Anticipations - Summer 2009

Spring 2009Volume 13 Issue 1

ANTICIPATIONS

AFTERKYOTO

YOUNG

YOUNG FABIAN SUMMER SCHOOL ‘09LEEDS

Young people in the new economySaturday 20 June to Sunday 21 June

What does the economic downturn means for young people today and what solutions can the Labour government offer?

The event combines policy discussion, social activities, and some campaigning in the local area.

Keynote address: Yvette Cooper, MP for Pontefract and Castleford in West Yorkshire and Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

Tickets: £40 (with accomodation), £10 (without)

For more information, or to book your place, please contact Adrian Prandle ([email protected]) or Susan Nash ([email protected]).

3

ANTICIPATIONS•SPRING/SUMMER 2009

CONTENTSAfter Kyoto

Volume 13, Issue 1

Anticipations, like all publications of the Fabian Society and the Young Fabians, represents not the collective view of the Society, but only the views of the individuals whose articles it comprises.

The responsibility of the Society is limited to approving its publications as worthy of consideration within the Labour movement.

Published by The Fabian Society:11 Dartmouth Street, London, SW1H 9BNTelephone: 0207 227 4900Facsimile: 0207 976 7153

www.fabian-society.org.uk and www.youngfabians.org.uk

Printed by: Caric Press LtdLionheart Close, Bearwood, Bournemouth, Dorset BH11 9UB

The editor would like to thank: Ed Miliband MP, Nicholas Hughes and Julia Tomei.

Images from www.sxc.hu used throughout this publication, although copyright remains the authors’ own.

GREEN SHOOTS?Nick HughesResearch Associate, King’s College London

Page 12

SOY, THE SOUTH AND THE EU BIOFUEL JUGGERNAUTJulia TomeiResearch Associate, King’s College London

Page 20

GENERATION GAMEMartin Whiteford

Page 17

REGIONS AND UNI GROUP FOCUSSusan Nash

Pages 28 and 29

LESSONS FROM OBAMAAdrian Prandle, Dan Whittle, Nirmalee Wanduragala, and Shruti Dudhia on the lessons from the US election tripPages 25, 26 and 27

ENVIRONMENT

OTHER

PEAK PRACTICERobert Geddis

SEVERNTH HEAVENIan Ross

AFTER COPENHAGENDaniel Stevens

UNILATERAL THINKINGMat Hope

Page 11

Page 19

Page 13

Page 18

INTERVIEWEd Miliband MP, Secretary of State for the Environment and Climate Change

Page 7

�


Over the last decade, the climate change debate has fixated on one word: Kyoto.

At the time the protocol was ratified - 1998 - it was heralded as a landmark global agreement in efforts to limit the impact of man-made emissions on the environment. With hindsight, the Kyoto protocol - like the emissions it sought to reduce - has proven to be lot of hot air. A replacement protocol is long overdue.

The case for action on climate change has long since been made (although there remain a worrying number who refuse to accept scientific evidence that climate change is a man-made phenomenon). Of increasing urgency is how action is achieved, and precisely what that action is.

This year’s Copenhagen summit on climate change will allow the world’s diplomats to address two key failings of Kyoto: reconciliation of the interests of the industrialised world with emerging economies; and a better balance between targets and mechanisms to achieve them.

The Obama administration in the US has, in contrast to the administration it replaced, shown a desire to tackle an historically unpopular electoral issue. This may help change the terms upon which China and India - the biggest emerging economies yet to ratify Kyoto - engage with renewed efforts

FROM THE EDITOR

Alex [email protected]

to arrive at some sort of climate change agreement. Yet obstacles remain.

China and India are not alone in pointing out the relative injustice in demands to curb their emissions because of the side-effects of industrialisation elsewhere. The industrialised nations are not wrong in highlighting the potential future scale of the emerging world’s contribution to global emissions stocks. And it is the developing nations who would be most affected by the impact of severe climate change.

The current economic crises adds another dimension - China and India will arrive in Copenhagen in rude economic health. Western nations arrive on their economic knees, weakened to brink of collapse by their own financial institutions.

Despite bold glaims that a recovery will be “green”, it is difficult to see how industrialised economies can afford the investment which may be necessary to deliver on those claims.

The Copenhagen agreement may end up reflecting a fundamental shift in the balance of power from industrialised to emerging economies.

Agreeing targets is one thing. Delivering on them quite another. Kyoto struggled because it did not provide an adequate framework in which countries could realisitically achieve the goals set. A replacement needs to do better.

Targets themselves may be at fault - Kyoto was criticised by some for being inequitable in the targets its set, by others for being too ambitious, by more still for not being ambitious enough.

A replacement system should reflect the fact that countries differ in their capacity to substitute away from fossil fuels. Market based mechanisms need to investigated more fully, despite the difficulty in implementing global systems - a model based on regional

targets may prove more workable.Once Copenhagen is finally agreed,

assuming it is agreed, politicians the world over would do well to avoid fetishising ratification of the protocol, as happened with Kyoto. Far better to focus their efforts on achieving the ends, instead of obsessing over one component of the means.

Countries accepted the scientific evidence for climate change at a glacial pace. They have been even slower in taking positive action. They need to do better in Copenhagen.

In this issue of Anticipations we look beyond Kyoto. Articles range from biofuel development in Argentina to the enshrining intergenerational issues in environmental legislation; from ‘green growth’ to the Severn estuary; and from peak-oil to the UK’s car industry. We also interview Ed Miliband, Secretary of State for the Environment and Climate Change.

Conference Special EditionThe edition after this turns its atten-

tion to the impact of the current eco-nomic downturn on the young.

What will the legacy of the current recession be on those who have recent-ly joined the labour market? Or cur-rently navigating their way through the education system?

How will the bail-outs be affordable in the long term? And what will the impact on public expenditure be for generations to come?

How will the economic crisis change the political landscape? Will a new political ideology emerge amongst younger generations as a result of their experiences today?

If you would like to contribute to the next edition, then please email me on [email protected] or [email protected] with your idea. Further guidance is avail-able on our website.

“With hindsight, the Kyoto protocol - like the emissions it sought to reduce - has proven to be lot of hot air. A replacement protocol is long overdue.

AFTER KYOTO

5

One of the most depressing consequences of the Labour Party’s current troubles,

including the government’s defeat over the Gurkhas and the YouTube debacle, is that it takes the attention of politicians and the media even further away from policy, and delays the debate about the battle of ideas that needs to form the real substance of the next general election.

In recent weeks, David Cameron’s questions at Prime Minister’s Questions have focused even more than ever on personalities and political rows, despite his pledge to end “Punch and Judy” politics.

In a recent session the Conservative leader used all six of his questions to attack Gordon Brown’s leadership and press him to call an election.

When the reputation of politics is taking a hit because of the expenses scandal, this sort of behaviour will do nothing to convince voters that either party is completely focused on the issues that matter to them, particularly the economy.

Many in the Labour Party dread the prospect of a general election given the current polls, but there’s no doubt that entering an election campaign will

FROM THE CHAIR

Kate Groucutt

[email protected]

change the terms of the debate. The Tories will finally be forced to

reveal what they would do if elected and explain how they will the offer the tax cuts which their rank and file desperately want, without major cuts to the NHS and other public services.

It will also allow Ministers and activists to be more forensic in their attack of the Tories, and to expose the lack of detail in their proposals. The British people will vote on what the parties are offering them as a vision for the future, and it is this on which the whole of the Labour movement should be focusing.

It is because politics is ultimately a battle of ideas that it is vital that the Young Fabians keep discussing policy, and keep coming up with ideas which will shape the future direction of our country. The articles in this issue of Anticipations show how Young Fabian members are thinking about key long term issues such as climate change, and coming up with bold and workable solutions to halt the damage that we are doing to the planet.

In addition, our four policy commissions will be meeting over the next few months to discuss proposals in a range of areas (see our website for

more details about how to get involved) and will report later in the summer.

Along with our regular programme of events and our blog, we want to give our members the opportunity to have these discussions, and to feed their ideas into the policymaking process, rather than being bystanders in the media’s constant denigration of politics and politicians.

I hope that through these activities the ideas generated by Young Fabians will be at the forefront of debate in the next twelve months and beyond.

From the Co-Vice Chair: Policy ForumsI’m really excited that the Young Fabian policy forums got underway in March and held their first set of meetings. The

four groups are meeting regularly in the run-up to the summer and discussing new policy ideas and recommendations for a fourth term Labour Government, the results of which will be published later in the year.

While many of us will rightly be out campaigning for the European and local elections, it’s also important that we continued to discuss and debate policies and ideas that reflect our political views. So far the Young Fabian policy forums have sparked heated and challenging debate, giving our members a chance to make their views heard on the Party’s policy direction and it’s ‘offer’ to the electorate.

For more information about the policy forums, to attend an event, or to contribute ideas and questions over email – go to the Young Fabian website www.youngfabians.org.uk or get in touch with me via email.

David Chaplin

“When the reputation of politics is taking a hit because of the expenses scandal, this sort of behaviour will do nothing to convince voters that either party is completely focused on the issues that matter to them, particularly the economy.

6


AFTERKYOTO

Later this year, a replacement to Kyoto will be agreed. The issue of climate change remains an important

poticially - indeed, it has arguably never been so important to the British electorate.

But differences remain between countries on what action is necessary, and how best to go about addressing climate change.

What is clear is that the longer it takes

for global agreement to be reached on how to tackle global warming, the more difficult it will be to reverse its effects.

This collection of articles covers topics as diverse as oil, cars, intergenerational jus-tice, the economy and biofuels. We also interview Ed Miliband MP, Secretary of State for the Environment and Climate Change, and welcome special contributions from Nick Hughes and Julia Tomei, researchers at King’s College London.

The economic cost of climate change, the change which the world is currently headed for, would be comparable to the economic effects of a great depression combined with world war. The costs of urgent action are far less than the costs of delay, and the earlier we act the easier and less expensive our task will be.

Rt. Hon. Gordon Brown MP”“

AFTER KYOTO

7

AFTERKYOTO

I was due to meet Ed at 12.30 on a Wednesday, straight after Prime Minister’s Questions, in one of

the most difficult weeks in recent memory for Gordon Brown’s Labour Government – MPs’ expenses, a lack of confidence in the Speaker, a Parliamentary defeat inflicted by Joanna Lumley, and generally feeling demoralised and outflanked by the Tories.

But Ed was focussed on the issues and after bounding confidently into his small Westminster office, he was keen to get straight down to business and talk about climate change.

Ed Miliband has been Secretary of State for the newly created Energy and Climate Change Department since October last year. Before that he was a junior minister in the Cabinet Office, and famously served as an economic adviser to Gordon Brown for a number of years prior to entering Parliament in 2005.

His academic background and well-known passion for ‘fairness’ were evident from the start as Ed began explaining why tackling climate change is jumping up the Government’s packed agenda.

