Sam Hall

Increasing renewable energy generation was one of the big environmental achievements of the Coalition Government. The share of Britain’s electricity generated from renewable energy increased from 9% in 2011 to 25% in 2015. By displacing polluting coal from the grid, renewables have contributed significantly to major falls in greenhouse gas emissions over that period. From being a fringe element, renewables now play a central role in powering Britain’s homes and businesses.
And as renewable capacity increases, their costs fall. In over 30 countries, onshore wind and solar are already cheaper than fossil fuels. In just six months last year, competitive power auctions saw global offshore wind prices fall by 22%. Here in the UK, the latest government estimates of the cost of different technologies finds that the next set of onshore wind and solar projects commissioned in the UK will be cheaper than gas.
But despite this success, there are some prominent conservatives who are sceptical of renewables. Today Bright Blue has published a new polling report, “Green conservatives? Understanding what conservatives think about the environment”, which unearths and analyses the nuance of what most Conservative voters actually think about environmental issues and policies, including renewable energy.

Priority of environmental issues

By a significant margin, Conservatives view increasing renewable energy generation as the most important environmental issue for government to support, with 52% putting the issue in their top three. It came ahead of improving air quality, tackling climate change, preventing development on greenfield land, and tackling the decline in the bee population.

EU environmental regulations after Brexit

Conservatives want to see the main EU environmental regulations at least maintained and, in several cases strengthened, following Brexit. We find that 85% of Conservatives support at least maintaining renewable energy generation targets after Brexit. There is in fact a small majority (56%) that want to see renewable energy targets increased.

There is not a huge divergence of opinion on EU environmental regulations between Conservatives who voted Leave and those who voted Remain in the EU referendum. Indeed, even for EU regulations that receive frequent criticism such as renewable energy generation targets, we find that 81% of Conservative Leave voters want to maintain or strengthen them.
Preferred energy sources
Conservatives have a more positive view of renewable power than of nuclear and fossil fuels. The five most positively viewed energy sources by Conservatives are all renewable and low-carbon. When asked to score how favourably they view certain energy sources (from zero as the least favourable and ten as the most), Conservatives give the highest average rating to solar power, with a mean score of 7.7. This is followed by tidal and offshore wind, which have mean scores of 7.6 and 7.2 respectively. Fourth, biomass has a 6.4 mean rating. Fifth, onshore wind’s score is 6.2.

Further development of onshore wind

The Conservative Government was elected in 2015 with a manifesto promise to “halt the spread of subsidised onshore wind farms”. After winning the General Election, the Government swiftly closed the Renewable Obligation a year earlier than planned for onshore wind and issued new planning guidance giving local planning authorities the final say over new onshore wind projects in their areas.
Our polling tests Conservative views on allowing further development of onshore wind farms. The most popular response is “Yes”, without any conditions, which 41% of Conservatives choose. Second, 23% of Conservatives respond “No”. Third, 18% select “Yes, but not if they receive subsidies”. Fourth, 11% do not know. Finally, 6% of Conservatives say “Yes, but not in my area”. Therefore, a clear majority of Conservatives (65%) support further development of onshore wind, provided certain conditions are met related to subsidies and a local veto.

Conclusion

In the next few months, the Government will be making several new announcements on renewable energy. The Clean Growth Plan will propose new policies for reducing carbon emissions in line with legally-binding carbon budgets, including in the power sector. The Spring Budget and industrial strategy green paper both promised new cost control policies for new low-carbon energy infrastructure.
As Conservative Ministers formulate these policies, it is important for them to know the views of the voters who elected them to power. Our report shows clearly that these Conservative voters are very supportive of renewable energy relative to other sources of energy – and they want the Government to encourage it.

Sam Hall is a senior researcher at Bright Blue

Young people were always the true anti-establishment rebels. Kicking against the authority of their parents. Questioning the norms of earlier generations. Challenging vested interests. But in the era of Brexit and Trump, this has changed. Anti-establishment sentiment is now associated with older, working class voters. Young people, instead, seem to be choosing the status quo options: Remain and Hillary Clinton. So what has happened to the anti-establishment activism of the young?

