Boris Johnson suspends green measures to protect small businesses

Ruth Lea was in fighting form on CentreRight yesterday evening:

"As the economy staggers through its worst downturn for nearly 30 years, much will be made of how the development of “green-collar jobs” will renew our manufacturing base and lead the economy to new fields of prosperity. This is, sadly, all too likely to be wishful thinking as we generally do not have the technology or the manufacturing capacity required for such a “green revolution”. Nuclear technology (which in the green lexicon does not even count as “green”) is dominated by the French; wind technology, biomass, solar technology is dominated by the Germans and Carbon Capture and Storage (probably 10-15 years away commercially) is also dominated by the Germans. Electric vehicle and hydrogen fuel cell technologies are dominated by the US, Germany and Japan - and are in any case estimated to be around 20-30 years away commercially. We really must not fantasise. And in the meantime the increasing burdens of “green” electricity costs will drive our energy intensive industries, including steel and chemicals, offshore."

It's a vital question because whenever voters have been asked to pay for environmental protection in recent times they have answered 'no thank you' - from Canada to California to Manchester.  Irwin Stelzer notes green campaigners' fury at the inclusion of more coal-fired power plants in Barack 'great green hope' Obama's controversial stimulus package.

Yesterday we saw the biggest sign yet that UK Conservatives were seeing the conflict between green measures and growth.  Boris Johnson suspended the third stage of London's low emissions zone in order, he said, to protect small businesses:

"It is not the right time to press ahead with extending it to include smaller vehicles like vans and minibuses. Many of these will be owned by small businesses, charities, and self-employed Londoners already hard hit by the recession. Simply put, the cost of fitting pollution equipment or getting a new vehicle would have come as punch in the ribs to those who need our help at this time, would have destroyed profit margins, and endangered our businesses."

London's Green Party called the decision "an absolute disaster for London's environment".

Shadow Climate Secretary Greg Clark MP gave ConservativeHome this quote:

"It's easy to cut emissions by destroying jobs.  The real challenge is to get less pollution and more jobs.  Local initiatives are - properly - a matter for local, not central, government.  In this case the Mayor of London proposes to continue his current low emissions scheme, but, rather than widen it to penalise smaller vehicles belonging to small businesses, instead to boost the market for innovative alternatives such as electric vehicles, low-emissions taxis and hybrid buses.  That way, he can help create jobs and cut emissions."

We need a serious and big picture statement  from Greg Clark or even David Cameron himself on how they plan to reconcile their extraordinarily ambitious targets to cut the UK's carbon emissions with the number one priority of the British voter; a return to job-creating, income-enhancing economic growth.

Tim Montgomerie

8.30pm Matt Sinclair on CentreRight calls on the Conservatives to abandon "the more ineffective and economically destructive of Labour's environmental policies".

Comments

[Edward Huxley]

At last a glimmmer of commonsense from a Conservative politician. Well said Boris.
This is going to produce a furious response from the global warming fanatics: see Cente Right today on this, which Ruth Lea started. Keep up the good work Ruth.

These green do gooders are at last being rumbled and global warming is no longer a vote winner. On the contrary, people now know that if we don`t act soon with some coal and nuclear plants we will end up literally in the dark.

Can we please have a response from Conservative HQ, preferably from the leader? And what about PPC Goldsmith who supported the people who carried out criminal damage to the coal fired plant in Kent - is he going to stay or join the LibDems?

[The Bishop Swine]

I agree with you Tim, we really do need to set out how we can achieve the massive reductions in Carbon emissions that Labour has committed us to. The difficulty will be doing this against a background of unemployment, and economic distress. I believe we will have to build a number of new nuclear reactors to provide the power for both homes and business, that is essential to our economic well being. The important thing is to reduce Carbon, not to raise tax's, despite what Labour may believe.
If the truth is that we will fail to achieve the targets,then we should say so, and define targets that we will reach. trading in Carbon emissions, could become the world’s leading derivatives product, but is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. I distrust the notion of buying carbon allowances from developing nations, but it may be essential if we continue to have such ambitious targets.

[Nicholas J. Rogers]

Bravo Boris!!

[Neo Sehe]

COMMENT OVERWRITTEN.

[Sarf Lunnon]

Tim - even you are falling into the trap. As Ruth Lea in effect pointed out, buying an electric vehicle, low emission taxi or hybrid bus does not create a single job in UK. All their power plants are foreign, so you are creating jobs for foreigners, and adversely affecting our balance of payments. There is not a single British company that could design and build any of this kit (which incidentally is the reality behind the fuss in the energy industry).