“The starting point for any country is that we show we are walking the walk domestically. If you don’t do that

then you’re not a credible voice in the negotiations” Ed said, “the combination of us being the first country in the world to have carbon budgets and also legislating for a 34% reduction in carbon emissions by 2020 means we are leading the world in policy and practical terms.”

I asked Ed what he meant by ‘walking the walk’ – isn’t it time to explain our policies on climate change in a way that voters can understand, especially given we are now well into the long campaign for the next election?

Ed thinks we’re now at the point where are policies are really bearing fruit, “the combination of the things we are doing mean we are walking the walk.

So for example our position on coal, we have announced a policy that enables us to have the most environmentally ambitious plans for coal in the world, and at the same time have new coal-fired power stations, and drive forward new carbon capture.”

“We are driving forward on renewables, I have just been talking today about the new giant wind farm, the London Array.”

But what about housing I asked him? Ed hits back… “We are also trying to take carbon out of other sections of the economy, yes, including housing. I think people are going to be excited by our new plans which are called the ‘Great British refurb’ – it’s a scheme designed to boost household energy efficiency and will see more homes than ever benefiting from insulation and energy efficiency measures.”

Ed’s responsibilities aren’t just about domestic measures to tackle climate change though. He and his Department are leading Britain’s preparation for the Copenhagen Summit later this year – a gathering bigger than Kyoto to seek a new deal on carbon emission and trading.

Ed sets out clearly to me – and anyone else willing to listen – that Britain is leading the world on pushing for a strong settlement at Copenhagen.

“This is the most important task that we are facing” he says, “I have been meeting with leaders from across the world at the ‘Major Economies Forum’ over recent months, I’ve been in Washington, Paris, China and Mexico, trying to bring people together as much as we can and drive towards securing an agreement at Copenhagen.”

I tell Ed that one of the Young Fabian Executive members Susan Nash is going to be going to Copenhagen and organising campaigns for young people around the summit, Ed thinks this is great and wishes Susan luck. “It’s really important that this isn’t left to politicians, if it is then we won’t get a global agreement.”

“It’s really important that young people like Young Fabian members campaign to make a difference on this. People campaigned for ‘Make Poverty History’ (MPH) in 2005 and it made a huge difference to what we got out of Gleneagles.”

But what are the politics of this I ask Ed, are the Labour Party doing enough locally and across the country to be part of that campaigning coalition for change on the environment and around Copenhagen specifically? “Yes, here again, as it was in the build up to ‘MPH’ the Labour Party has to be the party of change and progress, it has got to be the Labour Party that is working alongside green NGOs and encouraging people participating in those campaigns.”

Ed gets (even more) serious for a moment and leaning forward he stares straight at me and says “You have to realise, this Copenhagen summit is make or break” – in what way I ask him? “It’s a make or break opportunity, a unique window with

INTERVIEW: ED MILIBANDIn conversation with David Chaplin

Ed Miliband MPSecretary of State for the Environment and Climate Change

“The Labour Party has to be the party of change and progress, it has got to be the Labour Party that is working alongside green NGOs and encouraging people participating in those campaigns.

8


President Obama coming in, a change in the American position on climate change, we have developing countries like China willing to engage and we have to seize this opportunity, that is what I am doing in this job. We need the Labour movement and especially young people to support us in this.”

There are lots of campaigns running already I tell Ed, he says he met with young people who came to the Posnan talks in Poland. “I think young people should find as many ways as possible to get involved. I think the green NGOs and campaign groups should be people’s first point of call, but also then it’s important for the Labour Party to be part of this campaign – as broad a coalition as possible.”

Laughing nervously, Ed then strangely cites Susan Boyle, “There is going to be a big battle in the US Congress on this between the Democrats and Republicans. Having people mobilising around this campaign is

vital for them as well, in the age of Susan Boyle and the internet we need a truly global campaign focussed around the outcomes that people want.”

The economyThe current economic climate must

put a lot of this optimism in a new context though, and I gently ask if the recession (global and domestic) will affect Ed’s ability to sell these policies to ‘Mondeo Man/Woman’ and also to his international colleagues in the developing world specifically.

Ed says this point is one he has thought about and that he feels that “the old debate between the economy and the environment has changed. People used to say you can only meet your environmental commitments at the cost of the economy. This isn’t true anymore.”

“The right framework for people in business is crucial; in fact British business has been at the forefront

internationally of pushing forward environmental concerns. Labour has recognised that you can’t just leave it to the market alone – this is where we are different to the Tories”. I sense that we are finally getting onto the red-blooded political bit, which many people feel is lacking from the Government’s current narrative on climate change and the environment.

“Young people should find as many ways as possible to get involved. I think the green NGOs and campaign groups should be people’s first point of call, but also then it’s important for the Labour Party to be part of this campaign – as broad a coalition as possible.

AFTER KYOTO

9

Into campaigning mode Ed points and says sternly, “if carbon capture and storage is important then I’m sorry, but the Government has to intervene to fund it, it’s that simply, that’s the role of Government.”

His example of how Labour is taking this role seriously is the large scale demonstration experiments that the Government announced it would fund recently in carbon capture, “This is a bold step and I think I am right in saying that this the largest demonstration project in the world happening here in the UK and it’s only happening through Government support.”

“But we also need to get people making things, through manufacturing, and a Low Carbon Industrial Fund’ to persuade business and industry to relocate here. The green economy, green collar jobs and new green skills in the workforce are going to be a big part of this for Labour, and for the country. There is a link between the way we

have handled this recession and the environment and the way we will manage the country going forward.”

Onto the last tricky issue, nuclear power, I ask Ed what he thinks is the problem with nuclear power in the eyes of some Labour supporters and how we can move beyond and an old debate about the use of nuclear energy.

“Look, I understand the concerns people have about nuclear power, but I think we need to understand the change to the framework of the debate. It’s such an urgent challenge, and I am confident that the two sets of concerns that people have had in the past around safety and cost can both be met.”

“We’ve got the strictest safety standards in the UK, and we’ve also legislated to ensure that the costs are bourn by the industry and not by the taxpayer. So, as I say, different people are in different places on this, but we are winning the argument. We have to have a strong energy mix, renewable

energy, clean coal, and nuclear. I just don’t think you can rule out nuclear from that energy mix, and when you look round the world a number of countries are following that path. So I hope we can command a strong consensus on this.”

In full stride now Ed says he thinks the next 12 months will allow people to see the big political differences between the parties particularly on nuclear.

“The Tories have confusions around these issues, the Lib Dems are obviously against nuclear power and I don’t think this a particularly credible position for your energy policy. The SNP similarly are against it.”

Ed goes onto explain that Labour has a unique ‘offer’ to the electorate on climate change, he says it centres around true Labour values in a new context and needs to be sold by supporters and activists across the country in the run-up to the general election.

“Labour’s offer on climate change is a strong commitment to tackling climate change and playing our part internationally, but with a strong understanding that it’s got to be fair to working people.”

“So Warm Front would not have happened under a Conservative government, insulating a house every six minutes last year – these are Labour policies. I don’t think these policies will be safe under a Tory government if they are looking to make blanket cuts.”

“I don’t think the Greens understand how you can combine tackling climate change with economic growth. Their policies are bad for climate change, bad for economic growth, and bad for our energy security.”

“Labour combines climate change policies with an understanding of fairness and economic growth. Also, we know that the Tories claim to be in favour of renewable energy, but all around the country they want to oppose wind turbines locally across the country – so there are big differences.”

Ed has clearly got the fire in his belly for this fight on two fronts, domestically and internationally.

The question remains, is this a political issue and if it is, can Labour prove that it has the right policies and leadership to create change on the environmental agenda.

As Ed says, the window offered by Obama’s entry to the White House must not be missed, and the emerging global consensus bodes well for Ed and his colleagues at Copenhagen.

10


A major hold-up to getting agreements on cuts in greenhouse gas emissions is the

fairness of the burden of cuts. Western countries are concerned about agreeing to cuts without similar commitments from developing countries.

On the flip side developing countries are loath to be making cuts when their per capita emissions are considerably further behind the west. It is estimated a third of China’s greenhouse emissions are generated producing products that are exported to the west, quite rightly they feel that this burden of western consumption should be borne in some respect by the west.

Therefore any scheme based on how much individual nations should cut their emissions is unlikely to achieve any significant and universal agreement. A regime focused on a) an agreed cap to global emissions and b) a fair means of translating such a global cap into national allowances should placate grievances on both sides.

Instead of focusing on governments cutting their individual emissions, annual Global Emissions Caps should be set. The first year’s cap should be simply set at the previous year’s actual emissions To achieve an interim measure of say 30% cuts by 2030, the 2030 cap should be set at 70% of current emissions, with equal cuts each intervening year.

Between now and 2030 hammering out a global agreement on a sustainable annual level of greenhouse emissions could then be the focus of negotiations.

There will be two categories of emissions, those covered and those not covered by emissions trading. The Global Emissions Cap will be shared out between countries to form their National Emissions Allowances. Untraded emissions produced in a particular country will be offset

TRADING UPRobert Fuller outlines one potential model for aglobal emissions trading scheme.

Robert FullerMember of the Young Fabians

against their Emissions Allowance. The surpluses remaining will form the pool of Carbon Allowances sold by national governments on the global emissions market and bought by businesses operating under emissions trading. This would have several consequences.

Firstly, compliance will be easier as national governments will not be directly responsible for cutting CO2 emissions and will not face the associated political cost. Businesses and ultimately consumers will be forced to pay a market price, however high that is and environmental groups cannot complain that prices are too low as they will adjust to market conditions.

Secondly, governments will have an incentive to reduce the non-traded CO2 emissions in their country in order to maximise the number of permits available to sell.

Thirdly, it would be in national governments interest to have more rather than less stringent emissions caps as the resulting higher carbon prices would mean they would receive revenue from selling permits.

Finally, the responsibility of controlling emissions would be transferred from national governments to producers and ultimately through pricing to the consumer. This would eliminate the inequity of China having to account for the third of its emissions generated by exports to the west.

It would also provide an incentive for businesses to innovate and produce less carbon emissions.

Sharing Emissions AllowancesAn equitable means of dividing

up the Global Emissions Cap to form National Emissions Allowances would be to share it out by population.

For the purposes of transition however, it may be better if national

shares of Global Emissions Cap are partly based on pre-agreed shares of global emissions and partly on population.

Weighting by historical emissions and share of population during a transitional phase would give western governments, in the first few years, a sufficiently large allowance to be able to give/subsidise carbon permits to domestically based businesses.

National governments that gift allowances to domestic business will be forgoing the revenue that could be earned by selling them on the global market. But with developed countries producing emissions vastly in excess of their share of world population, in the medium to long term governments would have to be exceedingly selective in their subsidisation.

In practice the greater number of emissions produced in Developed countries than developing one would result in a redistribution of income from wealthier to poorer nations.

The allowance for developing countries would likely exceed the level of emissions produced by businesses operating there. Western producers selling to western consumers would then buy up this.

