Benedict Rogers: Vote Blue, Go Green

To be ConservativeHome’s Environment Correspondent at this conference is a bit like being John Simpson or Kate Adie at the BBC – one needs to run from one event to another with no time in between. Indeed, the whole conference feels like an environmental event – from the new logo to the main backdrop to the fringe calendar.

The session on the environment in the main hall today began with a “Hot Topic” session – a debate between style guru Stephen Hadley and the Independent’s Travel Editor Simon Calder on the motion “Cheap flights are a false economy”. In a lively exchange, Hadley argued that travellers within Britain and to destinations in Europe should take the train instead. “We are at a point of change … Selfishness can no longer have primacy … there are costs to be paid,” he argued. There is “absolutely no evidence”, he added, that air travel is a vital part of the economy.

Low-cost flying improves lives and creates jobs and wealth, said Calder. He disputed the idea that carbon emissions from flights made a significant contribution to global warming – they amount, he said, to 2% of the world’s carbon emissions, the same proportion that comes from the world’s cow population.

Contributions from the floor were thoughtful. Nicola Bates from Hornsey and Wood Green said that money raised from carbon tax on flights should be invested in the railways. Another delegate argued that it was not about flying or not flying – but about the type of fuel we use.

Some of the texts and emails that flashed across the screen were less serious. “Increase car tax on Jaguar cars”, said one, apparently from a “Pauline Prescott in Hull”. Another rather banally wrote: “Green issues are great” and then there was “More wind power please”. One flashed across: “Has anyone thought we should join with the Greens in the European Parliament?”

The motion was soundly defeated – 57% voted against it, 43% for.

The guest speakers were stirring. Jeannette Wilks, a green activist and not a Tory, bounced onto the stage and, Cameron-style, spoke without notes. She called on the party to become, once again, “the party of the land”. She emphasised the dominant theme – that “our planet is more important than anybody’s politics”. Zac Goldsmith said that pressure for action on climate change was coming from all quarters – big business, political parties and even evangelicals in the US who are now asking: “What car would Jesus drive?” Action for the environment, he argued, was not at odds with economic growth – we need to be “pricing the environment back into the market.”

Then came the frontbenchers. Shadow Transport Secretary Chris Grayling, with www.qualityoflifechallenge.com on the screen behind him, announced the launch today of a new website – How green is your car – providing environmental information about every car available in the UK. He called for less Government interference in the railways – “it’s time for Whitehall to stop playing the fat controller.”

Shadow Environment Secretary Peter Ainsworth reminded us of the Cold War, when a whole generation faced the threat of nuclear war. Now, he warned, we are in a “Hot War” against global warming. “Our fragile earth is warming at an alarming rate.”

The most striking message Ainsworth struck was that climate change is above party politics. While Labour and the Liberal Democrats had attacked Cameron on the environment, Ainsworth has “no time at all for silly party political games”.

He proposed the following:

• A Climate Change Bill which will cut carbon emissions
• An independent body to monitor climate change and recommend solutions
• A successor to Kyoto that will promote green growth
• Replace Labour’s tax on industrial emissions with a carbon levy

But, all speakers added, it is not just about what Government can do. It is about the choices we all make – about travel, food and recycling.

The local election campaign slogan “Vote Blue, Go Green” is clearly here to stay.

Comments

[Michael McGowan]

So my MP has suggested a Climate Change Bill which will cut carbon emissions.... As Tim Hames put it in today's Times, this is potentially the most statist solution proposed by a political party since Michael Foot's manifesto of 1983. Come back Worzel Gummidge and Anthony Wedgwood Benn, all is forgiven.

[renny]

If we are going to have a State it seems sensible to have it work to protect its citizens. Cutting carbon emmissions is a start to securing the future of our species on this planet - so hats off to your MP.

As he said its “no time at all for silly party political games” or indeed idealogical ones.

[Josh]

When you say defeated, I take it you mean the idea that low cost flights are the devil was rejected. Good!

In general, aviation does represent 2% of worldwide emissions. Picking on it is disproportionate. The argument that we should take the train instead is also bogus. It would take six hours to travel from Aberdeen to London by train, but only one hour by plane. The economic effects of time saved cannot be discounted.

And the notion that the economy does not depend on aviation is so laughably ridiculous that I'm surprised the guy had the gall to say it. What globally warming planet is he living on? Mars?

What about all the jobs it supports directly or indirectly? What about the economic edge it gives us having a capable network of national and internaional transport? As I said before, do you think the economy would be unaffected if journey time between the North and the South quadrupled? The time spent travelling is time not spent doing their job. In today's global economy, the ability to move quickly is vital.

Think about it, Conservatives. This party is supposed to respect the principles of Friedman. If train travel was that much better, it would be more affordable (and yes domestic flights pay fuel duty. The exemption from duty under the Chicago Convention applies only to international flights) and people would be using it more. Certainly over distances greater than London-Manchester, air travel dominates. If this were a left wing party, you would retreat with random conspiracy theories about evil corporations. But you know the market should be heeded and the market has spoken. That should tell us something about both the costs of flying compared to the costs of using the train and about what people prefer (particularly time wise. Did I mention the journey time aspect?).

But now there is a more sinister element to this. The debate wasn't just about aviation, it was about low cost flights. David Davis said the Conservatives need to become the party of all the people. The first step to doing that is NOT to attack the transportation options of the poorest people.

The attack on low cost flights wreaks of snobbery and elitism. It is saying that the poor shouldn't be allowed the freedom of air travel. I find it particularly repugnant that Zac Goldsmith, the richest of the rich, should be lecturing us on how evil LCCs are when he's probably never seen an EasyJet aircraft. Drive EasyJet and Ryanair and the others into the ground if you want to. He won't have to worry. He can afford to fly the legacy carriers. It's the less well off people who will suffer, denied the freedom of travel the aviation industry has worked so hard to provide.

And another thing: LCCs use the most modern fuel efficient aircraft. They pack their aircraft full of passengers. They don't add weight with frivolities like inflight entertainment and food service is minimal. You will find that LCCs deliver their passengers to their destination having emitted far less carbon dioxide per head than the legacy carriers.

Attacking low cost carriers is not environmentalism. It is snobbery. The country needs the party of all the people that David Davis says the Conservatives should be. Don't be the party of the affluent, chattering classes.

[Michael McGowan]

So let's get this right: my MP is proposing massive state intervention in the economy to reduce carbon emissions by such a tiny percentage of the global total that it will have no real impact at all, other than to generate lots of costs and an added regularity burden. At least King Canute knew his limitations.

[Simon Chapman]

Ben,

It wasn't a Jeanette Wilks who spoke, it was writer and organic food shop owner Jeanette Winterson - she was magnificently articulate. It was interesting to see that she had clearly despaired of the current government on this issue, but was prepared to look at the Conservatives and be persuaded. She still needs to be convinced, but the door is open.