With climate change, young people still reveal their rebellious streak. And, arguably, with good reason. If, in a few decades’ time, average global temperatures rise to more than two degrees above pre-industrial levels, the youth of today will be the ones affected by frequent extreme weather events. Climate change is the ultimate symbol of intergenerational unfairness, as older generations burn fossil fuels, warming the planet to the detriment of future generations. It is seen by some young activists as an example of corporate irresponsibility, with major fossil fuel producers, despite knowing the environmental impact of their product, continuing to pollute the planet. And, although most governments around the world have plans to cut emissions, for the idealistic young, the progress is too slow.

One of the forms taken by youth climate activism is divestment campaigns. The idea behind divestment is that activists force major institutions, such as universities, to sell all their shares in fossil fuel companies. This then starves the company of capital for future investments by reducing their share prices. There is no available, or cost-effective, financing for new drilling. And, so the theory goes, carbon-intensive coal, oil, and gas are left in the ground. The phenomenon started in the US, but it has already crossed the Atlantic, with some major UK institutions, like Kings College London and Newcastle University, having divested in the past year.

These are not new tactics. Similar campaigns have been prosecuted against tobacco companies. Researchers from the Smith School at the University of Oxford have looked at how effective they are. Taken on their own terms, the answer seems to be ‘not very’. Only a tiny proportion of the capital raised by fossil fuel producers comes from universities and pension funds. There is also plenty of demand from ‘neutral’ or ‘unethical’ investors for the divested shares. What’s more, by removing the voices of responsible investors, some shareholder pressure for a more climate-aware business strategy is lost.

This is not to say that investors shouldn’t be wary of climate risk in their portfolios. There is now strong evidence of the danger of ‘carbon bubbles’. The Carbon Tracker project estimates that between 60-80% of the reserves of publicly listed companies must be left untouched, if dangerous levels of warming are to be avoided. Assuming government policy is introduced to achieve this, then fossil fuel investment starts to look very risky. This process is already happening. Both the UK and France have this year announced a date for phasing out coal from their electricity supplies.

Some defend divestment campaigns on the grounds that they help create a ‘fossil fuel stigma’. This may cost companies new contracts, deter prospective employees, or scare off potential customers. It may even lead to governments introducing new fossil fuel regulations. If institutions with the moral force of the Church of England (which divested in July 2015) refuse to invest in fossil fuels, it sends a powerful signal.

But this effect may not be so straightforward. Yes, the public is sympathetic. A clear majority is concerned about climate change – recent government polling suggests this could be over 70%. But the way the message is expressed, and the messenger, will not resonate widely. And in this case, the messengers are radical left-wing students engaged in protests on their university campuses.

So could divestment in fact be helping to stigmatise action on climate change? It seems like it could be, certainly amongst the most sceptical group that needs to be convinced: conservatives. Research by Climate Outreach has shown how radical, left-wing, anti-growth climate activism alienates conservatives. Climate activism, they argue, too often fails to speak to conservative values like responsibility, integrity, and family security. Seen in this light, divestment campaigns could actually be undermining efforts to tackle climate change.

The young rebels have a good cause. Responsible investment, which takes account of climate risk, could effectively limit carbon emissions. But they should reconsider their tactics if they are to emulate the success of their older counterparts.

Sam Hall is a senior researcher at Bright Blue. This is an article from Bright Blue’s magazine The End of the Establishment?

It is often claimed that to tackle climate change we must sacrifice some economic prosperity. The raw statistics clearly disprove this, and show that you can in fact have both. Between 1990 and 2014, the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions fell by 35%. In the same period, the UK’s gross domestic product increased by 62%. So strong growth can go hand in hand with climate change mitigation.

But we should go further than this defensive position. We should instead argue that decarbonisation is an economic opportunity. This claim has two parts. First, cheap, efficient, clean energy reduces costs for business and households. Second, our leadership in the clean technologies of the future is vital for securing the UK’s long-term economic prosperity. And this was the narrative that is resoundingly endorsed in this week’s green paper on the modern industrial strategy.

Reducing energy costs for business

Energy is at the heart of the industrial strategy, and was one of the ten pillars under the heading “delivering affordable energy and clean growth”. The first half of the chapter focuses on reducing the cost of energy for businesses. It is true that UK energy costs are higher than many industrial competitors: in 2015, average UK industrial electricity prices including taxes were the third highest in the EU, behind Italy and Germany. A 2016 PwC report found that this is primarily due to higher ‘commodity prices’, such as gas and coal. So in other words climate policies are not the main driver.