In the short term developing countries would see their emission allowances rise as the weighting by population, instead of historical emissions, increases. Developed countries allowance would fall as both the level of permitted emissions, and their share of it, decreases. Beyond 2030 all countries would see their emissions fall.

One major concern with this scheme is locking in industrial development.

However there are no easy solutions. If we are to reduce carbon emissions carbon must become more expensive, which will inhibit industrial growth in the developing world.

AFTER KYOTO

11

The discovery and mass production of oil transformed the fate of civilisation. It expanded

our production and consumption possibilities and its discovery led our ancestors to embark on an unprecedented journey towards our current global world.

Oil production has not only rapidly unleashed a millennia’s worth of carbon into the earth’s atmosphere, but it has provided the resource for man to defy nature and maintain an unsustainable way of life.

The earth’s reaction to the way we live has resulted in an increase in climate consciousness. Yet the unseen dangers of an existence addicted to oil continue to be overlooked.

The phrase ‘peak oil’ refers to the moment when oil production has reached a point of maximum output. It’s originator was a US geoscientist, Marion King Hubbert who, whilst working for Shell in the Texas oil fields in the 1950’s, developed a model that went on to accurately predict the US ‘peaking’ in its production by 1970.

His predictions came in an era when the US produced around half the world’s oil supply. Some 50 years later the US produces just eight per cent of world supply, whilst it contents for a growing demand of around 25 per

PEAK PRACTICEIncreasingly local economies are a means of reducing

the over-reliance on oil, argues Robert Geddis

Robert GeddisMember of the Young Fabians

cent. Hubbert went on to further use the

model to calculate a ‘global peak’, predicted then to be in 1995. Since then many fellow experts have recalculated Hubbert’s models to include major breaks on the global oil demand trajectory, such as the 1970s world oil shock and global recessions. Most have reached a consensus of 2008–10 as the peak years. This has been backed up by the fact that since the 2000’s all oil-producing countries, bar Saudi Arabia, have been producing at maximum capacity.

We have been led to believe that we will secure alternatives prior to completely plundering the bounty of the world’s oil supply. Even BP’s latest slogan reads ‘beyond petroleum’, and indeed the cry for investment in renewables has been led just as much by concerns over energy security as it has for preventing irreversible climate change.

Yet the mass production of alternative energy sources to the scale and level required to sustain our current levels of energy consumption will require a massive initial investment in oil. The question remains whether there is enough left to do so. The neoclassical economic rationale suggests markets will bring about the big switch over, as higher oil prices will lead to investment being substituted into other resources. However many doubt the ability of the price mechanism to function in this way, as world oil supplies are predominately controlled by the OPEC cartel, bringing with it concerns around its use of reserve reporting to influence the market and prices.

The implications for peak oil are startling and just considering one of the many critical issues involved - that of food production - highlights its potential dangers.

Mass oil production gave birth

to the post-World War Two ‘Green Revolution’. This dramatically increased world food production through the use of chemical pesticides, fertilizers and mechanisation. In turn it enabled the world’s population to increase dramatically, adding significant strain on the world’s environment.

Oil has allowed us to mortgage the future and run up an energy debt, as every joule of energy we eat requires 5 – 15 joules to produce and deliver.

As the earth’s population has exploded, it has become predominately urbanised, dependent on an infrastructure defined by transportation and economic efficiency. This has resulted in a decline in local, self-sufficient economies.

Groups such as the Transition Towns movement have been pioneering schemes on local food production and the local economy with initiatives such as community currencies.

Their work towards putting resilience back into the heart of communities has provided a means to rejuvenate local democracy, active citizenship and community cohesion. Yet despite such great work it will take a war like effort to shift our societies away from oil dependence.

The current economic crisis has brought the future of global capitalism into sharp focus. The financial shock will be no match for the potentially endless spiraling shocks of unprepared for oil depletion. We are now living in a time of global economic crisis, accepting both the end of cheap energy and the apocalyptic threat of climate change.

Herein lies the opportunity for an active state to lead on re-localising communities. By unlocking the energy and creativity of its citizens, it can ensure their future environmental and economic prosperity.

“The current economic crisis has brought the future of global capitalism into sharp focus. The financial shock will be no match for the potentially endless spiraling shocks of unprepared for oil depletion.

12


2009 looks set to be a tough year for the UK’s car manufacturing industry.

In January as production of new cars plunged to levels 59% below that of the same period in 2008, job cuts were already in the pipeline. Jaguar Land Rover announced 1,000 redundancies, Nissan a further 1,200 losses, and BMW is to shed 850 workers at its Mini plant in Oxford.

Amidst these gloomy headlines, talk is growing of investment in ‘green collar jobs’ offering a way out of recession, as well as paving the way for a transition to a low carbon economy. Many countries are viewing green fiscal stimulus as an important part of their overall economic recovery packages. In line with this mood, the UK recently published its ‘vision’ for a low carbon industrial strategy, and Gordon Brown has predicted the creation of 400,000 green jobs over the next 8 years.

All of this will be cold comfort to workers who walk out of jobs in UK car plants this year. And yet the car industry should be a major focus for our low carbon transformation. CO2 emissions from road transport alone account for 22% the UK’s total. We urgently need the development and mass roll-out of low carbon vehicle alternatives.

Yet as the automotive manufacturing industry sheds jobs, we are steadily losing the very skill base which could make this dream a reality.

If our ambitions both to cut emissions and create jobs are to be realised, then we should be seeing the car plant workers who walk out of jobs this year walking straight into new jobs making zero-carbon vehicles.

And such jobs do exist in the UK. Modec is a company which produces electric delivery vans for Tesco from its plant in Coventry, and Smith

GREEN SHOOTS?Current efforts by the government to promote ‘green growth’ may notbe sufficient in the long run, argues Nick Hughes

Nick HughesResearch Associate, King’s College London

Electric Vehicles, based in Tyneside, is the world’s largest manufacturer of electric vehicles, counting DHL, Sainsbury’s and Royal Mail amongst its customers.

Aware of this potential opportunity, the government recently announced a £250m investment package for low carbon vehicles.

A good start, but industry insiders remain concerned at the continued absence of a clear strategy.

Modec and Smith are not in their current incarnations ready to mop up the kind of workforce which may become available if job cuts go ahead as forecast this year. They are successful companies, but their markets are currently small.

Smith recently sealed a major tie-in with Ford, which would see their power trains being fitted in Ford Transits. A potentially lucrative opportunity for the company, but the factory and the jobs will go to America.

How can we capture some of these opportunities for the benefits of our own work force?

Stimulus packages, tax breaks and other incentives can influence investment decisions, but they alone are not enough.

The real issue is to do with long term demand. In order to justify the risk of ramping up for major production of low carbon technologies, companies need to have the confidence of a serious and growing long-term demand for these entirely new products. Evidence for such a demand is currently absent.

In order to generate this level of demand, and thus stimulate the necessary confidence within the industry for major investment, tough policies directed at vehicle purchasers are required.

An ambitious government vehicle

procurement programme should set the tone. It could be followed by a staged but transparent ramping up of emissions standards for fleets of public transport and light goods delivery vehicles. The timescale would be long enough to allow purchasers to react, but would give a clear date by which all new vehicles in these fleets would have to be virtually zero-carbon.

The effect would be to create a certainty of future demand for zero emission vehicles which would see manufacturers of such vehicles rushing to expand their operations here.

Ultimately, road charging and zonal-charging schemes which seriously penalise owners of conventional private vehicles but allow attractive exemptions for low carbon vehicle drivers, would be necessary to fully revolutionise the prospects for ultra-low carbon vehicle production in the UK, and safeguard the maximum number of jobs currently under threat in the beleaguered auto-manufacturing industry.

Governments tend to fight shy of tough environmental regulation in a time of electoral and economic pressure.

But by grasping the nettle and viewing tough future standards as a means of stimulating new and potentially lucrative demands to which British industry is still well placed to respond, the government could kick-start production in manufacturing sectors that would otherwise decline- safeguarding thousands of jobs.

‘Green jobs’ are essential for our economy and our climate ambitions; but they depend on the kind of bold and perhaps controversial government action which will stimulate a genuine belief in the industry that demand for these entirely new technologies will be truly forthcoming.

AFTER KYOTO

13

anticipationsONLINE

Fast forward to April 2050. Global temperatures have risen to between 2 – 5°C above pre-

industrial levels. The disruption to the global climate and environment is unprecedented. Mass movements of population and global conflict over depleted resources are commonplace. Existing obstacles to development such as water availability, agricultural production, malaria and aids have become too costly and difficult to overcome. Global economic growth has ground to a halt.

The G50 meet in Beijing to discuss the deepening global depression. The resulting communiqué is full of warm words but concedes recovery is unlikely, as a much needed “resource stimulus” is impossible. World leaders wax lyrical about what was achieved in Copenhagen in 2009 but concede that the policies necessary to meet the target were never followed.

By 2050, the global economy needs to have found an entirely new way of doing things. A policy framework, originating in Copenhagen, that drives this change is critical. It needs to be ambitious, long term and enforceable. It needs to give markets the confidence to invest in the solutions.

What level of greenhouse gas reductions are we talking about?

AFTER COPENHAGENThe Copenhagen agreement needs to be backed bya suitable policy framework, argues Daniel Stevens

Daniel StevensMember of the Young Fabians

Where does the policy response need to be heading?

Nicholas Stern’s most recent book ‘A Blueprint for a Safer Planet’ highlights that unless the concentration of greenhouse gas emissions (address here as ‘carbon dioxide equivalent’ (CO2e) in the atmosphere is kept at, or below, 500 parts per million (ppm) the danger of irreversible climate change is ‘high.’ This leaves a 95 per cent chance that temperatures will rise above 2°C - a tipping point often referenced.

Concentrations of CO2e is currently 430ppm – with 2.5ppm being added every year. Stern estimates that keeping the concentration at, or below, 500ppm will require a reduction of 50 per cent, relative to current levels, by 2050. Factor in population and output growth between now and 2050 and we’re probably looking at even greater cuts.

Climate change is the greatest and widest-ranging market failure ever seen. When we emit greenhouse gases society does not bear the cost of the damage. The appropriate response to correct a market failure is to fix it through, inter alia, taxes or regulation. Tackling climate change is no different. Successfully correcting the market failure is totally dependent on Government intervention - not central Government control, but coordinated policies that facilitate a private sector response.

In the case of climate change, we need a combination of demand side policies – such as tax, regulation and the rationing of emissions through carbon markets - that will create new markets for climate change solutions, and supply side policies – such as R&D and training – to facilitate the innovation, production and use of low carbon technologies.

Crucially, however, where do these policy mechanisms need to be targeted

to have the greatest impact?Achieving a global cut in greenhouse

gas emissions of 50 per cent will require cuts right across the economy.

Globally, energy-related sectors account for 63 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions. Of the other 37 per cent, land use change, including deforestation is the biggest contributor.

Two of the most urgent priorities, therefore, are the more efficient production and use of energy – in buildings, industry, transport, power generation etc – and halting deforestation.