[The Bishop Swine]

"There is not a single British company that could design and build any of this kit (which incidentally is the reality behind the fuss in the energy industry)."

This is the result of very bad policy decisions that can be reversed over time. Just as Labour sold our Nuclear arms plants to Americans. Should there be a line drawn even in the free market?

[Edward Huxley]

To The Bishop Swine. I`ve said this before, governments cannot commit their sucessors, so the present government cannot commit a future Tory government to carbon emissions, or anything else. Seems not many people know that.

[A Candid Mover]

Que? Whatever.

Meanwhile, back with backing Boris. Way to go BoJo but don't let those Spetnaz Kamikaze Lizard people get you.

[A Candid Mover]

Posted by: Neo Sehe | February 03, 2009 at 12:13

Was what one was questioning.

[Elaina Brier]

Utterly Bonkers.

So we are now going to destroy our planet!

Whats the point presewrving jobs without a functional planet?

As for Ruth Lea, well unbelievable!

So she has finally realised that the destruction of British Manufacturing during the Thatcher years has handed production capacity to the Germans and French, leaving us with a naff service sector which is now imploding around us!

Why oh why did Ruth Lea support moneterism.

This article Tim is simply hilarious!

You could not make it up!

[david1]

Will Zac Goldsmith be making a statement of support?

[The Bishop Swine]

"To The Bishop Swine. I`ve said this before, governments cannot commit their sucessors, so the present government cannot commit a future Tory government to carbon emissions, or anything else. Seems not many people know that."

If its in the form of legislation then of course we are committed to the law, and have to repeal it. If we are going to break with international agreements we should have the guts to say so.

[The Bad Plus]

More evidence of Tory spin about how they say they're green, and yet they're evidently not.

Great news for small businesses? The EU has slapped a massive fine on the UK for failing to address consistenly poor air quality. Not only will we all have to contribute to paying those fines through taxation, we will all have to pay for treating the illnesses that poor air quality contribute to - that's not really a saving to small businesses at all it it, Tory idiots?

[pp]

The UK couldn't destroy the planet even if it wanted to. More significantly, the UK can't save the planet either...

Boris is wrong in one respect - he started by saying that because of the recession "It is not the right time" - in fact it is never the right time to lumber businesses with additional costs for no return.

How much 'credit' do we get for having shut down all our coal mines? and subsequently paying generations in former mining communities to live at public expense?

As a nation we can't afford to 'send messages' to the world - acting big at great espense is a rich nations game.

[Jack Stone]

The idiot Boris just makes it look like the Conservative Party is still all about money.
If his view is shared by the leadership and the party at wide it shows that Cameroon`s green agenda is just a sham and is only there to turn green votes blue.

[John Moss]

Yesterday, the BBC reported a suggestion that gases created from waste be added directly to the gas supply. Roger Harrabin presented this as a "green" initiative, which it is to the extent that it is better to burn methane than allow it to escape into the atmosphere.

This sort of "biomass" engineering is relatively simple and several small plants are operating already, feeding CHP boilers generating power and small amounts of heat.

"Manufacture" mainly involves the assembly of a kit of parts, most of which could easily be made in the UK. But it also needs a commitment from Councils to use their waste in this way - as it reduces the need to recycle and reduces land-fill - both operations which cost money, I cannot see why this sort of programme cannot be rolled out quickly.

Before you ask, the inert waste which results can be dumped at sea with no polution risk or, when the construction industry comes back to life, used as fill and possible even aggregate.

This sort of small, local plant provides an example of "diversified" energy, which I believe Alan Duncan(?) spoke about when he had this brief.

It does not need 20-30 years to make this work. It can be done now and the beauty of this approach is that it doesn't require us to stop burning gas for heating and cooking, it just reduces the environmental impact of doing so, elsewhere in he "supply chain".

[Edward Huxley]

The Bishop Swine. Difficult for the Tories of course, because they supported the Climate Change bill almost unanimously. Of course they could always say they made a mistake; can you see that happening? Politicians never, ever, make a mistake.

[The Bishop Swine]

Thanks Edward you see "our" problem. However its also true that we did not foresee this downturn being so severe. I suppose that with high unemployment there is also a reduction in carbon emissions. Let's hope it doesn't become the new price worth paying. I am personally in favour of reducing carbon emissions as quickly as is practicle. There are still a number of people who don't believe the science is sound, and who will point to this winter as evidence of exaggeration.

