The Green Deal: Does it go far enough?

The Green Deal is being attacked for a number of reasons - some with and some without substance - providing further demonstration of the Tories environmental agenda approach of 'if it's liable to tick of Paul Dacre, then best left well alone.' The most provocative part of the Green Deal is its insistence that households pay interest on government loans acquired to help make their home more environmentally efficient. The idea being that the money subsequently saved on fuel bills will be great enough offset the repayments from the loan. This is the so-called 'golden rule' and it is the key means of convincing consumers to invest in energy efficiency. Of course, savings depend greatly on the type of house, as well as the scale of work undertaken, the energy use of the property, the number of occupants and so forth. For this reason, it can be extremely difficult to know how great a particular household's savings or otherwise might be. The right wing press has jumped all over this uncertainty, adding false and distorted information to an already complicated picture, ostensibly on the basis of saving homeowners from stealth taxation.

This is a problem for anyone who wants to see the Green Deal succeed because a lot of people, particularly those whose priorities are economic before environmental, will not be swayed unless they are absolutely guaranteed to get a return. Preferably a sizable one because, let's face it, for many this will be perceived as a bit of a faff to sort out. What's more, private firms, no doubt concerned about the negative publicity stoked up by the Mail and Telegraph, are growing more reluctant to be associated with the legislation further limiting household options and dissuading them of the merits of the enterprise.

This is a pretty sad turn of events because, on paper at least, the Green Deal sounds like a very attractive proposition, and one that could claim to be genuinely cross-party in its approach. Conservatives could get on board because government involvement is kept to a minimum and it shouldn't cost the taxpayer substantially, Lib Dems could like it because it's the only decent thing they've managed to extract from the coalition to date, and Labour could support it because it backs up Miliband's recent attacks on unscrupulous energy providers.

The furore has, however, brought about what could be another defining moment for the coalition. If the bill is dropped, or watered down so much as to render it largely ineffective, the already strained relations between Conservatives and Lib Dems could be stretched further still. For all their lack of backbone, environmental issues have long been a core concern of many in the yellow corner and a Tory dismemberment may just push them closer to the edge. It could also be the moment that Cameron reveals his true colours on climate change, and we discover whether his fondness for Huskies extends to genuine action. Considering how vital energy efficiency is to any hope of reducing emissions to an acceptable level over the next 10 years or so, failure to back the Green Deal will strip him of any last pretence of environmental concern, particularly as he has demonstrated strong support for it in the past. This will mean him potentially going up against his chancellor, which could prove rather tasty.

Of course, know one can no for sure how the Green Deal will fare until it is launched, but it already appears that there is room for potential improvement. So how exactly does one go about making the Green Deal more attractive? Well, in this instance, I find myself in partial agreement with Guy Newey, a senior research fellow at Policy Exchange. As he rightly points out in Leo Hickman's blog, energy efficiency is one of the most cost-effective ways of reducing our CO2 emissions, and we certainly cannot afford to turn our back on energy efficiency as a concept. For this reason, he appears to suggest that extra sweeteners may be added to the deal over time to increase its appeal to households. Because of it's cost-effectiveness, there is ample economic and environmental evidence to suggest that further incentives could and perhaps should be forthcoming. Maybe the Green Deal simply doesn't go far enough?

I find this idea particularly appealing because it leaves the right wing press with little room for manoeuvre. Having based its arguments against the Green Deal on the potential, and often fictitious, costs to households, if that criticism is assuaged, then the Mail will be forced to give up its assault or change tack. The only conceivable option available will be to criticise the Deal on the basis that it is an antidote to a fictitious problem. It will have to deny the environmental good of energy efficiency. This argument, being much more limited and necessarily doomed to failure, will be far easier to ignore. Of course, one must never underestimate the press' capacity to distort, but I think people are far more likely to be concerned by a hit to their wallets than by the possibility of contributing towards minimising CO2 emissions, no matter where they stand on global warming as an issue.

