Speech by Rt Hon David Miliband MP, response to the launch of the Green Alliance strategy "Tests for Environmental Leadership", London, 27 February 2007
Good morning ladies and gentlemen.
I think that your prosecution and defence analogy doesn’t really fit because I think that it is incumbent on those of us who are supposed to be part of the defence to actually agree with some of the prosecution.
I think that a large dose of humility upon the parts of myself, and I won’t speak for the others, is important in this area. Because the truth is, that the science of climate change has been getting worse faster than the politics has been getting better. And I say that internationally. And I think that I certainly approach this debate over the next few years with a good dose of humility.
I hope that climate change becomes what I would call a threshold issue - like national security or economic competence where fundamentally unless you can show that you’re able to cut it on environmental issues - especially climate change issues - then you’re not a credible party of government. I think that no party pretends that it has a monopoly of wisdom on this topic and certainly I don’t.
I will focus my remarks, if that’s alright, on climate change. But I’ll just say by way of introduction that it’s important to me in my stewardship of Defra in the last nine or ten months that we have had twin goals: one in respect to climate change, and the other in respect to natural resource protection and the important ways they overlap. But for me they are two road starts for the leadership that I offer to the Department. The speech that I’ll give next week on land use at the Council for the Protection of Rural England about the way in which we use land, and the work that is being done on coastal access, and the work on the marine white paper just to name three are important ways in which we can fulfil our responsibilities to biodiversity and to the wider natural environment.
Let me just start off by picking up Peter Ainsworth’s point because although Graeme [Wynne, Chief Executive of the RSPB] you use the word value free, I don’t think that he really meant it because this is not a value free issue. I just have to say that fundamentally that it’s totally legitimate for Peter to say that he approaches this issue as a conservative and someone who comes with instincts of conservatism and it’s important for me to say I don’t. I approach this as someone who believes that climate change needs radicalism not conservatism because values are very important to this debate. I don’t believe that we can tackle climate change unless you believe fundamentally in the issue of social justice and unless you can say to the three hundred million Indians who are living on less than a dollar a day: yes, you have a right to development, and yes, you have a right to expect richer countries to help you choose a low carbon development. Unless you believe in social justice to the fundamentals of your being, I don’t believe that you will tackle this problem.
Secondly, I don’t believe we will tackle this problem unless you understand and feel to the fundamentals of your being what market failure is, and what collective action is required in order to correct market failures. Those are fundamental issues about the nature of modern societies. Equally, I don’t think we will tackle this problem without understanding the value of empowerment which to me is about collective action that liberates and extends individual freedom. Unless you feel to the core of your being a sense of internationalism, which I think is an important value, and a commitment to international co-operation and work in a world of interdependence, unless you have that value in your being I don’t think that we will tackle the problem so I don’t think that we should make an apology for having a debate about values, but I think it’s important that you know the values that I bring to bear and what I believe.
Only from a progressive stand point can we tackle this problem because however legitimate, and I do say this in all seriousness, it’s totally legitimate for people to wake up in the morning and believe that the extension of liberty is what makes them get up in the morning, politically that is an important strand of thinking. It doesn’t happen to be mine; that’s not what makes me get up in the morning but it’s important to have a debate about that. I believe what makes me get up in the morning is a commitment to social justice that includes concepts of liberty but it’s not the same getting up in the morning with a different set of values. I just think that we should be open about that and you should know where I’m coming from in this.
Just also by way of introduction I also don’t want to come here and to recite to you a list of achievements for the last ten years but I think that it’s important that I say there are important aspects of the government’s records that I do admire and defend.
This is the first economic cycle since the industrial revolution when the link between economic growth and pollution growth has been broken. The economy has grown over 28% over the last ten years and greenhouse gases have been cut by 8% and carbon emissions has risen by 1%. That link between economic and pollution growth has been broken for the first time. As it happens there’s a higher share of revenues taken in green taxes in this country than the EU and any other G7 country. I’ll say its limitations in a moment but it’s important to recognise that and I’m glad that Stephen [Hale, Director of the Green Alliance] mentioned the commitment internationally. The government went to the EU Environment Council last week and I was very happy and proud to say that the British government supported mandatory targets for car emissions and I wouldn’t describe that as a soggy compromise, but however we argue about our record we’ve got to do more, we’ve got to do much more, and I think that is what brings us to the table today.