However, it is true that levies to fund climate change policies, like Contracts for Difference or Feed-in Tariffs, are a component of energy bills. To ensure these are minimised, the Government is now committed to carry out a review on the cost of decarbonisation.

It is essential that we cut emissions in the cheapest way possible to keep businesses competitive and households’ utility bills affordable. Current policy already reflects this principle: a fundamental provision of the Climate Change Act 2008 is that the Committee on Climate Change advises the government on how to cut emissions in the most cost-effective way.

What should the new government review focus on? One of the simplest ways for the Government to reduce energy costs would be to encourage homes and businesses to use less energy in the first place. To do this, government must leverage more private investment into energy efficiency and decentralised renewables. Bright Blue has called for the government to issue ‘Help to Improve’ loan guarantees. This would reduce the cost of financing loans below the rate offered by the private sector.

But as well as reducing demand, we need to decarbonise the supply and replace ageing power stations. As argued elsewhere on this blog, Ministers could reduce the cost of this new energy infrastructure by enabling mature technologies such as onshore wind and solar to compete for zero-subsidy, fixed-price contracts. The Conservatives’ 2015 General Election manifesto commitment to stop subsidised onshore wind developments can be respected if fixed-price contracts are awarded on a competitive basis to whichever energy is cheapest.

Supporting the industries of the future

Many conservatives are instinctively hesitant about government choosing which industries are likely to be successful in the future. The Government’s modern industrial strategy sought to address these concerns by focusing on providing favourable conditions for growth to emerging sectors, rather than offer direct financial support to incumbents. Instead of subsidies, the Government’s preferred policy levers are skills, institutions, infrastructure, research, and regulatory reform. Three low-carbon sectors get particular mention in the plan: battery storage, ultra-low emission vehicles, and nuclear.

First, Ministers have commissioned a review into a new research institution to enable the UK to become a global leader in battery storage. Bright Blue strongly welcomes this; in our 2015 report Green and responsible conservatism, we called on the Government to initiate a major research programme on storage. Batteries will be key for guaranteeing security of supply with a higher proportion of our electricity coming from variable renewables. There is also mounting evidence that storage will save consumers money on their bills, with a recent Carbon Trust report estimating a £2.4 billion benefit by 2030.

Second, the Government appointed Richard Parry-Jones, former chair of Network Rail, to conduct a sectoral review for ultra-low emission vehicles. The review will propose changes to regulation, tax, infrastructure, and other policies, which will form the basis of a ‘sector deal’. One of the regulatory changes government should consider is enabling all English cities to set up low emission zones in pollution hotspots. This would provide a nudge to urban motorists to swap their diesel car for a cleaner, electric alternative. Infrastructure improvements are needed too, which means, above all, increasing the number of rapid charging points. Bright Blue has recommended that the Government issue loan guarantees to private providers to reduce their cost of capital and encourage them to invest in new charging points.

Finally, a sector review for the nuclear industry to be carried out by Lord Hutton, chair of the Nuclear Industry Association, was announced. Tackling the shortage in STEM skills and technical education should be a priority for any nuclear sector deal. Bright Blue has argued that a lifetime tuition fee loan account, to enable anyone at any point in their lives to have the upfront funding to pay for any type of higher education, whether vocational or academic. The loans should be paid back through the PAYE system above a certain salary threshold.

The modern industrial strategy has set out a strong framework on which supportive policies to drive British industrial success can hang. That three of the five early sector deals announced were directly in the low carbon economy shows the industrial opportunity the government sees from emission reduction. Conservative peer Lord Deben has said that “economic self-harm would be to not have the Climate Change Act.” He’s right, and this week’s modern industrial strategy shows that the Government is in agreement too.

Sam Hall is a researcher at Bright Blue

We are facing the prospect of elephants becoming extinct in a few generations. The consigning of these beautiful and magnificent creatures to history would be a tragic loss to wildlife and to our planet.

So the announcement that China will introduce a total ban on domestic ivory trading was a welcome Christmas present for many conservationists. By the end of 2017, it will be illegal to process or sell ivory in China. This will mean the current 34 licensed ivory processing shops and 130 retail outlets will be closed.

