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.
No comments:
Post a Comment