Harri Roblin

A change of government always means one thing in the environment sector—new focuses. For the first time in 14 years, a new political party, spearheaded by Keir Starmer, is in charge. This means re-evaluating environmental objectives for the government, which will have significant effects throughout the country.

Change always allows the opportunity for reflection and review. It has been a disappointing few years from an environmental standpoint. Initially in 2010, David Cameron promised massive changes and improvements, making his agenda green-based. This started with creating a policy group to achieve this mission, aiming to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Ultimately, only a few of his pre-election promises were delivered. The solution to reducing emissions, renewable energy, was placed on the back burner. Solar energy incentives were reduced by 65%, the plan to insulate homes was cut and making homes zero-carbon was scrapped. The reintroduction of fracking in 2015 compounded his miserable attempt to make the UK more sustainable. He eventually denounced climate policies as “green crap”, magnifying his lack of urgency to solve the environmental problem. Things only worsened under Theresa May, Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, and eventually Rishi Sunak came into power. The Conservatives poor approach to climate change was highlighted last year when Zac Goldsmith, a Tory peer, said Sunak did not care about climate change. One point is certain: each of these leaders did a poor job tackling the climate crisis, and most were in for short terms. A stable government is needed to commit to a green plan as change does not happen overnight. Is the Labour party the government to achieve this?

There is a lot of good to their pre-election action plan. They plan to expand and restore green space while restoring the quality of waterways, holding water companies accountable. This will stop water pollution through using fines and criminal charges against bosses. Windermere is a specific example of where this could be useful, where United Utilities are polluting the lake. This reduces biodiversity and ultimately kills everything within the lake. Fracking is also being permanently banned, and unlike the Conservatives, no new coal licenses will be granted. A plan for a sustainable company called GB Energy aims to reduce bills and create 650,000 green jobs. They plan to utilise the Bank of England as a lever to promote green finance. The main overarching goal is still being stuck to: the UK will be net-zero carbon by 2050. This will be a joint ministerial oversight, increasing accountability.

This is a positive action plan, but the same could be said about previous underperforming governments. Action on these promises is required, which often does not happen in politics. The agenda also misses some key points. Revoking oil and gas licenses is nowhere to be seen, and it is needed if the climate goals set at the Paris Summit in 2015 are going to be met. Overall, it is a solid and coherent initial plan. Promises and goals have to be stuck to, and only time will tell whether or not it will be a successful reign from an environmental standpoint.