Within energy, electricity and transport are the largest contributors. In the immediate to short term, we need an urgent improvement in energy efficiency. The Stern Review estimated that energy efficiency has the potential to be the largest source of emission savings by 2050 – with the vast majority of technologies needed to fulfil this potential already available. In the medium to long term, we must move towards decarbonised electricity generation. Again, these technologies are already available (the debate over wind, solar etc versus nuclear is for another time).

Stern estimates that achieving a 50 per cent cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 would require the stabilisation of emissions within fifteen years, followed by a decline of 3 per cent a year. It is estimated that this will cost 2 per cent of global GDP per annum over the next 50 years. The cost of inaction is far, far greater.

Assuming a successful end to the climate change negotiations in December 2009, we need a policy response commensurate to the challenge we face.

We can set as many ambitious targets as we like, but unless they are backed with suitable policies they will, in almost all cases, be missed.

“By 2050, the global economy needs to have found an entirely new way of doing things. A policy framework, originating in Copenhagen, that drives this change is critical. It needs to be ambitious, long term and enforceable.

1�


At the moment, almost wholly due to the global economic downturn, people aren’t buying many cars.

As a result the car industry is suffering. Workers are being laid off and there are stockpiles of new vehicles, which is providing a striking image of how the motor industry is running into decline.

As the world’s economy recovers, and people start spending money again, those car parks full of new vehicles will begin to empty and agency workers will be taken back on, but for how long will it last?

Almost everyone who drives a car, or who buys a new car, is buying an historic relic.

Petrol prices have come down in recent months, but oil prices are entering a period of unparalleled volatility. This in turn will see petrol prices spiral upwards, downwards, and then up again, no doubt with the political fortunes of the Government and the quick-to-exclaim end-of-the-world-isms of the press.

Petrol cars aren’t the future, and people who buy them are buying years of petrol rises; charges to enter major cities; and gradual green tax increases for cars that aren’t sufficiently sparing with their carbon emissions.

It seems absurd for a society that knows it must cut its carbon emissions substantially, and that petrol prices are only going to rise, to continue buying a gas-guzzling machine that is going to impose a penal and bellicose regime on their bank balance.

However, this is where we are, and I don’t believe anyone – from scientists to Government officials – has yet framed the green car argument in a sufficient way for people to think that buying a car that runs on liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) will be cheaper in the long run.

Instead, the assumption made about non-petrol cars is they’re impractical, don’t last very long, and look

FORWARD DRIVEThe recession is an opportunity to dramatically changethe way we think about car use, believes Karl Pike

Karl PikeMember of the Young Fabians

ridiculous.The current downturn in demand

for new petrol cars is therefore an opportunity to change consumer demand and understanding for cars that don’t produce vast carbon emissions; cars that come with lower tax bands; cars that cost a fraction of the price to run and maintain; and, perhaps crucially, cars that look the same as normal cars.

I don’t think many people would object to a wholesale ‘bailout’ of the car manufacturing industry in Britain, but only if its purpose was to completely revolutionise global motoring.

If, at a time of a global economic downturn, we can invest huge sums in our automotive industry and become the world-leader in green vehicles, it’s possible it would be looked back on as a monumental New Deal that changed the course of Britain’s manufacturing industry.

Some of Britain’s largest car manufacturers need substantial financial support to keep a float, pay their staff and in some cases not even produce any vehicles.

Why not substantially increase this financial help, but with the added

caveats that this money must be spent on recruiting specialists in the research and design of green vehicles including the production of hydrogen fuel cells? The could also be investment in producing market ready green cars in sufficient volume as to bring their prices down for consumers.

If, in five or ten years time, British car manufacturers are churning out the latest in hydrogen powered vehicles, with the largest skilled workforce and the brands to make them desirable, we could have a new golden era in this country’s manufacturing industry.

When car manufacturers need a new lease of life, why not spend the money required to give it to them?

This would result in workers being kept on, more research and development money spent in Britain and a new frontier for the green car industry, than a slow decline of car manufacturing which is the pride of vast chunks of Britain.

There’s much talk of re-skilling and bringing Britain into the new global age, surely taking a leap into this area, when we’re looking at big life-saving subsidies anyway, is a punt worth taking?

two writes don’t make it wrong.

contribute to the debate by writing for Anticipationsemail [email protected] for more information

AFTER KYOTO

15

Writing about transport is neither glamorous nor popular. For something all

of us rely on everyday it receives scant political coverage and seems to be stuck fast to the bottom of the political agenda. Yet changing the way we travel is going to be hugely important in reducing our green house gas (GHG) emissions.

The transport sector contributes approximately 23% of the UK’s GHG emissions, 28% if you include international aviation. Perhaps most worryingly, 93% of all domestic transport emissions are from road transport and these emissions are increasing.

In its climate change statistical digest DEFRA, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, states; “Since 1990, emissions from road transport have increased by 11 per cent, while emissions from the energy supply industry have reduced by 11 per cent and business emissions have reduced by 19 per cent.” Other data indicates that the transport sector as a whole, fuelled by a growth in road travel, has increased emissions year on year since 1975. The only sector to have done this.

A recent survey by the Department for Transport suggests the public also

TRAFFIC, JAMMED?It is time for the government to take bold action on transport, suggests Rob Jenkins

Rob JenkinsMember of the Young Fabians

recognises the contribution of road transport to climate change.

When asked, “What types of things do you think contribute to climate change?” 68% of respondents said they believed emissions from road transport contributed to climate change, the most common answer. It is worrying then that they seem to want to do little about it.

The same survey asked what steps people would be prepared to take over the next year in light of climate change concerns. Only 40% of people said they would “walk some non-essential car journeys”.

Responsibility to address the environmental impact of road transport must lie then with the Government, who so far has been muted in combating GHG emissions from road transport. Stricter emissions standards on cars and HGVs are a small step, but more needs to be done.

The Local Transport Act offers to empower local authorities to produce viable bus services, but this is not enough. We need to stop the car being the mode of choice, reducing the number of miles driven is the simplest way of reducing vehicle emissions.

These schemes will not achieve this and empirical evidence, as well as academic research, suggests only a combination of push and pull methods, carrots and sticks, will bring about this change.

To encourage greater use of public transport it must be affordable and easier to use. The Labour Transport Group, for example, advocates a set of minimum standards for local transport to ensure that regular, affordable, reliable and green services are delivered to communities.

Good transport planning however goes further than this, not only does a modal shift need to be created away from the car, the need to travel must be

reduced. This means a fight to protect local shops, schools, pubs and, dare I say it, post offices. No one should need to drive to buy a pint of milk or a book of stamps.

Even where public transport is excellent the car often remains the mode of choice. It is dangerously convenient to use. Owning a car incorporates high fixed costs including, MOTs, car tax, insurance and maintenance costs. Once these costs are met driving is relatively cheap. The Government has talked about introducing a national road-pricing scheme, effectively transforming the fixed costs into variable costs, a plan that has faded into the sunset.

Scrapping road tax and introducing a “pay as you drive” system would make the cost of using public transport comparable with the cost of driving. It would allow the true external costs of driving - not just the GHG emissions, but the particulate matter, the noise pollution, the contribution to congestion – to be internalised. It would be better for the environment and it could create a better, fairer, society.

The UK faces a serious problem. 99% of transport in this country is powered by oil, transport consumes 74% of the UK’s oil supply. We can either change our behaviour voluntarily, adopt positive schemes to combat climate change and create sustainable transport systems or be forced to change.

Over the next decade oil demand will rise, supplies will reduce and costs increase. We can either act now to reduce our dependence on oil, limit our GHG emissions and improve our air quality, or we can just keep driving until the oil runs out.

For me there is only one choice, it is time for a bold Government to take the lead.

All figures used in this article are sourced from the National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory, DfT or DEFRA. They refer to 2006, the last year for which full data is available. Some figures are rounded to the nearest whole number.

“Scrapping road tax and introducing a “pay as you drive” system would make the cost of using public transport comparable with the cost of driving. It would allow the true external costs of driving to be internalised. It would be better for the environment and could create a better, fairer, society.

16


A concern for the welfare of future generations permeates environmental law and political

discourse. The 1972 Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment states: “Man bears a solemn responsibility to protect and improve the environment for present and future generations.”

Perhaps the fundamental issue in environmental ethics and law is deciphering the content of our responsibility to future generations. Unquestionably, our present actions will have a bearing on the welfare of future generations and evaluating these intergenerational effects must be at the forefront of environmental regulation. Providing access to the earth’s resources and benefits for every generation would appear to be a theory of distributive justice, or at least it suggests the interests of the present and future should be considered equally.

How can future generations enforce their rights as beneficiaries? How can we predict the competing priorities of the future?

A sound theoretical model can provide us with a philosophical grounding for decision-making that affects the health of the planet and the interests of future generations. References to a “trust for future generations” have become so extensive as to be almost reflexive, so if the phrase is to carry beneficial weight

GENERATION GAMEMartin Whiteford on the difficulties of recognising the welfare of future generations in environmental policy

Martin WhitefordMember of the Young Fabians

then we must establish its boundaries in environmental discourse, before it is lost to shallow and manipulative sloganeering.

Trusteeship is a form of ownership, but it is a form of shared ownership in which the current owner has responsibilities to others, including those in the future. If it is taken to imply that the state’s sovereign role is translated into government service for current and future citizens then the rhetorical implications could be profound.

Any viable and expansive environmental programme must actively employ political rhetoric which shapes the public’s perception and seeps into the law making process. It is especially important in environmental thought, due to the wide spread effects of environmental degradation. With this in mind an analysis of a “trust for future generations” is a worthwhile exercise.

The use of a trust theme in political rhetoric is widespread. The notion that this would span multiple generations is implicit. Anthropological studies have demonstrated that concern for future generations, and most acutely that of familial descendents, is the most widely and strongly held points of reference for environmental values. However, such rhetoric will always be subject to political incline. Importantly, emphasis has regularly shifted in discussion of who is under the trusteeship obligation. For, example President Carter stressed that stewardship “is a prime responsibility of government,” while President Reagan stated that stewardship was “primarily the responsibility of the individual landowner.” Likewise, George W Bush regularly alluded to responsibilities of the individual as trustees of the land. His inflection on the trust rhetoric is one of mastery over the natural world and accordingly he places it firmly within the metaphor of property.

The present Labour Government

set out their environmental agenda in a 1994 policy document entitled “In Trust for Tomorrow.” However, energy efficiency, the landfill tax and access to the countryside offer no readily apparent benefits to future generations, beyond a broad environmental sensibility.

From a strictly rational perspective, the conclusion must be drawn that future persons cannot have rights against present persons. Therefore, they have no rights against us that would necessitate us acting in a specific way. Accordingly, environmental policy that takes account of the interests of future generations cannot then be founded on the principles of justice, as justice requires the recognition and protection of rights.

Human Rights language has arguably become a method of expressing our most urgent aspirations. Although we must not rule out using it as a metaphor, what we are ultimately searching for is a systematic theory. Even if we were to accept that future generations are the holders of rights, there are severe difficulties in translating that to a means of regulating our present actions.

