, where the audience sees
an endless column of refugees carrying what few
possessions they have left to an unknown destination,
not knowing where they will find safe haven, if at all.
But the global audience of this horror movie seem to be
as bewildered as the refugees. Their – our – response,
catechised in Lord Stern’s report of 2006 is to say
‘it costs less to deal with this problem than letting it
fester.’ But to date little has happened. The response
has been pitiful. Along this winding road in Poznan
last year minister after minister told COP 14 delegates
that the recession should be turned on its head
and transformed into an opportunity for low carbon
investment. It is curious how green investment has
been seen as a salvation in the economic trough when
it was thought more of a distraction at the top of the
economic curve. One suspects the real game in town
is simply to get back to old fashioned growth ASAP,
albeit with a greenish tinge.
A GREEN STIMULUS
What has happened following the ministerial
rhetoric? HSBC’s Green Rebound analysis of national
green stimulus packages shows a woeful lack of
determination to fulfil the Poznan promise. With the
exception of South Korea, no country sought to devote
more than half of its fiscal stimulus package to green
investment; Korea tops the list with 69 per cent; next
up is China with 34 per cent. The EU average is a
lamentable 14 per cent, whilst the US commitment is
an execrable two per cent. Annex I countries once again
have shown that their commitments are hollow, with
one or two narrow exceptions.
How is this dichotomy between green rhetoric and green
action justified? The dry text of the UK government’s
response to the House of Commons Environmental
Audit Committee’s (EAC) inquiry into the 2008 Pre-
Budget Report (Pre-Budget Report 2008: Green fiscal
policy in a recession: Government Response to the
Committee’s Third Report of Session 2008-2009, TSO,
London, June 2009) provides an answer. The EAC said
“The Government now has a controlling interest in a
number of banks. We recommend that the Treasury
examine and report on how some form of environmental
criteria for the investment strategies pursued by these
banks might be imposed, and what impacts this might
have on sustainable development objectives.”
The UK Government’s response was: “Government
interventions to support the financial services sector
are designed to assist the banking system, to support
the whole economy to get lending going again.
Government intervention to support the financial
services sector will support the whole economy and is
not intended to single out specific sectors or companies
for support. The Government’s interest is managed on
a commercial basis by the UK Financial Investments
Ltd., (UKFI), a company that is wholly owned by the
Government. Its overarching objectives are to protect
and create value for the taxpayer as a shareholder,
with due regard to financial stability and acting in a way
that promotes competition” (emphasis added). In other
words, let’s return to business as usual, and with the
usual businesses.
POLITICAL WILL 39
VISIT: WWW.CLIMATEACTIONPROGRAMME.ORG