Brit's Eye View: You say you want some devolution ...

Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales are pursuing dramatically different environmental strategies 2

Over the past decade, the current British government has taken a crack at devolution, giving Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales a level of operational government unseen for a century or more. The fledgling administrations of these three "devolved nations" have embarked on very different policy trajectories on the environment, among other policy areas. The sustainable development strategy for the U.K. launched three years ago seems to have got its title right at least: One Future, Different Paths.

Northern Ireland's journey to democracy has, of course, been long and troubled, so perhaps it's not surprising to find their ruling Democratic Unionist Party somewhat behind the game on the environment. And they're apparently not that keen to catch up: In June, the DUP appointed Sammy Wilson as environment minister. Wilson was fresh from winning the Green Party's award for the assembly member most likely to damage the environment. He is pro-nuclear and strongly opposes the creation of an independent Environment Protection Agency. Environmentalists' concerns that this does not sound like the right track record for an environment minister were borne out earlier this month when he called climate change a "hysterical pseudo-religion," and claimed global warming is natural rather than human-caused.

At the other end of the green spectrum is Wales, where the Assembly created back in 1998 has consistently pursued sustainable-development policies for a fairly simple reason: A duty to promote sustainable development is written into their constitution. The Assembly has gone a long way to mainstreaming sustainability thinking, and it now publishes an annual set of national sustainability indicators. (The Assembly has also been a partner with Forum for the Future for the last eight years, so perhaps I'm a bit biased.)

Scotland's longing for independence was perhaps the most heartfelt, and the Parliament established there in 1999 has the greatest degree of devolved power, including an ability to create primary legislation and vary the tax rate. These arrangements have become a thorn in the flesh for the Labor Party that created them; Labor had hoped the creation of the Parliament would fatally undermine the Scottish National Party, but instead the SNP now controls the government and is on a collision course with Westminster on outright independence for Scotland.

After a slow start, the Scots are starting to look ambitious on the environment, with First Minister Alex Salmond last week announcing a major program of environmental legislation for the coming year. Along with a bill to protect the marine environment and another on flood risk management, there will come a climate-change bill with a target to reduce CO2 emissions by 80 percent by 2050. "There is no dispute in this chamber that climate change is the one of the most serious threats we face," he said. Scotland has also set itself a target of getting half its electricity from renewable sources by 2020, compared to the U.K.'s goal of about one-third.

Though everyone is glad to see this kind of ambition, government and energy utilities alike are somewhat alarmed by the parallel agenda of devolution. Just as it was with North Sea oil, Scotland is home or gatekeeper for a huge proportion of the U.K.'s renewable energy potential. As the SNP independence campaign puts it, "More than 90 percent of the U.K.'s oil revenues come from the Scottish sector of the Continental Shelf. So it really is Scotland's oil. In addition, Scotland has 25 percent of Europe's wind and tidal capacity and 10 percent of its wave power."

Scotland is also home to a disproportionate share of Britain's Labor members of Parliament and Labor voters. An independent Scotland would mean Conservative rule south of the border for the foreseeable future, but that holds limited appeal even to Conservatives if the cost to England is loss of access to Scottish energy resources. English politicians have been further alarmed by Scottish Energy Minister Jim Mather's plan to meet his Norwegian counterpart in October to discuss building the world's longest electricity connector to Norway to access their plentiful hydropower, helping to meet Scotland's renewable targets and end its dependence on nuclear power. The whole project could cost more than £2 billion [$3.57 billion]. With the SNP ruling out new nuclear plants in an independent Scotland, it would cast further doubt on how England would keep the lights on.

The SNP is committed to a referendum on Scottish independence by 2012. Though technically such a vote would not be binding on the U.K. government, which remains sovereign, it would be extremely difficult for politicians to ignore. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, himself a Scot with a constituency in Fife, has got some challenging thinking to do.

Ben Tuxworth is director of communications at Forum for the Future, a U.K.-based sustainable development non-profit. He is also contributing editor of Green Futures Magazine.

Advertisement
Advertisement
  1. TomHarris Posted 4:30 am
    19 Sep 2008

    Please show us where Wilson remarks are in errorhmm - Enviro Minister Sammy Wilson did not say what you say he said.  Compare the following two statemnets:
    1 - What you say he said:  "claimed global warming is natural rather than human-caused."
    2 - What he said (please illustrate where you believe he is wrong, if you can): "First of all can I make it clear I accept that we are experiencing climate change. Indeed climate change has been a feature of the history of our planet. The most modern history of the earth shows that these changes occur in regular cycles. From 200BC to 600AD we had what was known as the Roman warming when grapes grew in the open as far north as Scotland. The Dark Ages between 600 and 900AD was a cold period. Then came the Mediaeval warming period from 900 to 1300AD followed by the Little Ice Age between 1300 to 1850 AD when the Thames regularly froze over and fairs were held on the ice. From 1850 to 1940 we had another period of warming followed by a period of cooling from 1940 to 1975. When I was at school, scientists were confidently predicting that we were entering another ice age. From 1976 we have experienced gradual warming again. Significantly the most progressive and prosperous periods in world history were during the periods of global warming.

    We have never clearly understood the causes of these changes and despite what some environmentalists say there is no scientific consensus around the causes. Some claim that recent climate change is due to CO2 production from industrialisation, our energy use, our love affair with the car and foreign holidays by jet airplane. The difficulty with this explanation is that climate change occurred even when we did not have the increase on CO2 emissions experience in the last 200 years. Another difficulty they have is that the increase in CO2 occurs after the increase in temperatures.
    Other scientists have produced research based on analysis of ice cores, and study of changes in the sun's radiance which they claim proves that the changes in Earth's climate are primarily caused by solar activity."
    This all sounds correct - where do you believe it not to be?

  2. Ben Tuxworth's avatar

    Ben Tuxworth Posted 11:37 pm
    09 Oct 2008

    The sceptic curveThanks for the comment.  Wilson sets out the 'not man-made' sceptical case, now that being sceptical about the change itself is pretty much impossible to hold as a line. Some of what he says is plain wrong - the much used idea of carbon emissions lagging temperature increases for example has been comprehensively debunked: a range of such myths are usefully exploded by ex Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK Government Sir David King in his book 'The Hot Topic'.  But there are always scientists who don't agree - a scientific consensus is by definition a highly caveat-laden proposition.  The point for policy is that most scientists and commentators now accept evidence that we are causing climate change is sufficiently firmly established to prompt precautionary action. To imply as Wilson does that there is an equal body of science suggesting climate change is from some other cause is disingenuous to say the least.  These tactics - to hold up the possibility of doubt as a reason not to act and to suggest governments are acting because of some sort of green conspiracy - are well past their sell-by date.  The risk to the Northern Irish economy that Wilson sees in discouraging carbon intensive business (if indeed any such thing is happening) is trivial compared to the much greater risk to that economy of being left behind as business elsewhere responds to the need to mitigate, both directly and through its supply chain.  

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Advertisement