When it comes to short-termism, most politicians could teach even the most shareholder value-focused CEO a thing or two. There are few better illustrations of this than the current furore in the U.K. over emissions targets and other “green” policies.
Resentment over proposals to outlaw petrol and diesel vehicles has been building for some time, but has seemingly been brought to a head by a by-election in the constituency in the London suburbs vacated by former prime minister Boris Johnson. On a day on which the Conservatives lost healthy majorities in two other by-elections, they — just — hung on to this one. Even though the area had returned Conservatives since the 1970s and had voted to leave the European Union in 2016, a media story has developed that this was a winnable seat that Labour had lost because of hostility to plans by the mayor, the former Labour MP Sadiq Khan, to extend restrictions on polluting vehicles to the outer London boroughs, including Uxbridge.
Members of the team around Labour’s leader, Sir Keir Starmer, wasted no time in blaming Khan for the “defeat” and, in their determination not to scare off voters, have since gone cold on all sorts of environmental policies, including softening the party’s stance on future North Sea oil drilling licences. The result is that both main political parties appear to be engaged in a race to see who can be less green than the other. Neither goes so far as to deny that climate change is a real threat that requires action. They just don’t want to be the ones taking the action.
It is easy to understand the problem. Voters are in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis and are therefore in no mood to accept higher bills, especially from the energy companies whose extreme price hikes in the past year or so have played a major part in driving up inflation. Meanwhile, the government, already reeling from the costs of the pandemic, is having to find the cash to fund public-sector pay rises following extensive strikes in the National Health Service and elsewhere. But this is not an excuse for inaction. Rather, it is a reason to think of more creative solutions. When did politics cease to be the “art of the possible?”
A good place to start might be to stop seeing the issue in absolute terms. We can all agree that the world needs to wean itself off fossil fuels. But it cannot be expected to do that in an instant without a catastrophic drop in living standards, especially in developing nations. Would it not be better to accept that — even within fossil fuels — some are worse than others and give people the chance to switch from one to another? For example, rather than saying — as some governments are — that oil-fired boilers must be outlawed and replaced by heat pumps or similarly very different and expensive technology, why not propose that householders shift to propane, or liquid petroleum gas, which is cleaner than traditional boiler fuels, can come in a renewable form and requires less adaptation? Similarly, “hybrid cars” might not be as good in terms of zero emissions as pure battery vehicles, but they are surely better than traditional “gas guzzlers”, especially those that run on diesel, and should be encouraged as an interim measure. And in the meantime, new technologies might come along that are even better than what is seen as the best solution now.
These are arguments made by Tucker Perkins, president and CEO of the Propane Education and Research Council, an industry-funded lobbying group that insists it is not anti-electrification but pro-decarbonization. In a recent interview, Perkins reiterated his often-repeated view that policymakers need to adopt a “wide path” towards dealing with climate change. It sees itself as being part of a solution that includes electricity, renewables such as solar and wind power, low-carbon technologies and, of course, propane, particularly in its renewable form.
We know from our experience of the Covid-19 pandemic that politicians can be uncomfortable with science, particularly when it is less than straightforward. In the U.K., many motorists are still suspicious of government policies in the area of climate change because they were encouraged by tax breaks to buy diesel cars because they gave out less CO2 than petrol vehicles, but were later found to emit other pollutants. Many manufacturers are now facing legal action over allegations that they misled drivers.
We also know that people are resistant to change. In London, there has been much criticism of the creation of “low-traffic neighbourhoods” and of the construction of cycle lanes. But experience in other countries, particularly in mainland Europe, shows that antipathy eventually gives way to acceptance and even enthusiasm. In other words, the public are just as short-term in their thinking as the politicians. As the economist Tim Harford writes in the latest issue of the FT Weekend Magazine, “It takes time to change our habits and time to see the benefits.” Moreover, Harford points out that the sort of changes imposed by traffic restrictions are often not fair to everyone. Young, fit people might embrace the idea of cycling to work, but pensioners with arthritic hips or plumbers with heavy tools might not see things the same way.
Which bring us back to Uxbridge and Mayor Khan’s Ultra Low Emission Zone. Surely, a combination of educating people in how improving the quality of air on the capital’s streets would benefit everybody, improvements to public transport in the areas on the fringe of London and a plan that made the introduction of the scheme more gradual with perhaps exemptions for those with particular needs would have reduced the opposition. It is all very well leaders having grand visions and wanting to create legacies. But small steps are generally more effective.
Read the full article here