Most of these proposed obligations require us to pass on the earth in a condition comparable to how we received it. Yet they offer us no guidance as to what specifically must be retained nor do they offer direction in the most pressing questions that confront us such as climate change. Intergenerational equity would require us to make projections as to what future generations will value.

These assumptions will necessarily be based on our present values and as such will be deeply conservative, sympathetic to development and unwilling to acknowledge the value of the environment as a ‘good’ in itself. An intergenerational equity model may therefore be a significant obstruction to radical environmental decision-making.

Although there are many

“Environmental policy that takes account of the interests of future generations cannot then be founded on the principles of justice, as justice requires the recognition and protection of rights.

AFTER KYOTO

17

difficulties associated with couching intergenerational responsibility in the discourse of rights, it can be argued that it is politically more persuasive to talk of rights. Yet if we are to talk of duties emerging from virtue then we necessarily focus on who must fulfil this obligation. Thus, it is considerably more orientated in practical policy.

Principle 3 of the 1992 Rio Declaration says “the right to development must be fulfilled so as to equitably meet developmental and environmental needs of present and future generations.” While there would appear to be an undercurrent of commitment to this end, there has been insufficient deliberation as to how these needs may be fulfilled.

We must be aware of the danger that lurks in the generality of the principles included under the umbrella term of sustainable development. Complex and taxing issues, such as the abstract nature of future generations, must not be ignored. A concern for future generations is contained in the non-operative preambles of several international instruments, but is included in the main body of only one.

Article 3 of the Climate Change Convention states: “parties should protect the climate system for the benefit of present and future generations of humankind.” It fails to distinguish how these interests may differ or conflict. The International Court of Justice has recognised that: “the rights of future generations have passed the stage where they are merely an embryonic right struggling for recognition. They have woven themselves into international law through major treaties, through juristic opinion and through general principles of international law”.

Extension of the mandate of the United Nations trusteeship council has been singled out as potential means of implementing such a fiduciary duty, through a universal trust. The former

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has proposed that the trusteeship council be: “reconstituted as the forum through which member states exercise their collective trusteeship for the integrity of the global environment.” Since then the issue has been passed between task forces and committees with no concrete end product. A fundamental difficulty of this approach would be the need to alter the UN charter.

If intergenerational equity is to be a principle of distributive justice its application on the international stage is infeasible.

Firstly, equity implies that time and generations can be divided and categorised in order to provide each with their share of resources. If we were to temporarily ignore the impossibility of predicting the needs of posterity, we would then need to overcome the hurdle that international law lacks the capacity to make distributive choices in the way a state can.

Secondly, true equality on the international plane could only theoretically occur if either national boundaries remained static until the extinction of the human species, or if an international body was to downgrade state sovereignty by assuming responsibility for natural resources. While we should be aware of the emergence of multi-state regimes such as the EU and NAFTA, a distributive approach to the posterity question, as implied in intergenerational equity, is wholly inappropriate.

It is likely that a distributive approach will falter on the fact we are incapable of overcoming the uncertainty dilemma. Therfore we should approach the question by first recognising that the future is unclear. The most appropriate existing legal instrument would logically then be the Precautionary Principle.

The Precautionary Principle favours not risking harm to the environment when we do not fully understand the

possible effects of a resource consumption or polluting decision. Rather than a rights orientated conception, the Precautionary Principle is commensurate with a virtue-based rationale, whereby present-day decisions are judged on our visions for life in the future, rather than normative rules. By minimising harm we contribute to conserving quality and options. This would require a fundamental modification of our regulatory approach, away from the rationale of pollution by permission, and technological optimism currently favoured.

We must acknowledge the fact that specifically applicable rules to cover all eventualities will not emerge from the Precautionary Principle. Instead, it can be used as a platform and mandate for integrating the maintenance of ecological integrity into the decision-making process.

The fact we feel some sense of duty to future generations is perhaps a direct extension of our fears for the future of our direct descendants.

If this is the case then the most suitable route is not to project our fears thousands of years into the future, but instead focus our attentions on the more direct effects of our decisions.

These interests are certainly not abstract or unascertainable. If we are unsure of these direct effects then we must apply the Precautionary Principle and base our judgements on effects we are capable of quantifying.

The rhetoric of trust must focus on moderation and responsibility. What such rhetoric does is constantly seek to realign the decision-making process with all potential effects.

It forces judicial and state decision makers to consistently view their decisions within a sprawling temporal context. In this way the future is built into the present, and the theoretical method we apply is more intellectually convincing and practically coherent.

18


International agreement on climate change is difficult. The complex web of political interests can entangle

any underlying commitment to climate change abatement and the process, as it has in the past, becomes stalled and ineffective.

The great hope is that President Obama’s administration will provide fresh impetus to U.S. inclusion but his Special Envoy on Climate Change, Todd Stern, is quick to remind us that while the rest of the world will have had four years to prepare for Copenhagen, they have had only nine months. Add the economic recession to the familiar difficulties of U.S.-China relations and emerging economy nerves, and there remains the real possibility that Copenhagen will not see comprehensive agreement. This is by no means a reason to not try, but merely a caution that implies the preparation of contingency plans. To this effect, Britain should not lose sight of the progressive measures that can be undertaken at home.

In 2005, 96% of global GHG emissions were from the energy sector. Britain, and the world, must transform its energy mix. Renewable energy’s strength is in its variety; there are technologies for almost all geographical settings. The UK is particularly well-placed to adopt Wind Energy. The government has set an ambitious target of 15% of energy generation from renewables by 2020. However, the figure is currently closer to 2%. The Committee on Climate Change anticipates that onshore and offshore wind farms can deliver 30% of the UK’s electricity supply by 2020, but this will only occur if the government is willing to throw its weight behind some innovative policy measures. One suggestion, borrowed from Germany, is to introduce feed-in tariffs that essentially prioritise wind-generated electricity. The implementation of this policy would also create numerous employment opportunities at both the technical and manual levels and would

UNILATERAL THINKINGGlobal action is important, but Britain could take some simpleunilateral steps towards reducing emissions, writes Mat Hope

Mat HopeMember of the Young Fabians

give the economy fresh impetus as part of a Green Recovery package. To do this does not require international agreement, but domestic political will.

22% of Britain’s energy use is from transport. The government must, once again, revisit the issue of urban transport infrastructure. Urban transport remains a significant problem at both a social and environmental level and it is imperative that we get people out of their cars and into alternative forms of transport. With some thought and investment, many cities could find themselves with intra-city rail lines alleviating pressure on the roads helping to make bus services more efficient while simultaneously reducing emissions. Again, there is no need for international agreement to do this, just good policy design.

If the government were to take the initiative and implement these, or numerous other, domestic policies, Britain could demonstrate that major emissions reductions are possible through unilateral action and could say to the world, ‘here’s how’. Britain would then have a privileged position in future negotiations providing an example for emerging economies to follow, and proving to the rest of the industrialised world that green transformation is possible without overly high costs. It would end any speculation on behalf of those who continue to ignore sophisticated argument that not only is ‘green growth’ possible but as Lord Stern, the government’s figurehead on environmental economic policy asserts, it is the only growth option there can now be. It could ground arguments for action at future negotiations on empirical evidence, providing the world with an example far more persuasive than the results from even the most sophisticated computer model could be.

Most importantly, though, by seizing the initiative this government could lay to rest the tired principle of ‘common but differentiated responsibility’. The G8

alone are responsible for 63% of global CO2 emissions since 1850. Britain has a 7% share of this, equating to 1,124.5tCO2 per capita. It is time for the G8 to realise that there is nothing ‘common’ about this situation. They are historically responsible for the damage and they must now lead the solution – not just through words but with action. Global inaction is not an option; the developed economies must take responsibility and act regardless of commitments from emerging economies and less economically developed countries.

International agreement on emissions reductions is a worthy pursuit and ultimately a necessity if disastrous climate change is going to be averted. Many sectors need international agreement for significant progress, agriculture and forestry policy chief among them. However, emissions reduction from energy use and transport is not one of them.

The pre-conference signs for agreement do not bode well; the policymaking environment is more challenging now than it was four years ago, and negotiations will have the additional pressure that comes with economic recession to contend with.

If the government were to implement a progressive policy agenda that transformed Britain’s energy and re-addressed the issue of transport infrastructure with an eye on emissions reduction then it could re-affirm its progressive credentials and place Britain in the driving seat of future negotiations. It could put an end to the tired ‘common but differentiated responsibility’ principle that continues to stall progress, and could take a ‘here’s how’ approach to future negotiations, ultimately increasing the likelihood of their success.

International agreement is hard. Unilateral action can be effective.

It’s time for Britain and its Labour government to show the world ‘how’.

AFTER KYOTO

19

In order for Labour to win a fourth term it needs the progressive side of politics to continue to generate new ideas, such

as the Severn Barrage Scheme, which could generate 5% of the UK’s electricity demand.

Whilst the Tories are living in a policy-free fantasyland, it is Labour that needs to work harder than ever before to rebuild the coalition that first brought it to power. Climate change is one of those areas that Labour can lead the way towards a green and more sustainable UK.

The Stern Review in 2006 estimated that unless we invest 1% of global GDP per annum in measures to prevent climate change it would cost us 20% of global GDP to deal with the consequences. In a recent interview Sir Nicolas Stern said, “When my report came out, people thought I’d over-egged the omelette. But all the things people were looking at turned out to be worse than they thought.”

The UK has the potential to generate large amounts of clean electricity from the tides. Using both types of tidal resource could supply at least 10% of the UK’s electricity if fully exploited.

Tidal range is the vertical difference between the high tide and the low tide. Tidal range technologies make use of this height difference to generate electricity by creating a differential in the water levels either side of a structure and then passing

SEVERNTH HEAVENAfter decades of proposals, the government should take the

bold step of launching a tidal power scheme in the Severn, argues Ian Ross

Ian RossMember of the Young FabiansLabour PPC for Worhting West

this water through turbines. There are two main tidal range technologies – barrages and lagoons.

A barrage is effectively a hydroelectric dam. This is achieved by placing a number of large concrete caissons across an estuary, some of which would house conventional hydro-electric turbines. The electricity would be generated by allowing the incoming tide to pass through sluices in the barrage. This body of water is then held as the tide ebbs. When the water level on the seaward side of the barrage is low enough the water behind the barrage is released back to the seaward side through the turbines, generating electricity.

Lagoons are also included in the five schemes on the short list for the Severn Estuary. Tidal lagoons are free standing structures built offshore or in a semi-circular type arrangement connected to the shoreline at each end. They operate on similar principles to barrages in that they exploit the difference in tidal height to generate electricity. Unlike barrages they would not fully obstruct the estuary, but instead create a narrow channel running in-between the lagoons.

As yet there has been no attempt to exploit the UK’s large tidal range resource, despite numerous project proposals going back many decades. Virtually all of these have focused on the construction of tidal barrages, which use similar technologies to hydropower dams and are therefore relatively mature. However, the high capital cost and concerns over environmental impacts have prevented a barrage ever being built in the UK, despite examples in France and Canada operating successfully.

