Hit by my first e-mail blitz of the campaign today ... I just replied to a few hundred e-mails on the subject of climate change.
On the day that the Scottish Parliament debates the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill, I pointed out in my replies to the e-mail correspondents that it was of course Labour's 2009 UK Budget that introduced the world's first carbon budgets, setting a legally binding 34% reduction in emissions by 2020.
My own personal position is that environmental justice - paying attention to the winners and losers not just between developed and developing countries but also within Europe - needs to figure much more prominently in the climate change debate.
Eighteen months ago I was asked by The Fabian Review (http://www.fabians.org.uk/publications/fabian-review) to contribute an article to their series on "6 ways to change the world" after the US Presidential elections. In the winter 2007/2008 edition of the Review I published an article entitled "A green skills fund - the EU must solve the environmental redistribution challenge".
I am reproducing the article here as part of my response to the correspondence I received today on climate change. Let me know what you think.
"Almost four decades after the EU made its first forays into environmental policy, it must now openly address how environmental burdens and rewards can be shared fairly between its countries, between households and individuals, and between generations of Europeans.
Ironically, it was the Bush administration’s refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol that turned climate change into a foreign policy issue around which the EU could rally, and since then European politicians have shown real global leadership in the fight against climate change.
But this leadership will only be secure once the EU gets to grips with the redistributive issues that underpin the climate challenge at home. The EU has given a unilateral commitment to cut its emissions by at least 20 per cent by 2020. This will imply considerable costs to individual European countries and the Union must ensure that burden is shared fairly. As the Stern report on the economics of climate change underlined, the costs of inaction outweigh the costs of action, but that does not mean the costs and benefits will be spread equally. The costs of adaptation to climate change already show the differences from country to country, workplace to workplace and even from individual to individual.
Climate change requires a technological and societal transformation that will be as deep and fundamental as the digital revolution. We need public policies that embrace and manage change fairly. This will mean, for example, supporting people to move from old to new jobs. We cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of the past when people were left behind as new technologies transformed the world of work. There is rightly much debate about green tax reform, shifting the burden of taxation from labour and investments towards taxes on pollution and the inefficient use of materials and energy. This should be accompanied by a green skills fund to equip the workforce with the skills required to embrace transformation.
Europe has a proven track record in improving social welfare through regulation. But the current EU institutions do not have the political legitimacy to address the social justice agenda on burden sharing between social groups or individuals. Member State governments co-ordinating best practice towards a common European target should lead the way."
"Almost four decades after the EU made its first forays into environmental policy, it must now openly address how environmental burdens and rewards can be shared fairly between its countries, between households and individuals, and between generations of Europeans.
Ironically, it was the Bush administration’s refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol that turned climate change into a foreign policy issue around which the EU could rally, and since then European politicians have shown real global leadership in the fight against climate change.
But this leadership will only be secure once the EU gets to grips with the redistributive issues that underpin the climate challenge at home. The EU has given a unilateral commitment to cut its emissions by at least 20 per cent by 2020. This will imply considerable costs to individual European countries and the Union must ensure that burden is shared fairly. As the Stern report on the economics of climate change underlined, the costs of inaction outweigh the costs of action, but that does not mean the costs and benefits will be spread equally. The costs of adaptation to climate change already show the differences from country to country, workplace to workplace and even from individual to individual.
Climate change requires a technological and societal transformation that will be as deep and fundamental as the digital revolution. We need public policies that embrace and manage change fairly. This will mean, for example, supporting people to move from old to new jobs. We cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of the past when people were left behind as new technologies transformed the world of work. There is rightly much debate about green tax reform, shifting the burden of taxation from labour and investments towards taxes on pollution and the inefficient use of materials and energy. This should be accompanied by a green skills fund to equip the workforce with the skills required to embrace transformation.
Europe has a proven track record in improving social welfare through regulation. But the current EU institutions do not have the political legitimacy to address the social justice agenda on burden sharing between social groups or individuals. Member State governments co-ordinating best practice towards a common European target should lead the way."
Hi Paul, Hope you're doing ok. Not seen you for ages. The blog looks great. I reckon you'd be wasted in the euro parliament. When Labour can do know right we need guys like you. Keep in touch. All the best, Lindsay Allison
ReplyDelete