There are three things that I would like to set out that define why I’m approaching this:
The first is I think it’s important in politics that you try and learn as well as preach, and one of the things that I’ve learnt over the last ten months is this really important work that WWF have done about the idea of One Planet Living. Their calculations say that if every citizen of the world lived as British citizens, we would need three planets to survive rather than one. We’re consuming resources as if there were three planets rather than one. I find that a very helpful way of thinking about the challenge we have to face, about how we need to get back into balance, about what we take from the planet and what we give back and in that context I think that the climate change bill does become an international landmark. I think that the trajectory it will set to at least a 60% reduction in carbon dioxide by 2050 and the interim steps to get there will be a landmark and we’ll be publishing it in two or three weeks time.
It will be economy wide, and as Tony Juniper said, and I think, that it will also stand domestic and international context and I think it’s very important that we have a debate amongst politicians and people concerned about this. We will be taking this debate into schools and into businesses so that there really is a national understanding.
It’s funny I saw the draft bill at the weekend and there’s a clause about how we are going to do the final reckoning in 2052 and this is something for the long term and it’s important that we get into this in a serious way that really does engage people. The thing I want to say is that I think there are three legs to this
stool: there is government, there’s business and there are individuals and each is equally important and I think in respect of business the need for international action is that you get over this argument that we can’t afford to tackle climate change because it’s going to make us uncompetitive. This is where the European Union’s four hundred and seventy five million citizens become so important. The emissions trading scheme covers half of our greenhouse gas emissions. It will cover more once we get aviation in, which we’ll do as soon as possible but that’s also the way in which we can fulfil some of our obligation to the natural environment: through the rural development programme which is part of the common agricultural policy which is very, very important thing to do in respect of business. I think we need markets to mitigate any anticompetitive factors.
Secondly, domestically, I think we should say all tools should be used in order to tackle this problem. As Al Gore says it’s not a silver bullet, there’s a silver buck shot and we need to use all the tools. I accept that it’s right that people talk financial incentives but I do warn you in respect that in yours tests the goal, is not how much tax you raise the goal is to reduce emissions. The landfill tax has been successful not because it’s raised lots of money, but because it’s diverting from landfill and I think that it’s very, very important that when we think about taxation, we recognise that. Secondly I think that maybe ten or fifteen years ago the idea of emissions trading was seen as a cranky idea from the Adam Smith Institute or something that didn’t make sense. But actually creating markets that find low cost ways of reducing emissions is very very important.
Third I don’t think that we should take on this argument about regulation and we should, and it should, be outcome regulations. One of the most exciting things that we’ve done in the last ten months is the commitment to all homes being zero carbon by 2015/2016 and steps to get there by then. It’s important to think about the role of public spending and people can ask questions about that and don’t neglect the information on labelling. I honestly believe that people will do the right thing if you give them the information to do so - that’s why I was talking about food labelling at the NFU conference yesterday. That’s why I think although offsets are half a loaf, they’re worth having as long as they’re trusted and we can give people confidence we’ve got a consultation on that. The final thing in this area about the responsibilities of government, business, and individuals is that governments have got to get its house in order. We’ve got a very strong push in respect to public procurement - we’ll be responding to the Simms report next week and the worse thing for me to be honest, is when the Daily Express shows town halls or government departments with its lights on because the first thing that it says to me is that the public aren’t going to do anything because the government is doing it. We’ve got to get our own house in order.
The final thing I just wanted to say is it’s important that politicians have a degree of humility but if I may say so in the most gentle spirit is that there are hard questions too for the environmental movement as well in this and I think if we’re going to have an honest debate there are hard questions about priorities. Yes -some people hate wind turbines and wind farms. Personally, I think they look rather nice but some people hate them but if we’re serious about renewable energy we’ve got to take a responsible attitude towards the extension of wind power. That doesn’t mean that every wind instillation is a good thing and organisations like the RSPB have tried to take a responsible attitude on this but there are hard questions about the tools we use. Someone mentioned nuclear earlier. Anyone that tells you that nuclear is a quick fix isn’t telling you the truth because it’s not quick and it’s not a solution on its own but I don’t think we’re going to tackle this without a nuclear contribution to our electricity; and the other thing I’ll say is about globalisation. Yes - you should be proud that you’ve got five million members but if I’m honest they’re not having the impact that “Make Poverty History” had three or four years ago and I think we’ve got to ask ourselves how to do we get the sort of mobilisation. While your own house is in order are you mobilising people in a way that’s possible and I think we can do that in a non pointing finger way.
Just a final point: Miliband’s first rule of this after ten months is that this climate change issue is fundamentally not an environmental issue - it is an economic issue, a social issue, a cultural issue, and a political issue. That means it has got to be an issue for Prime Ministers, Finance Ministers and Foreign Ministers, not just Environment ministers so I hope that this debate can be taken far and wide in the future.
Thank you very much indeed.
Page published: 27 February 2007