The Governments Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution
A Critique
Boris Johnson, as Head Of the British Government, has set out a Ten Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution. The focus of the plan is an attempt to show to those areas that turned to the Conservative Party that they are being taken into consideration by the Government. A second focus is on the Climate Change Conference (COP 26). The Government is committing £12 billion of Government investment, claiming that there could be three times that from the private sector, to support 250 000 green jobs.
Those are the claims that the Prime Minister and the Business Secretary set out in their statements introducing the Plan. I personally do not believe that problems that we face with regard to the economic crisis and the environmental crisis can be resolved under capitalist economic structures. However, I do believe that serious considerations must be given to these proposals, that they must be assessed and critically examined. We should use this opportunity to restate the arguments that have been put forward, by groups such as the Campaign for Climate Change and the one million climate jobs in order to strengthen and build the Climate Movement within a wider Socialist Movement to bring about real change in the structure of society worldwide.
The introduction begins by claiming that “By investing in clean technologies – wind, carbon capture, hydrogen and many others – Britain will lead the world into a new Green industrial Revolution. An interesting omission is solar energy. I will consider details as I review the various points. At this stage I will draw attention to the fact that the Plan is calling for an Industrial Revolution. It is a Plan to work within the present structure of Society. What is needed is a social revolution that radically changes the lives of people, both within this country, but even more importantly in the third world where people are living in unacceptable conditions. All this calls for a complete revolution in every aspect of life. A further emphasis that has to be challenged is the nationalistic approach. The Introduction seeks to stress the role that Britain has played, in positive ways, neglecting the negative aspects of our record. There is a need in all of these matter to think in worldwide terms and put all the discussion in terms of what needs to be done to preserve life in all its forms on the planet. The Plan does recognise that “action by the UK alone will not be sufficient to avoid catastrophic climate change.
Point 1: Advancing offshore wind
The Plan envisages a quadrupling of off sure wind capacity. The Government promises to invest in modern ports and manufacturing infrastructure to support this industry and to improve the network infra structure. What the plan does not envisage, is taking this industry into national control and ensuring that it is developed, and any profits ensuing from that development, are used in the interests of the people. In general, in this critique I will base my comments on the belief that the interests of People always come before profit.
Point 2: Driving the growth of low carbon hydrogen
I am surprised by the extent that this technology has advanced. I do not believe that people are aware of this. The concept fills me with concern. Hydrogen may well be “the most abundant chemical element in the universe” but it is one of the most reactive, it can explode! The disadvantages, of producing hydrogen and of using hydrogen, should be sufficient to place the idea well down the list of proposals, if not excluding it completely. Despite this the Government places it as its second option. It is also very clear that the Government links the process of electrolysis to produce the hydrogen with “carbon capture and storage” which is another proposed technological process that raises serious doubt as to its feasibility. I fear that this section of the Plan glosses over serious problems that the Government is not willing to face.
Point 3: Delivering new and advanced nuclear power
“we are pursuing large-scale nuclear, whilst also looking to the future of nuclear power in the UK through further investment in Small Modular Reactors and Advanced Modular Reactors” . The Government is “committing up to £215 million into Small Modular Reactors to develop a domestic smaller-scale power plant technology designed that could potentially be built in factories and then assembled on site”.
Quite what this means is unclear. There is no indication of where these “sites” are to be situated, nor is there any indication of their use except as “domestic”.
“We are also committing up to £170 million for a research and development programme on Advanced Modular Reactors. These reactors could operate at over 800 degrees Centigrade and the high-grade heat could unlock efficient production of hydrogen and synthetic fuels, complementing our investment in carbon capture, utilisation and storage, hydrogen and off sure wind”.
Here we see the linkage between technologies which are problematic, to say the least. Nuclear power is known for its destructive power, for example as seen at Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Chernobyl and Five Mile Island. Reliance upon nuclear power is a dangerous proposition. Whatever may be its advantage in the short term for producing carbon free electricity, the production of nuclear waste, from the reactive elements and the radiated infrastructure, means that the damaging effects of nuclear power generators will remain a problem for many years after the power stations have ceased production.
