I am resigning as a shadow minister in the Lords in a few weeks. Not because Jeremy Corbyn is Labour’s new leader but because I decided, after the general election, that I could have a bigger impact reducing the growing risk of climate change in a different, more internationally-focused role.
Judging from my Twitter feed and inbox this will delight many who have made it their mission to oppose fracking in the UK.
I have never supported a big push for fracking in the UK. I am neither pro- nor anti-fracking on principle and I agree there are legitimate concerns about the technology’s potential environmental and social impacts that must be addressed.
This is why, during the Infrastructure Act debate last year, I spent many hours persuading the government to think again about their ill-judged enthusiasm for the technology, emanating from far too simplistic an analysis of energy markets in the US. I am very proud that Labour successfully forced the government to introduce much needed new environmental protections and am saddened to see the government now trying to row back on these hard won commitments.
There is also the incontrovertible truth that the economics of fracking now look poor. Even without steeply falling oil and gas prices, fracking was going to be a risky venture, since the process of extracting gas from tight shale rock involves more effort than the conventional tapping of natural gas from reservoirs. It is definitely not going to be the magic cure the Treasury is seeking to bolster tax receipts, as our conventional sources of hydrocarbons run out. That will require far deeper understanding of future energy and clarity of vision than they have shown hitherto.
My concern with the current debate about fracking stems not from any love of the technology but from the fact that it is currently absorbing people’s time and energy fighting potential future impacts, when all around us are far worse existing activities, such as burning Russian coal in 1960s’ power stations.
It seems some in the green movement work on the basis that their best chances of making a difference lie in stopping threats that have yet to happen, rather than the impacts that are already with us. Anti new road protests, anti GM, anti incinerators, anti biofuel, anti new nuclear, even stopping the building of the new Kingsnorth coal fired power station – all are examples of this brand of campaigning. Done well they can penetrate the political discourse and change the debate.
The problem, however, with whipping up fear of future threats is that it can also lead to fixed ideological positions being adopted in the absence of any actual evidence of harm, and, unless we start blocking the things that are already happening, we risk locking ourselves into the flawed and damaging system we have today. This is of particular concern because it is not just the green movement that has learned the game of how to stop new things from happening. Stoking nimbyism can carry risks for all who seek action on global issues.
The campaigns I admire, the anti-slavery, anti-apartheid movements, the campaigns to phase out ozone destroying chemicals, stop whaling, restrict harmful pesticides, to name just a few, all took on existing activities and sought to remove the social and legal license that allowed them to continue. This is what we should be focusing on today in relation to climate change.
We know addressing this meta-threat is the mother of all challenges and the status quo cannot safely be allowed to continue. The world is already extracting and burning too many fossil fuels from conventional sources and this provides more than enough of a challenge to set our minds to addressing.
The last few weeks of my time on the front bench in the Lords will be taken up with scrutinising the government’s woefully inappropriate and poorly thought-through Energy Bill. We finished our third day of committee on Monday. The Bill was first introduced in the Lords and timed to attract minimum attention. Despite this, it is being effectively challenged by Lords from all parties.
When we get to report stage in October, we have a very good chance of amending it. And yet there has been almost no involvement from the green movement thus far. Despite the fact that it creates a new public body that will take over responsibility for maximising the economic recovery of carbon fuels on and offshore in the UK.
The one green Lord, Baroness Jenny Jones, has not taken part in Committee and I haven’t received a singly briefing from a green NGO so far. Why is this? Has the green movement forgotten that policies and laws are what drive change? Of course you can change things at a local level and, sometimes, local interventions acquire a symbolism that helps to win a national level change of heart, but only if and when those changes are encoded into policy or law.
I invite anyone, who on the basis of an interview on the Today programme, believes I have abandoned my green principles or am necessarily in the pay of the fracking industry, to pause before spending time on their emails or tweets and to read my contributions on TheyWorkForYou.com.
Tackling climate change and leaving the natural world in a state fit for future generations to enjoy has and always be my guiding passion. I try to base my positions on evidence rather than ideology and am not afraid of challenging the status quo or changing my mind if the evidence changes. If more adopted this approach I believe we’d make faster progress in the fight to clean up the planet.
As I step off the front bench in a few weeks I hope that whoever succeeds me will keep a cool head and keep up the fight holding this government to account. I also hope that the green movement will assist them in directing their energies towards the things that matter most. Those for whom fracking has lit a climate activism touch paper can achieve great change, but only if well targeted.