O

On Thursday, it was officially announced that the EU’s climate change service has confirmed global warming has surpassed 1.5C above preindustrial levels for an entire year. This rapid and significant increase sets a concerning precedent that must be reversed, as it is a detrimental and alarming impact on our planet.

The recent announcement made by Labour about their decision to back away from their pledge to allocate £28bn annually towards achieving climate goals, in light of Thursday’s other concerning climate news, has highlighted the severity of the situation. It was an unfortunate timing for Labour to make this decision, but the reality is that there would never have been a good day to backtrack on such a significant commitment.

There are three main justifications for why Labour is incorrect. The first concerns economics. This was a major factor in Sir Keir Starmer’s choice to backtrack on their eco-friendly promises. With increased interest rates and a stagnant economy, borrowing becomes more costly. Labour is concerned that fulfilling their 2021 green prosperity promise will violate their self-imposed fiscal rule of decreasing government debt as a percentage of economic output.

The party’s previous focus on a green strategy for economic growth has now been overshadowed by a more fiscally conservative approach, affecting all government expenditures. Essentially, the goal is for the financial sector to generate enough growth to make the green agenda more financially feasible. This is a significant and possibly concerning shift in strategy that goes against the Biden administration’s investment in clean energy as a means of curbing inflation.

There is also the matter of politics. The Labour party should not deceive itself. The general reaction to the decision to scale back on green initiatives will be discouraging and, in many cases, infuriating. Whether it is fair or not, voters will come to the conclusion that Labour is too hesitant, that it submits preemptively, and that Sir Keir lacks strong convictions. The overall response will not be a sense of relief that Labour can handle the economy with caution. While voters concerned about the environment may feel alienated and those focused on fiscal conservatism will remain unconvinced, many traditional Labour supporters will simply wonder what the party stands for. This decision may even plant the seeds of its own downfall for a future Starmer government.

Sir Keir’s position is flawed for a third reason: he is avoiding the most pressing issue of our time. The urgency of the climate crisis cannot be ignored. The recent EU announcement is evidence that governments are failing to follow through on their past promises. By prioritizing the interests of UK businesses and politics over taking decisive action on climate change, Labour’s policy change is contentious and short-sighted. Similar to Rishi Sunak’s approach, making changes to pledges such as the home-insulation scheme only serves to maintain our reliance on fossil fuels.

This is a significant moment for Britain. Supporters of Labour who blindly follow the party may believe that having economic credibility is crucial for implementing redistributive policies, that their commitment to addressing climate change remains strong, and that Sir Keir may surprise everyone by being a successful leader like Clement Attlee once he takes office. However, there is a risk that by renouncing a promise that could have motivated a whole generation, many less passionate and involved voters will interpret this as a message that politics cannot offer them a brighter future.

• Do you have thoughts about the topics discussed in this article? If you would like to send a response of up to 300 words via email to be potentially published in our letters section, please click here.

Source: theguardian.com