[Sarf Lunnon]

"There is not a single British company that could design and build any of this kit (which incidentally is the reality behind the fuss in the energy industry)."

"This is the result of very bad policy decisions that can be reversed over time. Just as Labour sold our Nuclear arms plants to Americans. Should there be a line drawn even in the free market?"

The Bishop Swine sadly doesn't know British industry. 'Policy' won't ever develop a British company that can design and build CHP plants, oil/gas process plants, nuclear power stations, or dishwashers. We lost what skills we ever had (and they weren't that good) 40 years ago. The only world class major engineering company we have left is Rolls Royce (aero).
As for the demise of manfacturing under Thatcher? What a joke. It had demised long before. Not one of those companies deserved bed space, especially British Leyland. Yes, there are a few tiny British engineering companies that are internationally competitive (I was NED of one for 20 years) but they are as rare as hen's teeth.

[Edward Huxley]

To TBS I do agree that it is sensible to make good use of our resources and not waste them. Just common sense. We cannot possibly do all this carbon footprint stuff however.

[Alan S]

Well done Boris. Your sofa time with Jeremy Clarkson obviously had some good effect :)

[Andrew Lilico]

It was always bound to be the case that macro-level green policies (e.g. CO2 control), insofar as they are costly (which they usually are, contrary to billing), would become markedly less popular in a recession. But as unemployment rises there may be greater tendency towards graffiti, rubbish in the streets, etc. and the case for micro-environmentalism at the local level will become stronger.

[Timothy Farr]

There are many of us who always suspected that the Conservative support for the environment was more mouth than trousers. It is useful to have this clarified so soon before an election.

[Malcolm Dunn]

It is probably necessary but in my opinion quite sad. I never understand those otherwise intelligent Conservatives who seem to glory in being as unenviromentally conscious as possible.
Still things can't be all bad if a complete half wit like Jack Stone objects then it's probably a good idea!

[MartinW]

Of course, everyone should support 'green' policies whose aims are to conserve limited resources, to reduce our dependency on unreliable regimes, and find alternative energies, such as solar (I do not include windmills!). However, 'carbon footprint' policies are an entirely different matter. It seems to me that the notion that man-made CO2 has a significant effect on climate change is being disproven with more certainty, as day by day more hard scientific evidence is showing that this hypothesis is a delusion. One hopes that the present economic downturn will induce DC and the shadow cabinet to rethink the Party's 'green' policies on 'carbon'. It was be good if the Shadow Minister could attend the Climate Change Conference on 8-10 March 2009 in New York.

[SW]

This probably is necessary in the short term, where prioritising is required due to the financial state of local and national budgets across the country, but shouldn't be used as an excuse to rubbish long-term climate objectives. Too many people - and quite a few in our party - selfishly ignore the damage being done to the environment and seem only too content to destroy it if it means a few extra pounds being generated. We Conservatives should perhaps understand better than most the importance of bequeathing the planet in as optimum a state as we can to future generations.

[T. England]

I have to wonder who these go green merchants think they are talking AT!
After all, I’m a fair person who doesn’t want to pollute Mother Nature’s planet, I won’t to live in a clean smog free environment, I don’t want to see the planet flood by natural causes or other, it’s just the way these go green types carry on, it’s like only they know best & shout you down if you dare question them, um! Who does that remind me of?!

I do however wonder what people like me have to do to please these go green “types”?
How about, because so many of the products we use are from over seas & from countries that are far from being green, we do our bit & stop buying products from any country not exactly as green as us?
Surely that will help!

What about if we stop doing this carbon trading with countries that also would pollute if we wasn’t! We just let them pollute as & when they have the need to, hopefully by the time they do need to pollute they will have brilliant green options & so would never have polluted anyway near what we do anyhow, would that help?

What about what the greens say is a big cause of our global warming!
We are constantly told we humans are the problem, shouldn’t we be restricting the amount of babies born & therefore not increasing the world’s footprint any further than need be? Sounds like a good logic to me!

How far do the greens really won’t to go?
How much do they think we in the west can afford to pay for their dream like green utopia?
I find the green merchants such hypocrites anyhow!
They tell us, because they can, not to pollute, but developing countries that they can’t, of course they don’t, why do I get the feeling they are taking their frustration out on us instead & making us over compensate?

Why don’t the greens just go to some far off country & make sure from the start of that country becoming industrialised they dictate how things are done :o)
Exactly!!