A number of different barrage options have been proposed for the Severn Estuary between Avon and South Wales. An estuary is a semi-enclosed coastal body of water with one or more rivers or streams flowing into it. The Severn Estuary is a unique and dynamic environment as it

has the second largest tidal range in the world, around 90% of total UK practical tidal range resource.

The Cardiff-Weston scheme is one of the larger options proposed, and would have a generating capacity of around 8.64GW. This particular barrage would involve building a 16km long structure across the estuary between Cardiff and Weston super-Mare. The Shoots scheme, which would run near to the two Severn bridges, is a smaller proposal with an annual output of around 2.75TWh.

If built, a Severn barrage would be designed to generate electricity for at least 120 years. The carbon payback period on the construction of a barrage is estimated at around 5-8 months. The energy resource in the Severn Estuary is substantial and could provide up to 5% of UK electricity demand. This would represent 25% of the UK target to cut emissions by 2020. It has been estimated that a barrage would take around 12 years to complete with engineering design and environmental studies. Construction itself would only take between 5 and 7 years to complete.

Ed Miliband, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, accompanied by Jane Davidson, Minister for Environment, Sustainability and Housing at the Welsh Assembly Government, launched a three-month consultation in January 2009. Both Ministers restated that they are committed to considering progress of the new technologies alongside those short listed before taking decisions on whether or not to support the building of a Severn tidal power scheme, probably later in 2010.

Severn tidal power schemes have been discussed on and off since the 1980s. Given the stark warnings of the Stern Review and the harsh reality of climate change facing us, this is one opportunity that cannot be missed. We owe it to future generations to halt climate change before it is too late.

“If built, a Severn barrage would be designed to generate electricity for at least 120 years. The carbon payback period on the construction of a barrage is estimated at around 5-8 months. The energy resource in the Severn Estuary is substantial and could provide up to 5% of UK electricity demand.

20


Biofuels are currently attracting interest from governments, business and NGOs, largely

driven by concerns about global climate change and energy security. In theory, biofuels are carbon neutral: although burning biofuels releases carbon dioxide, the carbon will have been removed from the atmosphere and stored in the plant during its growth. However, in practice, potential carbon savings are reduced as the production, transport and conversion of biofuels generates greenhouse gases.

Increasing global demand for biofuels, in part driven by EU and UK policy, is expected to be met through greater trade with the global south. However, concern is growing about the negative impacts of increased demand for biofuels; these impacts include direct and indirect land use change, competition with food production, and land tenure conflicts. In order to investigate these and other issues, in July 2008 I spent four weeks in Argentina exploring stakeholder perspectives of the developing biofuels industry.

Despite being a relative latecomer to the biofuels industry, Argentina is well placed to meet growing international demand for biofuels, and particularly for biodiesel (fuel made from vegetable oils or animal fat). Due to its size and geographical diversity, Argentina has significant bioenergy potential as well as a large, export-oriented agricultural sector. Globally, Argentina is one of the world’s top three producers and exporters of vegetable oils, principally of soy and sunflower oils.

In Argentina, the largely export-focused biofuels industry is based on the use of soy as the principal feedstock. Although the 2006 Biofuels Law aimed to incentivise domestic demand for biofuels, to date there has been little political and financial

SOY, THE SOUTH AND THE EU BIOFUEL JUGGERNAUTJulia Tomei reflects on the prospects of a growing biofuels industry in Argentina.

Julia Tomei,Research Associate, Department of Geography, King’s College [email protected]

commitment to the domestic biofuel sector. As a result, it has largely been left to business to drive development, which has lead to a focus on the more profitable export market. As one civil servant commented:

“Strong policies are needed to change the direction of the current export-focused biofuels industry and to create domestic demand for biofuels. However, current policies are ineffectual- they are attempting to stop a moving train with a rope”

Understandably, perspectives and opinions of the developing biofuels industry are varied. For some, demand for biofuels provides economic opportunities that cannot be missed; and the nascent industry presents Argentina with an opportunity to gain influence and power at an international

level. For others, increased global demand for biofuels represents a real threat; increased demand for soy will drive agricultural expansion, leading to habitat loss and deforestation, and further consolidation of the dominant agro-export model. An environmental lawyer remarked:

“What do I hope will happen with European biofuels policy? That you stop promoting the use of biofuels and concentrate on reducing your demand”

From a social perspective, the impacts of the nascent biofuels industry are also uncertain. The expansion of soy farming due to increased global demand for soy will have impacts on food sovereignty, as soybeans are cultivated at the expense of traditional livestock and crop production. The intensification of agriculture has also led to a reduction of the labour force, and the job opportunities created by the biofuels industry are unlikely to be significant.

Despite enthusiasm from government and key stakeholders, particularly the vegetable oil industry, the emergence of a domestic biofuels industry in Argentina is by no means assured. Scepticism and mistrust in government and industry, particularly following the economic collapse in 2001, may hamper the development of a biofuels industry, particularly if it leads to increased fuel prices. As one NGO observed:

“Politicians here say ‘I’m not going to approve a project that will be completed in 10 years if I’m not going to be there to inaugurate it‘. They function only in the short-term, and they only do things for a photo opportunity. There is no culture of planning in Argentina.”

In asking whether biofuels represent an opportunity or a threat for Argentina, we must first ask: ‘for whom’, and ‘based on what production systems’?

OTHER ISSUES

21

As the current recession continues to wield misery on the globe, the huge shifts in attitudes becomes

increasingly apparent. No stone has been left unturned in the interpretations and solutions of and for the recession and even more stones have been turned to look for those who are to blame. More important though, are the lessons we, as Young Fabians, must take.

Interest rates have sunk to 0.5% from 4.5% in October of last year. Repossession of homes continues to increase, with the rate of claims for repossession resting at 150,000 by the end of 2008. It has been forecast that in 2009, some 4% of all households will fall at least 3 years behind on their mortgage payments. Output continues to contract. With the exception of the South East and London, the regions of the whole country are earning, on average, below the UK average wage. Inflation edges closer to deflation and unemployment grows by the day.

These astounding figures have ceased to shock us and public opinion has grown more and more disillusioned. So where does politics turn? Where does government turn? What happens to Labour and the whole centre-left? The political repercussions of this recession could be huge. There is a huge job to do in understanding the lessons of the past when shaping solutions for the future.

Successive governments have allowed huge corporations to do as they please. The words “regulation” and “de-regulation” bounced across the dispatch box as Britain prospered. However, now we are in crisis, we see the reversal of roles. It appears as though government, right from the very top, has decided that power no longer follows money.

The might of government has been displayed the world over with financial bailouts larger than many of us can even fathom. At times, those on the

money’s “side” have seemed somewhat deluded.

As the generation who will continue this cleanup, we must take the lesson that firm government is back on the agenda. And as the generation who will, hopefully, see the country into and beyond the rebuilding period, we must see that power must now always lead money., and not vice-versa.

Another crucial lesson and immediate dilemma comes for the Labour Party and the centre-left as a whole. As we hear the Conservatives saying things we would have expected from Lord Kinnock in times gone by, the pressure is on Labour to act decisively as the centre-left party. Of course, everyone knows it is merely Tory opportunism, but that does not detract from the fact that they are now way ahead in the polls.

Gordon Brown cannot compete with David Cameron in public relations, so he must use his strengths as a politician if Labour is to hold onto the electorate. The investment in banks was undoubtedly critical, but the public resent it. Brown must explicitly express the possible benefits for the taxpayer. After all, we may benefit from this in the long-run.

The public do not trust individualism on the scale that it was practised in the past. Every Labour member must work hard to secure their seat as the most trying election in a decade approaches. For our generation, it means learning the lessons from complacency. Labour has been in a position where it could have raced ahead in the public opinion but it has failed to capitalise and now Cameron, Osbourne and Clarke are sneaking in.

One more discomforting thought is that as the Conservatives move left, there is a vacuum on the Right.

The BNP unseated a Labour councillor, but most shocking was the

location; Kent. Unemployment in Kent is low compared to parts of northern England, despite history telling us that unemployment is one of the key motives for a shift to the right; in 1932, unemployment in Germany was around 9%.

Though one council seat is not enough to shake up the system, it is enough to give us something to think about.

The “British Jobs for British Workers” fiasco did not help this issue and the longer this recession goes on without productive, working government measures to ensure employment, the more people will turn to the BNP ethos, or rather the right-wing ethos.

For Young Fabians, this must provide more crucial lessons. It is absolutely critical that we never alienate the working class. Those who struggle with employment must be helped, not only by welfare but by pro-active policies to allow them the dignity that work brings. One thing the BNP provides to those disillusioned people is that precise dignity; or rather perceived dignity. The BNP plays on their concerns and gives the unemployed a false belief that they are wanted and valued by the party. In future, MPs and councillors must work much more closely with their constituents.

The message for Young Fabians to take is absolutely crucial. We are not merely bystanders to this recession. As future generations of politicians it is essential we keep the mistakes of previous governments at the front of our minds. And as the lines between business and government, and money and power, shift, we must take heed from the actions of government and the movements of politics.

Those who live through this recession will be forever sensitive to the issues that have risen during this time and we must ensure that we anticipate these issues in the future.

AFTER THE RECESSIONYoung Fabians needs to learn the lessons of the

current recession writes Stewart Owadally

Stewart Owadally Member of the Young Fabians

22


At Compass’ 2008 Annual Conference, Polly Toynbee, in an end-of-conference speech,

praised the extent and the heartfelt nature of the public and media outcry following the publication of UNICEF’s 2007 report on child well-being in rich countries, in which the UK was ranked last out of 21 OECD countries, and indeed below the United States.

The manner of the reaction to the report’s publication should not be cause for celebration. We should be worried if the public and the media were not to react in the manner described by Polly Toynbee. For a developed country to have a level of child well-being that is lower than that of the US is, after all, quite an achievement; and in this age of anti-Americanism, the public is very aware of the social ills that afflict free-market America.

Unfortunately, however, the truth is that, despite what Polly Toynbee might think, the reaction of the public and the media, as well as that of the political class, to this devastatingly depressing and illuminating report has been, at best, limp. A handful of newspaper headlines and a Newsnight special do not make for a concerted popular outcry.

The UNICEF report isn’t troubling simply because the UK was ranked below the US, either. Both countries

WELFARING BADLYBritian’s democracy isn’t working. Nor are efforts to address child poverty.The two are linked, suggests Mark Anderson

Mark AndersonMember of the Young Fabians

were found to have a level of child well-being significantly below that of every other developed country assessed in the report. In each of the six categories that the UNICEF report identified – family and peer relationships, child behaviour and risk-taking, subjective well-being, educational well-being, material well-being, and health and safety – the UK performed dreadfully, with one slight exception.

Of the 21 countries, children in the UK were found to have the worst quality of family and peer relationships. In this category, the situation in both the UK and the US is far worse than in other OECD countries, according to the report.