However, China is the destination for an estimated 70% of illegal ivory, making it by far the world’s largest market. The Chinese government had already taken steps to ban ivory imports for products manufactured before 1975. The online ivory trade had also been banned, although it has proven ineffective, with the total number of ivory items auctioned online more than doubling between 2010 and 2011.

But what are the trends in elephant numbers and the ivory market worldwide, and what other policies are in place or being discussed to protect this invaluable part of our natural heritage?

The ivory trade’s link to conservation

Researchers carrying out the ‘Great elephant census’ have found that, between 2007 and 2014, 144,000 elephants across the world have been lost. This represents a fall of around 30% over just seven years. The population decrease in recent decades has been stark. Before Europe colonised Africa, elephants were thought to number 20 million. But from a population size of over one million in the 1970s, the current figure is now estimated to be 352,271. The authors warn that, without action to conserve this species, whole elephant populations will be wiped out.

The UN Environment Programme (UNEP) has attributed this fall in numbers largely to poaching, which they believe has surged since 2007. This has partly been driven by the growth of better-organised criminal networks able to smuggle wildlife products across borders and through poorly regulated African markets. The increased prosperity of Asian countries like China and Thailand is also fuelling demand for illegal ivory products, and making the prize for poachers that much bigger. In China, for instance, the price of raw ivory tripled between 2010 and 2014. The size of the illegal wildlife market globally, of which ivory is a major part, is estimated to be between $15 billion and $20 billion each year.

The situation in the UK

Currently there is a UK ban on raw tusks, or unworked ivory, of any age. In September 2016, the Government announced its intention to ban all ivory products made after 1947. Ministers will consult on proposals later this year. But many would like the Government to go further, including Conservatives.

At the 2015 general election, the Conservative Party called for a total ban on ivory sales in their manifesto. Former Foreign Secretary Lord Hague and former Environment Secretary Owen Paterson have both argued for the manifesto pledge to be implemented in full. Jeremy Lefroy MP called a backbench business debate on the issue late last year. They argue that modern ivory can be made to look antique and that, while there are legitimate channels through which to launder illegal ivory, this demand will continue to make poaching a worthwhile risk.

The UK also plays an important role in the international trade. Between 2009 and 2014, 40% of all customs seizures of wildlife products in the UK were ivory. Last year about 110kg of ivory was stopped at Heathrow alone. This material was discovered by the UK Border Force, which has a special unit that focuses on tackling the illegal wildlife trade.

In 2014, the UK Government announced a £13 million fund to tackle the illegal wildlife trade at source. In 2016, the Environment Secretary Andrea Leadsom MP announced a further £13 million of funding. This supports a range of projects, such as strengthening the judicial system in countries like Tanzania and Kenya, educating consumers about the dangers of wildlife products, and training anti-poaching rangers.

The global context

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) banned the international ivory trade in 1989. There are 183 countries that are signatories to the overall convention, which first came into force in 1975 and which now protects a total of 35,000 species. However, even though international ivory trade has been banned, some domestic markets remain open, for instance, in Japan.

Last year, to the applause of conservationists, the US tightened its restriction on ivory sales, so that only items over a hundred years old or those containing very small quantities of ivory will be legal to sell. Domestic bans can help to effectively stigmatise ivory, reducing the desirability of the product and therefore the price. Although bans can only outlaw legitimate trade of ivory, the stigma can also help to push down demand from the black market. A full ivory ban also simplifies the enforcement procedures, removing any potential loopholes for smugglers to exploit.

Conclusion

Elephants are majestic animals, and there are increasingly few of them left. One of the fundamental conservative insights is that each generation has a duty to pass on a preserved inheritance to the next. The Duke of Cambridge, a patron of the wildlife conservation charity Tusk, has spoken powerfully of the danger of extinction: “Let us not tell our children the sad tale of how we watched as the last elephants, rhinos and tigers died out, but the inspiring story of how we turned the tide and preserved them for all humanity.”

If elephants are to survive for future generations to marvel at and enjoy, then concerted international action is urgently required. Conservatives, who, intuitively understand the importance of nature conservation, should be in the vanguard of this movement.

Sam Hall is a researcher at Bright Blue