Until I see exactly how this going green issue is going to be paid for & see fairness for all, not, it’s fair for THEM to pollute because it’s their turn, then I will defend my right to exist on a planet that maybe changing for the better or worse & do what humans do best, adapt!

I thank you ;o)

[Steve Foley]

Boris has just gone up greatly in my opinion. A wise move in these times!

If the Green Tories don't like this they have a ready made party to go to. I'm sure Dr Lucas would welcome them with open arms especially Zac Goldsmith and his £ millions.

[Malcolm Dunn]

Martin W,'it seems to me that man made CO2 having a significant effect is being disproven with more certainty...'.Really? I'd be grateful if you could give me your sources for that assertion.

[John Coles]

Boris for leader - the Conservatives would romp home!

[Norm Brainer]

London's Green Party called the decision "an absolute disaster for London's environment".

We're all going to die in a haze of smog because some small vans can come into london without being extorted more?

I think some of these greenies should have a mental health check or at least realise that logic isn't their strongpoint... and I mean that in the nicest possible way.

[James Cleverly]

I will put my cards on the table; I have pushed the Mayor for this change for some time.

The Green Party are making a lot of noise about the LEZ which was a poorly thought out initiative that was Livingstone brought in to buy off the Green's support for his budget.

London Councils estimate that the whole LEZ would only reduce particulate emissions by 0.3%. The LEZ is already partially implemented for larger, more polluting vehicles, so this change is about a 0.1% reduction in London's particulate emissions.

As Greg says "It's easy to cut emissions by destroying jobs”. We, as a party, need to balance longer-term environmental issues and the immediate need to keep the economy going.

Far from ignoring the London's environment, Boris is introducing 56 hybrid buses to the London fleet by the end of this month; with another 300 joining the fleet by March 2011. He is also funding a £1m trial of low carbon technology in London's taxi fleet and introducing schemes to encourage motorists to leave their cars at home and use more sustainable methods of transport, like bikes.

We can't jump every time a green sounding policy gets put in front of us or be led by the nose by the Greens like Livingstone was. Yes there are big environmental issues that need to be addressed and this might sound like an important initiative. It isn't.

[Simon Denis]

Clearly this recession is beating some sense into the public and the Tory party at the same time. With luck it will result in a sound, right wing government. Can we not extend the principle of business before greenery to every decision? Whatever the Luddite fanatics may say - or rather, shout - it is not even clear that the globe is getting warmer. It is equally far from obvious that mankind has contributed to the process. Finally, even if these dubious propositions are granted, it is unlikely that any measures we take now will have any effect at all. What we can do is to adapt to new conditions as they arise. Besides, there is loss and gain. We might lose the Seychelles but the Sahara will, by the same token, become a wheatbowl or a rainforest. Such joys are for the future in any case. For now we just have to emerge from recession - cutting tax, slashing government expenditure and maintaining the stability of the banks with hikes in the interest rate. Then the savers and pensioners can revive the economy by spending their interest income. Oh dear, I've forgotten about the greens. Most of us have, actually.

[The Bishop Swine]

"There are many of us who always suspected that the Conservative support for the environment was more mouth than trousers. It is useful to have this clarified so soon before an election."

Nonsense take a good look around our green and pleasant land. What proportion of our Framers are Conservatives almost all of them in England. We are a pragmatic party though. If we fail the people by not support industry we will very quickly find ourselves back in opposition with a fresh Labour party paying lip service only to Green issues. We will make progress on the environment but we will make faster progress with a stable and sound economy.

[Super Blue]

Well done, Boris, setting a great example for the Shadow Cabinet.

Malcolm,

Calling Stone a halfwit could be called an exaggeration :)

[Jack Stone]

Superbore. Its clear from the comments here that I am right. The party`s concern for environmental issues is all about votes nothing else.

[The Bishop Swine]

Jack your wrong. The vast majority of farmers and large land holders are Conservatives. Green issues are central to the way these people work. Just talk to any modern farmer and they will tell you about the progress that is being made on thousands of Farms to reverse the bad agricultural practices of post war Britain. labour on the other hand care nothing for the environment and are only paying lip service to the green debate. The Conservatives talking green is the equivalent of coals to Newcastle its part of the way we are.

[Super Blue]

Glad you are enjoying Global Warming, Stone, because the rest of us are freezing.

Seriously, the myth of global warming has seriously hampered Britain's economy and the World's.