Point 4: Accelerating the shift to zero emission vehicles
The Plan envisages that “From 2030 we will end the sale of new petrol and diesel cars and vans ….however we will allow the sale of hybrid cars and vans …..until 2035”. The tax system will be used to encourage this transition. Money will be invested on the supply chain and towards the development of factories producing batteries. Investment will also be put into charging points to aid both long distance and local journeys. There will be consultation on phasing out the sale of diesel heavy goods vehicles and investment into freight trials to pioneer hydrogen and other zero emission
lorries.
This Point fails completely to understand the urgency of the situation and to accept the radical changes that are needed with respect to out transport system. Beginning with the needs of individuals, our present structure does not provide an adequate means for many people to travel with the same freedom that is available to other groups within society. Around half of the population does not have access to a private car. They are totally reliant upon an inadequate privatised public transport system or on their ability to walk. This section of the community includes young people, the older generation, many mothers with young children, those in the lower income groups, those who have some health problem that means that they are unable to drive a car. In other words, the most disadvantaged members of society. Modern technology is providing a solution to the needs of this section of the community, a solution that would improve the quality of life for all sections of the community. With the development of electric cars and automatic control of cars (self drive), a structure of transport can be put in place which gives freedom of movement for all in the community. A ‘dial-up system’ so that a vehicle is provided at a time and place as required. This would not only provide freedom of movement; it would also save a vast amount of resources since far less vehicles would be needed that at present when many vehicles are left idle for large portions of the day; it would also improve the environment because we would no longer have cars blocking roads and pavement as is the present situation.
What is required is a fully integrated transport system, taking advantage of the latest technology, to provide a carbon free transport system accessible to everyone on an equal basis and an end to the privileged private transport system available to those with the appropriate resources.
The Plan reveals a major weakness in that it makes no proposals regarding the transportation of goods. The only thing suggested is that the Government will “consult on a date for phasing out the sale of new diesel heavy goods vehicles (HGVs). This is totally inadequate. What is needed is a total reassessment of the way in which goods are transported around the Country. There is now a realisation that the Beeching cuts in the 1960s was a mistake. Railways can provide a viable means of transporting goods over long distances. The use of heavy goods vehicles for this purpose is wasteful and plays a large part in creating the traffic problems that bedevil our roads. Rather than build even more roads, thereby reducing the rural environment and adding to pollution, the Government should have a policy of concentrating long distance travel of goods and of people on the rail network. Any extension of this network should only be done where absolutely necessary and in such a way as not to endanger environmentally sensitive areas.
Point 5: Green Public Transport, cycling and walking
The Government “will therefore accelerate the transition to more active and sustainable transport by investing in rail and bus services, and in measures to help pedestrians and cyclists”. The Plan sets out a series of proposals of how they will expand the current services claiming to meet many of the demands that come from various sectors of the community and from various areas of the Country. What it does not do, and what I consider to be of the utmost importance, is to raise the question of control. The Plan deals with provision and infrastructure, but it ignores the question of control, thereby accepting the commercialisation of transport whereby a small number of people profit from a need suffered by majority of people.
I have set out above my views on transport policy, to repeat, what is required is a fully integrated transport system, taking advantage of the latest technology, to provide a carbon free transport system accessible to everyone on an equal basis and an end to the privileged private transport system available to those with the appropriate resources. However, we need to go further that this. Any public transport, cycling and walking, policy must be in the control of the community that uses that means of transport. This means that bus services, rail services, rail networks and road systems must all be under the control of the communities that use each of these services. How that is to be achieved is a matter for consultation with each community involved, some will be controlled locally, others may need to be on wider regional or national structures. Transport is a service and should not be commercially owned nor controlled in any way. There is no reason why transport should not free of charge. It is a service which should be paid for centrally by Government.
At the present time there is a great deal of discussion about what will happen once the Covid crisis is brought under control. People glibly say ‘no going back to normal’. Under these conditions it is extremely apt to consider how we go about doing things. Public transport, in all its guise, is an area in which we can move to the ‘new norm’ by restructuring the system in line with these comments.
Point 6: Jet zero and green ships
This is an area in which advanced technology, present and future, will have to play a major part. I do not believe that ‘hydrogen’ is part of that solution. One question that Government, Companies and Individuals will have to answer is ‘Do we need to fly around the world to the extent that we have become accustomed to?’ One of the few benefits that Covid has brought has been the development of ‘Zoom Meeting’. This has enabled more people to attend meetings in which they are interested in than would have been possible had the meeting been a physical one. Technology is now available for meetings to be held on line thereby removing the need for Ministers, Officials, Industrialists and others to fly in order to attend their meetings. It is important that these matters be explored.