As with any market, the Green Deal will produce winners and losers - those who make 'returns,' and those who don't. What I would add to Newey's point is that every effort must be made to ensure that those who are most vulnerable to future increases in the price of energy, receive greater assurances than those for whom fiscal security is less of an issue. Those that would truly benefit from lower energy bills must be made to feel that the investment will be worth it. I would also add, and here I fear I may stand in contrast to Policy Exchange, that any future sweeteners added to the Green Deal should not come at the expense of other projects, like renewable energy, which will also help to lower our GHG emissions. Indeed, what we must realise is that the less electricity we use overall, the more and more effective renewable electricity becomes. Once we don't use as much, we don't have to produce as much.

Climate Change: A Question of Expediency or Ideology?

Most scientists are of the opinion that climate change is a matter of empirical evidence, rather than belief. They essentially see themselves operating in a very different realm from politicians, and certainly from political theorists. Their role, as they see it, is to provide the evidence. The evidence then forms the backdrop from which policy may be pursued. In other words, the reality frames the action rather than the other way around.

Of course from the perspective of an empiricist this is perfectly correct, but problems arise when we take science out of the private realm of research and place it in a public context where it will be scrutinised by people with very different perspectives on the world, and very different views about the role of government. At this point, vested interests, cultural beliefs, and social attitudes seemingly become as important as an ability to grasp the science itself. In this situation, is it still expedient for proponents for action on climate change to continue to press their argument on the basis of evidence alone? David Corner, writing in the Guardian a few weeks ago, suggested that whilst it may not be the most logical way to tackle scepticism about climate change, we should nonetheless frame the debate in terms of "belief" rather than empiricism.

Corner presents his own evidence for this opinion by citing a number of studies, including his own, that reveal the existence of "biased assimilation" when it comes to questions of climate change. Simply put, one is more or less likely to attribute persuasiveness to evidence depending on your already pre-formed belief about climate change. If you do not believe in climate change initially, exposure to overwhelming evidence is unlikely to change your mind.

Because of this phenomenon, Corner suggests, we should not and cannot look to science to solve a problem that is in fact social in nature:

"It follows that the answer to overcoming climate change scepticism is to stop reiterating the science, and start engaging with what climate change scepticism is really about - competing visions of how people see the world, and what they want the future to look like."

The work of Corner and his colleagues does highlight some very important aspects of climate scepticism, and illustrates further the power that cultural attitudes hold over our interpretation of the world. However, I would challenge his conclusion that those who have acknowledged the existence of man-made climate change should re-frame the debate to accommodate those who remain unconvinced.

For a start, I do not believe it to be helpful or prudent to frame a question that is essentially one of expediency in terms of belief or non-belief. Drawing ideological dividing lines is a sure fire way to conflict, and united action is our best hope of successfully challenging the growing threat of environmental disaster.

In my opinion, it is far more productive to acknowledge that the severity of the threat faced implies that no ideology or political belief can benefit from inaction on climate change. A true Conservative must recognise that action will help to protect traditional institutions, rather than undermine them, and that wide-scale pollution is in fact a serious violation of property rights and something to be fought. A true Libertarian likewise must acknowledge that freedom and liberty are not best served by potentially impoverishing a good proportion of the world's population. Belief does not have to be undermined by climate science, it can be reinforced. The best way to challenge false belief is not by postulating in terms of rival beliefs, but by denying the viability of holding a belief when strong evidence suggests its contrary to be true.

The question remains, however, of how one goes about persuading people of the reality of global warming without recourse to empirical evidence which will not be of persuasive value. My answer is that climate change provides a perfect example of an instance in which ideology in general is shown to be obstructive. That is, when it exists without basis in actuality. Indeed, the existence of climate change forces us to re-examine some of our basic political presuppositions about the role of society, the shape of the economy, and the power of the state, but unless we do this with reference to the world as it exists around us then we will always be in conflict with reality.

We have been confronted with the stark realisation that our political principles are flawed, and many things often taken for eternal truths are in fact historical anomaly. Faith in an unencumbered free market, belief in a small state, acceptance of economic growth as an absolute good. All of these positions are expressions of political circumstance, not ultimate values, and they are expressions that must now be re-evaluated in the face of new developments. I would not frame a debate about expediency in terms of belief, because belief itself is a product of expediency.

That is a key lesson that we can draw from this scenario. Quite simply, it is neither desirable nor beneficial to attempt to seperate reason from faith (or vice versa).