Why I’m sick of everyone basking in the glow of consensus

This week, the Climate Change Committee at Holyrood did something important. It rejected the Scottish Government’s proposed climate change targets.

For background, this is the first batch of annual targets which are required under the Climate Change Act, the legislation which was passed last year with unanimous support by MSPs of all parties, and which the SNP have been trumpeting as “world-leading” ever since. The long term aim of an 80% cut in our emissions by 2050, and a staging post of 42% by 2020, are still in place. But the SNP wants to leave it a few years before it gets under way – with an almost flatline trajectory until half way through the next term of the Scottish Parliament.

In response to the Committee’s decision, the SNP have suggested an extra 0.5% cut in 2012.

There are plenty of reasons to reject this second version too. It represents a slackening off since the Act was introduced, given the track record of roughly 1% annual cuts. It would lead to a bigger total ‘cumulative emissions budget’ over the period, which is the important number to control if we want to reduce our impact on the climate. If defers responsibility to the next Government, which in turn would have an excuse to do exactly the same thing, regardless of its political complexion. It fails to make any effort to “lock in” the reduced emissons which are likely to have taken place due to the recession. Finally, the ‘extra’ effort will really only mean changing the way that the emissions inventory is calculated, to include work on peatland restoration which would have been happening anyway.

But there are risks to simply throwing out the whole batch of targets. As Duncan McLaren from Friends of the Earth Scotland argued recently, it’s a tricky question strategically for those of us who want more radical action but know that the Government isn’t ready for that. Should we accept targets we know are wrong, and keep pushing Ministers to go further, or throw them out leaving the Government in breach of the legislation (there’s a June deadline for these targets to be set) and with no clear way forward?

For me, this is just one more reason to think that the cosy language of consensus has served its purpose.

It was great to see that those who dispute the science on climate change, or who simply don’t care about it as an issue, had no Parliamentary impact when we were dealing with the Bill. This is divisive stuff in some countries, but we got 100% backing for the long term action that’s needed.

But in reality, we have no consensus on what to actually do differently. I believe that radical action to change our economy and society are not only mandated in the face of climate change and peak oil, but socially worthwhile in countless ways. Others say that economic growth can last forever and that the free market remains king. I believe that we must challenge overconsumption which undermines the health of people and of the planet – others say that higher retail sales are an unremittingly good thing. I believe that we need to localise much of the economy and help people to travel less, while others say that we must always build more ‘connectivity’ for the sake of the economy. (It’s worth noting that these targets will come back to the Chamber for a final vote on the same day as a Bill to approve the additional Forth Road Bridge!) I believe that demand reduction and renewable energy must be the foundation of our energy system, while others have faith in carbon capture and storage, or in nuclear power.

It was useful to talk of consensus on the issues we did agree on. But it’s time to recognise that we have no consensus on how to reach those long term targets, or even on how quickly to get started. That’s not a defeat for the climage change debate – it’s just the next stage in that debate when the different ideas must be argued about openly and tested against the science. I might lose some of those arguments, and I might win some, but endlessly patting ourselves on the back for the legislation we passed a year ago and basking in the glow of a false consensus won’t take us forward.

1 Comment

[...] while Westminster tiptoes its way towards a more consensual style of politics, Patrick Harvie thinks that the consensual atmosphere in Holyrood needs to be turned down a notch: It was useful to [...]

Pingback by Adapting to coalition government – Scottish Roundup — May 23, 2010 @ 3:52 pm