Point 7: Greener Buildings
This is an important area and much of what is being proposed is to be welcomed. The reservation has to be made, with this Government, that the needs of the people must take priority over the profits of the manufacturing and delivery companies. One thing not mentioned, it should be mandatory for solar panels to be fitted to all large scale developments and elsewhere wherever possible. The Plan is very weak on solar energy.
Point 8: Investing in Carbon Capture, usage and storage
The Government is excited by the possibility of Carbon Capture, usage and storage and is proposing to invest up to £1 billion to support the establishment of CCUS.
It is easy to see why the Government should be interested in this technology, it is the one technology which promises to enable industry to continue in its present practice, it means that oil companies, coal produces, oil shale developments, the use of natural gas, can all continue. In other words it means that they do not have to take Climate Change seriously.
For these very reasons, we must oppose these developments and demand that the money to be invested in these technologies be invested in other endeavours which are based on a real understanding of the consequences of climate change and do bring forward means of dealing with these consequences and do mitigate the causes of climate change.
Point 9: Protecting our natural environmental
This is he most important aspect of any Plan dealing with these issues. Sadly there are no figures given as to the investment to support the various suggestions made in the plan. The only figure given in this section id £5.2billion for flood and coastal defences.
There is a great deal of information, available from a variety of organisations concerned with environmental protection , which the Government could draw upon to produce a more effective and practical plan to achieve this aim. Much of the protection has to be done at a local level, to protect particular species of plants or animals, which local groups often struggle to make their demands heard. Nightingale populations in certain areas of Kent spring to mind, but that is only one of many examples that could be included. If the Government is serious about protecting our natural environment they need to consult more widely, listen to and accept the advice given, act accordingly and ensure that Local Authorities are instructed to do the same within their own local areas.
Point 10: Green Finance and Innovation
The Government “have committed to raising total R&D investment to 2.4% of GDP by 2027 and in July 2020 published the UK Research and Development Roadmap”. “To accelerate the commercialisation of low-carbon technologies, systems and processes in the power, buildings, and industrial sectors, we will launch the £1 billion Net Zero Innovation Portfolio. The Portfolio will focus on 10 priority areas that correspond with this Ten Point Plan , including
• floating offshore wind
• nuclear advanced modular reactors
• energy storage and flexibility
• bioenergy
• hydrogen
• homes
• direct capture and advanced CCUS
• industrial fuel switching
• disruptive technologies such as artificial intelligence for energy
Details are given in the plan. The Plan also sets out a list of other statements such as an Energy White Paper; a National Infrastructure Strategy; England Tree Strategy; Transport decarbonisation Strategy; Net Zero Strategy; Heat & Building Strategy; Hydrogen Strategy; HMT Net Zero Review; Nature Strategy.
The operative word in all of these strategies is ‘will set out’. It is a case of watch this space.
One final concluding remark. The Prime Minister in his opening remarks refers to planting of 30 000 hectares of trees. Close to where I live an area of urban green space which has trees and flowers in season, included within the development when the Council Estate was built in the 1950s, is to be used to build a number of houses. The urban green space will be lost. There is land available elsewhere, more suitable for house building, but that is being used to build luxury homes, close to railway stations, to draw people into the area from outside, commercial developments. This is just one, simple, example of how Government plans are all compartmentalised. There is no linking up of plans and strategies to determine the effects of one strategy upon all other aspects that need to be taken into consideration. The Plan has been carefully titled to refer to “a Green Industrial Revolution”. It is a Plan, not to preserve our environment nor to improve the lives of people and the community. It is a Plan to boost the industrialists and those organisations that finance them. Government is investing in order to create an environment which they know is necessary, given the effects of Climate Change, but which they hope will enable the present economic structure to remain largely intact. Those of us who believe in a future for humanity and for nature in all its varieties have to oppose the approach adopted by Government and put forward and fight for plans that truly bring an end to temperature rise, help to restore the planet, and preserves all forms of life upon the planet.
For further considerations see https://www.campaigncc.org/
Scribart 27.11.20
Comments
Post a Comment