The situation with regards child behaviour and risk-taking (in relation to, amongst other things, physical activity, cannabis use, underage sex, bullying and peer-to-peer violence) was found in the report to be far, far worse in the UK than in any of the other countries that were assessed, including the US.

Even more troublingly, perhaps, the subjective well-being of children in the UK – that is to say the perception that children have of their well-being – is worse than that of every other country in the list (excluding the US for which there were no statistics).

For educational well-being, the UK was ranked seventeenth out of the 21 countries, with Czech, Hungarian, Polish and Portuguese children all deemed to surpass their contemporaries in the UK in terms of educational achievements.

In relation to children’s material well-being, the UK was ranked eighteenth, below Portugal and Greece, to name but two countries. Only Poland, Hungary and Ireland (a low-tax economy) fared worse than the UK in this category. Supposedly, we in the UK enjoy one of the highest levels of per capita wealth

in the world. The problem, of course, is that some people in the UK, but only some, are indeed very wealthy.

In the area of health and safety, the UK fares somewhat better, coming twelfth out of 21. For this modest achievement we have the great post-war Labour generation to thank, alongside, perhaps, the fact that the UK is rather more dutiful than some Member States when it comes to implementing EU health and safety legislation.

Some of us on the left may mock David Cameron for his alarmist talk of a Broken Britain when describing the problems facing this country, but we fool ourselves if we think that it is anything other than a fitting description.

As a comparator, it is worth bearing in mind that the Netherlands, the country that was found in the UNICEF report to have the highest levels of child well-being, is itself far from perfect and, as with anywhere else, has a myriad of socio-economic problems to deal with; but in spite of this, it vastly outperformed the UK in every category in the report.

The report’s findings do not signify that there aren’t plenty of happy, well-brought up children in this country, but they do suggest that there are far too many who aren’t.

Children in the UK are some of the poorest, most unhappy, illiterate, overweight, inactive, drugged up and violent in the developed world. The tasks facing us are huge.

Unfortunately, the findings of the UNICEF report slipped off the public agenda almost as soon as they had arrived. Polly Toynbee’s favourable perception of the manner in which news of the report was received in the media and among the public speaks volumes for the state of the public sphere and of left-wing politics, the

“In each of the six categories that the UNICEF report identified – family and peer relationships, child behaviour and risk-taking, subjective well-being, educational well-being, material well-being, and health and safety – the UK performed dreadfully, with one slight exception

OTHER ISSUES

23

paucity of intellectual ambition, and the mediocre level of political debate to which we are accustomed in this country. The UNICEF report was a fleeting news story like any other.

In a genuinely civilised and democratic society, being ranked bottom of such a report would spark an all-encompassing, all-inclusive, prolonged period of debate and, indeed, soul-searching, within each and every institution – big or small, formal or informal, public or private – in the land; and the task of reversing such findings would lodge itself firmly at the top of the political agenda, and inform every aspect of political discourse, for as long as such a task were necessary. Except, of course that no such debate would be needed in a genuinely civilised and democratic society due to the fact that no civilised, democratic society would allow a state of affairs such as the one in which we find ourselves to exist in the first place.

We live, unfortunately, in a country all too often characterised by greed, cynicism apathy, ignorance, superficiality and a Bushian lack of intellectual curiosity. Our political, media and educational institutions are not fit for the purpose that they should all be geared towards: supporting government of the people, by the people, for the people. It is a corporate Britain, not a democratic Britain that we are living in, and for that reason it is broken.

Another depressing report was published in 2007, namely The Economist magazine’s Democracy Index 2007, in which every country in the world was rated for its level of democracy. The Economist report separated the countries of the world into four categories: full democracies, flawed democracies, hybrid regimes and authoritarian regimes: the higher a country’s score out of ten, the more

democratic it was perceived to be. The Economist report looked at five

areas – electoral process and pluralism, functioning of government, political participation, political culture, and civil liberties – with a mark out of ten being allocated to each country in each area, and the various marks contributing to each country’s overall score.

With an overall score of 8.08, the UK was ranked twenty-third in the Democracy Index. The lowest-scoring full democracy, Uruguay, received a mark of 7.96; the highest-scoring flawed democracy, South Africa, received a mark of 7.91. Recent democracies such as Greece, Portugal, Spain and the Czech Republic all scored higher than the UK. The USA, often derided for its low voter-turnout and other democratic failings, also received a higher score.

Heading the Democracy Index were the Netherlands and Sweden – the two countries which were found in the UNICEF report to have the highest levels of child well-being. The correlation is striking. It should, of course, come as no surprise to discover that countries with a high level of democracy take the best care of their children, caring for the many, not just the few.

In the Economist’s report, the UK fared particularly badly in the area of political participation, for which it received a paltry score of five out of ten.

The aspects of political participation taken into account in the Economist report included: voter participation and turnout in national elections; representation of women and minorities; participation in lawful demonstrations; adult literacy; membership of political parties and NGOs; citizens’ interest in, politics; the following of politics in the news media; the promotion of political participation

by local and national authorities; the role of the education system in promoting political participation; and public perceptions of, and support for, democracy.

The UK was placed joint fifty-seventh for political participation, alongside countries such as Ethiopia, Liberia, Botswana, Thailand, Hong Kong, East Timor, Indonesia, the Philippines, Serbia, Colombia, Mexico and Jamaica, and was outscored in this category by a number of countries deemed either flawed democracies or hybrid regimes.

Amongst those which outperformed the UK in this category were Iraq, Russia, Tanzania, Kenya, Madagascar, Namibia, Venezuela, Peru, Argentina, Palestine, Lebanon, Moldova, Macedonia and Sri Lanka, to name but a few.

Sweden and Norway scored ten out of ten for political participation, whilst the Netherlands scored 9.44. Even the US managed a modestly respectable 7.22. Had the UK been marked for political participation alone, by contrast, the report would have designated it not as a full democracy or even a flawed democracy, but as a hybrid regime.

Tragically, the most disadvantaged in society – those who have most to gain by taking an active role in holding their elected representatives to account – are the least educated, the most docile, apathetic, ill-informed and depoliticised, and the least likely to engage in politics. So long as this remains the case, we will continue to have one of the lowest levels of child well-being in the developed world.

But why is our democracy, according to The Economist, in such a parlous state, and what are the key issues that need to be addressed if political participation is to be given a new lease of life?

WELFARING BADLYBritian’s democracy isn’t working. Nor are efforts to address child poverty.The two are linked, suggests Mark Anderson

Mark AndersonMember of the Young Fabians

2�


In the UK the first-past-the-post (FPTP) system come under criticism in recent years for being

undemocratic, and for causing low turnouts and decreased interest in the political parties. But is the system to blame? And would the alternatives be any different? We should not ‘chop and change’ electoral systems, or give up a system that has served us well, by and large, for so many years. The watchwords here are simplicity and stability.

The first-past-the-post system has been in use to select MPs since the beginning of Parliament and has proven its worth. Britain has never suffered from the kind of political instability that is common in other European countries. FPTP creates a strong, single-party government - there are rarely coalition governments or governments that do not have a working majority in Parliament. When a government is elected in the UK, it has sufficient support to pass the measures it outlined in its manifesto and to implement its policies.

FPTP typically prevents coalition governments, many of which only emerge long after the election, after extremely complex negotiations: Belgium still has no settled government following elections in 2006. In Germany, Chancellor Angela Merkel took over a month to create her coalition government involving all parties. In any case, coalition government gives large amounts of power to minority parties and means that the government has to compromise on the legislation it wishes to pass. Coalition governments are therefore inherently unstable. Italy has had 50 governments in 50 years, an average of a new government every 11 months. This has lead to chaos within their political system.

Although it can be argued that FPTP creates too strong a government, it is

VOTE OF CONFIDENCEIona Stevenson restates the case for first-past-the-post.

Iona StevensonMember of the Young Fabians

noticeable that even with landslide majorities no government in the UK has become dictatorial. The parties themselves often provide internal checks and balances which might not emerge if the party was in coalition or operating a minority administration.

FPTP is a free and fair way of carrying out elections. It relies on the principle of “one person, one vote” which seems to be fair. Under FPTP the winner is the candidate who is preferred by the plurality of voters. Constituencies are based on population size, which in theory means every MP has to campaign for the votes of the same number of people – no individual votes count for ‘more’ in any constituency. In the UK the Electoral Commission monitors the population boundaries, changing them when there is a population change, meaning that no MP represents more/less people than any other.

The FPTP system allows each constituency to vote a single MP into Parliament to represent them on all the issues that affect them. Their MP is a ‘link’ between the people and the administration. Constituents can expect their MPs to fight on issues that affect them and can ask them to justify their actions in Parliament. In effect, the MP is a figurehead for that constituency, and many MPs regularly meet their constituents in Parliament. Most live in their constituencies and become involved in local life there.

This intimate and representative democracy would be impossible in the more pure proportional representation voting systems, where those elected to Parliament come from a list, and the number is determined on the percentage of votes for their party over the whole country. This would mean that constituencies would have no figurehead, lessening community spirit and would weaken constituency links with Parliament.

Our electoral system is simple, easy and effective. When voting, one merely has to vote for the party, and the MP is the one with the most votes. Voting is quick is much less complex than a Single Transferable Vote system, such as operates in Ireland, where voters chose a first, second and third preference.

Systems such as Single Transferable Vote also take longer to count – up to three days in Ireland - and risk mistakes being made in vote counting and to many recounts. It can mean that the least bad candidate wins, rather than the best, or most popular. The introduction of the Additional Member System along with first-past-the-post in Scotland has led to accusations of electoral fraud. After the 2007 elections, there was outrage after seven counts were suspended and 100,000 ballot papers were disqualified.

First-past-the-post prevents minority, often extremist parties gaining seats in parliament and so being able to publicise their views and influence government policy. In Austria, a far right party has been able to gain power because of the Proportional Representation system there: the ‘Freedom Party’ recently gained 18% of the vote – and with 35 seats could potentially be part of the ruling coalition.

Although first-past-the-post has come under criticism for being undemocratic, it has several positive aspects which have lead to political stability in Britain even during times of turmoil.

The advantages FPTP bring include: strong government, free and fair elections, a ‘link’ between the people and government, a simple fair voting method and a bulwark against extremist parties gaining power.

As they say: keep it simple, and if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

YOUNG FABIAN UPDATES

25

Over a year in the planning, in late October 2008 80 members of

the Young Fabians and the Labour Staff Network ventured over the Atlantic to take part in the final days of one of the most exciting political campaigns in recent history.

The delegation to Barack Obama’s campaign in the swing state of Ohio included experienced Labour volunteers, political professionals, and some campaigning for the first time. Each brought a different perspective to the unique opportunity they had. Central to the group’s positivity towards the campaign was the focus placed on volunteers – recruiting, retaining, training and developing them, so that individual talents were recognised and everyone could make an important contribution.

We present three papers which chronicle the experience of Young Fabian members and others who took part in Obama’s campaign and offer ideas for Labour and union campaigns in the UK.

