StephenTindale.jpg
International treaties need to be implemented in letter and spirit if they are to be effective. On climate change, ocean protection, and halting the destruction of ancient forests the strong commitments entered into abroad have been overshadowed by the failure to deliver at home.
Climate Change, nuclear power and radioactive discharges
John Prescott undoubtedly took a lead at Kyoto and has been a champion of the treaty ever since. But ministers seem to have since forgotten a rather important aspect of global warming - that its global. Tony Blair's passion for business has directly and disastrously contributed to the increased burning of fossil fuels in developing countries on a huge scale. Since Labour came to power the Government has provided support to British companies building fossil fuel projects in developing countries that have resulted in annual emissions of 13.3 million tonnes of carbon. To put that in perspective, that's half our own gains under the Kyoto agreement. Across the southern hemisphere there are coal-fired power stations being built or in the planning stage that wouldn't be viable without financial support from the DTI - and yet we haven't built these things at home for thirty years. Instead of exporting pollution, the UK should be championing the provision of clean, safe energy to the 2 billion people currently relying on traditional but dangerous fuels for heat, lighting and cooking. So when Tony Blair goes to the summit he has to ensure that agreement is reached to bring clean energy to the two billion over the next decade - a challenging but feasible ambition. This is a crucial test of his international leadership.
The UK's performance on reducing greenhouse gases at home has been modest. We are on track to meet the Kyoto target, but most of this is still due to the closure of the coal industry in the 1990s. The Climate Change Levy is now in force, and the Chancellor deserves credit for standing firm in the face of sustained special pleading from some sections of industry. But any serious effort to tackle emissions from transport evaporated in the face of the 2000 fuel protestors. There was a case for suspending the fuel duty escalator when oil prices were high, but it should be reinstated now they have fallen. Our record on renewable energy remains lamentable. Indeed we are going backwards at the moment, with the percentage of electricity coming from renewables actually shrinking. Yet we have the best resource in Europe, a windy island surrounded by waves and tides. We could get a quarter of our total current electricity use from 40 wind farms off the coast of east Anglia, as a recent report demonstrated. These wind farms would be almost invisible from the coast and would create no pollution or radioactive waste while delivering power more cheaply than nuclear. They would not be a magnet for terrorists. Yet the Government seems hell bent on rejecting a serious expansion of renewables in favour of a new generation of nuclear stations.
If the UK maintains its current position on radioactive discharges, the UK and France will be fighting to see who gets the wooden spoon and the title of 'dirty man of Europe'. Back in 1998 John Prescott and Michael Meacher negotiated agreements on radioactive discharges in good faith. However, since then the DTI, BNFL, NO 10 and ultimately Blair himslef have been trying to find a way around, water down and undermine the commitments made. Since 1998 radioactive discharges from Sellafield have actually increased. Leaked documents from the DTI show that British negotiators - with the connivance of the Environment Agency, who are supposed to be the champions of the environment - are now trying to "redefine" the commitment to enable the UK to build new reactors. Nuclear power is unsafe, uneconomic and unpopular - a recent opinion poll showed that 72% would rather see renewables than new nuclear stations. But Blair seems determined to support the nuclear industry come what may.
Trade and the environment
John Prescott claims that the Government are "leading advocates of the integration of trade, the environment and development." This is nonsense. Whenever the discussion moves beyond rhetoric, the British government is to be found firmly in the free trade corner. On GM, its policy is effectively driven by the need to appease US trading interests. International trade rules allow a country to ban something only after specific evidence of harm has been found - by which time it could be too late to do much about it. The Government is now conducting a "public consultation" on GM, but has refused point blank to say what this debate might lead to, and whether a ban on commerical GM cultivation is one possible outcome. This must lead one to conclude that they have already decided to allow commercialisation, and are simply trying to massage public opinion into acceptance.
Tony Blair has tried to position himself as a protector of ancient forests. "We can trade without deforestation", he proclaimed in his visionary party conference speech last year. So we can, but only if trade is regulated to safeguard endangered species and to ensure that local communities and developing country governments actually benefit (illegal logging deprives developing country governments of around $15 billion a year, according to the World Bank.) A recent moratorium on mahogany exports from Brazil, at the request of the Brazilian environment agency, gave the British Government the chance to act on Blair's rhetoric by seizing Brazilian mahogany as it entered the UK. The Dutch Government seized mahogany, the German government seized mahogany, even the US Government seized mahogany. The European Commission said that European trade law meant mahogany should be seized. The secretariat of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), which covers mahognay, said mahogany should be seized. But the British government refused to act, claiming trade rules did not allow them to. Greenpeace narrowly lost a judicial review on this point, with two of the three appeal court judges ruling that trade was more important than environmental protection, and one issuing a striking and eloquent case for trade rules being amended to safeguard our natural heritage. Greenpeace is now trying to get the case referred to the European Court. We are confident that we will succeed. But it is depressing that for all Blair's fine words, his Government has lined up with the timber barons.