From Ohio to Oxford East presents the collective thoughts of the delegation and subsequent workshops and roundtables to offer practical suggestions for your campaigns.

Part Two: The Essay Collection is an anthology of individual articles written by grassroots participants from the UK.

Lessons from the US union campaign for Obama brings together the methods of union campaigning in the US and presents a case for the Labour Party and trade unions to reassess the ways they work together in UK elections.

The publications can be downloaded

f r o m b i t . l y /yfamerica.

For more information about any of these publications, please email Adrian Prandle, International Officer on the Young Fabian Executive

Committee:[email protected].

LESSONS FROM AMERICAAdrian Prandle on a series of documents published by the Young Fabians

following the successful Obama campaigning trip last autumn.

Adrian PrandleInternational Officer, Young Fabian Executive

[email protected]

26


LESSONS FROM THE UNIONS

Unions can win the next election for Labour – but are both parties willing to make the necessary

changes?60% of union members in America

said they voted for Obama when polled in 2008. In the last general election in the UK, only 46% said they voted Labour. Union density in the US is only around 12%, whereas in the UK it is more than double that, around 28%.

With a year to go before Gordon Brown must call a general election, these figures alone make a very strong case that of all the lessons the Obama campaign can teach the Labour Party, the most important might be to strengthen their work with the unions.

And it’s clearly not just the personal effect of Barrack Obama. The Democrats are consistently receiving 15% more support from unions in general elections than the Labour Party. In 2004 61% voted for Kerry. In 2001 Labour won only approximately 2% more of the union vote than they did in 2005.

In the UK, where 28% of the working population are union members, that extra 15% , could easily make the difference at a general election – it equates to between half a million and a million votes. There is no doubt lessons can be learnt in the UK, but they cannot be seamlessly replicated in a different political, legal and technological environment and one in which there is less money to spend. Some will work better, others won’t work at all.

Unions in the US can mobilise the vote. 10 million doors knocked, 27 million worksite leaflets distributed, 70 million phone calls and 57 million union direct mail letters. Union members contacted other members in an independent campaign about issues, that was built on years of political education.

In the US, unions realised long ago

HERE STARTETH THE FIRST LESSONBelow we reproduce excerpts from the Lessons from America suite of publications

Dan Whittle, Nirmalee Wanduragala, Shruti Dudhia

that donations to political parties did not deliver the influence they needed, because business could outspend them. The currency common to American and UK unions, and one that all political parties understand is that of an activist base. Membership of all political parties in the UK is less than one quarter of what it was in 1964[2]. With UK unions being the biggest voluntary organisations in the country and UK political parties shedding members, the organisational contribution unions can make becomes more significant.

UK unions which are not affiliated to the Labour Party have tended to leave campaigning at election time to the Labour affiliates. One of the reasons for this is that many members are uncomfortable with dues being spent on Party politics. However, union members do expect their union to campaign and deliver on workplace issues. It is on this basis that non-affiliated unions can justify campaigning on the issues at an election time, when they are most likely to affect the agenda of the next government.

Delivering a pro-union government is just the first step in the process though. Election day was “just the beginning”. The AFL-CIO now have a much increased activist base who are lobbying senators of both parties to pass pro-worker legislation.

In terms of growth overall, union membership grew from 12.1% to 12.4% in 2008 according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

So what do unions, and the Labour Party in the UK have to learn from the Democrats and US unions?

Firstly, every union needs to get involved in the campaign on issues. For Australia 2007 it was to chuck out WorkChoices, for the AFL/CIO and Obama, it was the Employee Free Choice Act and the bail out. Trade unions in the UK have to find their core

issue(s) and work together to make them THE issues.

Over here we need to have a version of the ‘Working America’ website, which recruited hundreds of thousands of non-unionised workers to join the union political campaign.

Labour affiliated unions need to facilitate member to member contact using simple messages, phone banks, door to door canvassing and workplace communication. Union members trust each other’s advice – not advice from a Labour Party leaflet.

The unions need to run an independent campaign concentrating on the local candidate’s pro-worker credentials. We saw this work in the Ken Livingstone campaign where some union members were campaigning for HIM, rather than Labour. The branding of their campaign was different to the Labour Party (purple!), and Ken’s record on union issues was accessible.

It might be an advantage for a campaign to look outwardly young, but unions need to activate their retired membership to run the programmes, like US teaching unions did for Obama. Retired members have the time and experience to get things done.

The Labour Party can help all of this, and coordinate the efforts on the ground, by improving the status and training of the trade union liaison officers of local Constituency Labour Parties.

On technology, phone banks need to use the ‘Predictive Dialler’ software that weeds out answerphones and lines that won’t accept incoming calls.

The argument from unions might be that the recession means their resources are needed elsewhere.

But in the 1930s the world faced the Great Depression which in the US brought the labour movement, the Democratic majority in Congress and the President into a tight alliance. The CIO leader John L. Lewis campaigned


27

hard for Roosevelt’s re-election in 1936, following his injection of public funds into the economy.

As in 1936, there is an important opportunity for unions to help their members through influencing the issues in the next election, and its result.

Dan WhittleTrade Union Officer,

Young Fabian Executive

PRACTICAL LESSONS

The US presidential election 2008 was always set to be an important and interesting event for those

of us interested in progressive politics in the UK – and indeed across the world. With the prospect of not only a Democrat in the White House but a new, vibrant, and progressive leader in the making with a fresh approach to campaigning, many Labour party members and trade unionists took time out to volunteer on the campaign either as one of the 80 who went out as part of the Labour Staff Network and Young Fabians visit to Ohio, with the trade unions or independently.

For many of us this was not just about being part of a historic campaign, but also about learning from our Democratic colleagues. While there were many parts of the Obama campaign which are specific to the time, the place and the candidate, there were clearly things we could bring back to our campaigning in the UK for the Labour party.

Following our return from the US we got together to discuss our various experiences and to put together this document which we hope will provide food for thought and also an interesting insight into the Obama campaign.

We have deliberately avoided academic analysis of the campaign,instead focussing practical information for all members of the

Labour party based on firsthand experience. We came up with the key areas which we felt were interesting and useful.

Our recommendations include• better utlisation of exsiting resources

and people• a more structured campaign and

campaign volunteer programme• greater sharing of information with

volunteersThese are the collective thoughts of

over 100 members of the Labour party, we hope you find it interesting and inspiring.

Nirmalee WanduragalaLSN- YF Ohio ‘08 Organiser

THE RISE OF WEB 2.0 CAMPAIGN

Today the internet is fast catching up with more traditional forms on media as the most desirable and

trusted place to find news. In the US, a recent poll carried out

in the aftermath of the presidential elections found that the majority of Americans considered the internet their most reliable news source. Online communities and message boards allow you to spread your message via a community of like minded individuals without the bias conventional media sometimes holds.

The success of news websites such as The Huffington Post in the run up to the election in the US was a clear indication that people didn’t just want to rely on age-old television and print media to tell them what was going on; they wanted the news as it happened and they want to be part of the conversation.

The UK political blogosphere pales in comparison to its American counterpart and whilst that is to be expected, what is troubling is the lack of high profile centre left bloggers that can compete with the Iain Dales and Guido Fawkes

of this world. There’s not just a need to balance the debate on the web but for a rebuttal strategy to be in pace to counter those blogging against progressive ideas. Very early on the Obama team found that they needed to avoid becoming a victim of their own success on the web and by June had launched an internet ‘war room’. This was a rapid response unit set up so the campaign could respond immediately to untruths as they appeared.

Growing and nurturing a network of advocates is important for any campaign but using online tools allows you empower those volunteer and activists to go that extra mile. In Ohio, we saw volunteers being able to download all the essential tools they needed to allow them to ring Democrats and

Independents in their local area from home, helping to register new supporters and organise activities in their local area. As well providing the mybarackobama.com site for volunteers to gather these tools, the campaign also encouraged many independent forums and blogs to support the work of the campaign.

This organic growth of social and viral media was witnessed everywhere from Facebook to individual web blogs giving the campaign the technological edge it needed to win. Obama’s message of hope and change was a simple one and the internet allowed him to speak to an electorate that otherwise would have felt they were just spectators in this election.

The right message can go ten times further when coupled with the right methods of communication.

Proving any of this wasn’t just a campaign gimmick, one of Obama’s first acts as President-elect was to record his first weekly Democratic address online; and as if you would have expected anything less.

Shruti Dudhia

28


HI,

I’m Susan and I’m the new Regions and Universities officer.

Having studied at Leeds University I know that being a Young Fabian outside of London you can sometimes feel isolated from other Young Fabians.

This year as the newly co-opted Regions and Universities officer I am really keen to link up young members, living in your region, or studying at your nearby College or University.

Over the coming months I will

REGIONAL AND UNI GROUPS IN FOCUSAn update from Susan Nash

Susan NashRegions and Universities [email protected]

be undertaking work to improve our links, and connections and helping organise events in the regions.

If you are a young member living outside of London, or if you are studying at a College or University and would be interested in getting in touch with other young members in your area, please get in touch by emailing your details to [email protected].

The Young Fabians Executive support members in the regions and Universities by offering advice on starting and running groups and events, to organising Young Fabian regional and national events which aim to

help members link up with other members in their region.

We already have some very successful groups operating in the regions and on campuses up and down the country.

In this issue of Anticipations we are showcasing the work of the LSE Young Fabian group.

If you run a group why not get in touch so we can publicise your events and activities in future issues of Anticipations.

Susan NashRegions and Universities

Officer


29

Name:

Joe Coney

Group:

LSE Students Union Young Fabian Society.

Members:

Approx 125.

We have benefitted from sharing event advertisements with many other societies including LSE Labour Society.

Why did you decide to set up a Young Fabian group?

I set the society up this year because I felt that the centre left was grossly under represented on campus.

Furthermore LSE has a long historical link to the Fabians and it seemed odd that there was no Fabian Society.

What activities have you run this year?

As this was our first year a lot of time was spent negotiating the schools societies system and setting up links with similar societies on and off campus.

However we did manage to have talks from Polly Toynbee (on her book Unjust Rewards: Exposing Greed and Inequality in Britain Today), Alan Milburn MP (on “Where next for New Labour?”), and your very own Sunder Katwala (on the future of the Labour Party).

What projects has your group got in the pipeline?

We have acquired funding from the LSE Alumni Fund to set up a policy publication with contributions from students, academics and politicians. If you would like to contribute you can email [email protected].

Any more info:

If you want to get in touch with LSE Young Fabian Society you can email Joe at [email protected].

YOUNG FABIAN GROUP IN FOCUS

30


DIARYCalendar of Young Fabian Events

OTHER ISSUES

31

If you would like to contribute to the next edition, email your idea/article to [email protected] no later than Friday 8 August 2009

YOUNG PEOPLE AND THE RECESSION

IN THE NEXT ANTICIPATIONS:

Anticipations - Summer 2009

Documents

Transcript of Anticipations - Summer 2009