• Events
  • Masters Course
  • Members area
  • Jobs
  • Media Centre
  • Contact UK
  • | USA
Home
  • Home
  • About
  • Our Work
  • Projects
  • Blogs
  • GreenFutures
  • The Lab
  • Forum Network
  • GreenFutures

What we work on

  • Food
  • Energy
  • Finance
  • Other sectors

How we do it

  • Futures & Diagnosis
  • Innovation
  • Scaling up
  • Sustainable Business
Home › Blogs › Show All › Time to act on green economy

Filter

  • Show All
  • Forum Blog
  • Jonathon Porritt
  • Weak Signals

Time to act on green economy

18th March, 2009 by Jonathon Porritt | Add a comment
Tags :

With one month to go before the Budget, the debate is hotting up about the desirability of the chancellor announcing some kind of ‘green recovery’ initiative.

There are all sorts of signals coming from the Treasury that there’s nothing left in the pot – but all sorts of initiatives urging the chancellor to seize hold of this opportunity to demonstrate that behind all this talk about a low-carbon Britain there is some real substance.

The eloquence of the talk reaches ever greater heights. Get this lot:

“This transition to low-carbon is an environmental and economic imperative. It is also inevitable. There is no high-carbon future. Low-carbon is not a sector of an economy - it is an economy.” (Lord Mandelson, BERR)

“The science says we need to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 80% to avoid the most catastrophic and irreversible effects of climate change. We’ll have 20% of current emissions, with an economy that we want to be three times bigger. It’s not just a change, it’s a transformation.” (Ed Miliband, DECC)

“We can now build a new green economy. Rise to one of the greatest peacetime challenges of all, that will not only help our country prosper, but will build a better, more secure and more sustainable world.” (prime minister Gordon Brown)

On that basis, you’d expect something more than another dribble of stuff along the lines we had in the 2008 pre-Budget report. To do that, the chancellor has first to persuade himself that some further stimulus package is both necessary and desirable. Then he has to determine the overall scale of such a package (the eminent US economist Paul Krugman has urged all OECD countries to commit up to 4% of annual GDP – which for the UK would be around £60 billion). Then he must determine what share of the total package should be devoted to ‘sustainability-specific’ investments.

And that’s where it gets really interesting. The NGOs are getting increasingly vocal about green tokenism: if the low-carbon, sustainability elements come in at less than 10%, say, then the 90% is, almost by definition, going to be “high carbon and unsustainable”. That would hardly seem to fit with the green words from the Low Carbon Industrial Summit above.

According to the new HSBC report (A Climate for Recovery – the colour of stimulus goes green), the current sustainability percentage here in the UK is less than 7%. Compare that with China or South Korea.

Country/Region

Fund $bPeriodGreen Fund $b% Green

Asia Pacific

Australia26.72009-122.59.3%

China586.12009-10221.337.8%

India13.720090%

Japan485.92009 -12.42.6%

South Korea38.12009-1230.780.5%

Thailand3.320090%

Subtotal Asia Pacific1,153.8266.923.1%

Europe

EU38.82009-1022.858.7%

Germany104.82009-1013.813.2%

France33.72009-107.121.2%

Italy103.52009 -1.31.3%

Spain14.220090.85.8%

UK30.42009-122.16.9%

Other EU States308.720096.22.0%

Subtotal Europe634.254.216.7%

Americas

Canada31.82009-132.68.3%

Chile4.020090%

US EESA185.010 years18.29.8%

US ARRA787.010 years94.112.0%

Subtotal Americas1.007.8114.911.4%

TOTAL2,79643615.6%

Source: A Climate for Recovery – the colour of stimulus goes green (HSBC, February 09)

So if the chancellor is going to do something in the Budget, it needs to be big. And that’s what the Sustainable Development Commission is going to be recommending in our forthcoming Sustainable New Deal paper.

This really is the moment. If not now (with only a year or so before the next General Election), then one really has to ask when. I’d hate to think of all those fine words just left hanging in the wind.

Add your comment »

Comments

KAREN (not verified), 29 March 2009 - 22:21
  • reply

Tambien creo que es muy importante reducir la produccion de greenhouse gasses, para poder asi evitar en el futuro (no muy lejano) una catastrofe ambiental que sea producto de los grandes desequilibrios que sufre hoy en dia nuestro planeta.

Dr. James Singmaster (not verified), 20 March 2009 - 19:26
  • reply

The biggest action that can be taken probably with the making of some money is utilizing the massive, ever-expanding messes of organic wastes and sewage solids that are presently handled to allow needless reemitting of GHGs and seepage and escapes to be causing expanding problems of water pollution. Those messes could be pyrolyzed to get inert charcoal for burying,to get some fuel distilled and to get all germs, toxics and drugs destroyed. Dr. J. Lovelock, the Gaia Guru, proposed in Jan. 23, 09 interview in New Scientist(NS) online that pyrolysis seemed the only way to go for removing some carbon from recycling thereby getting some real reduction in our carbon footprint. Dr. T. Lenton at U. East Anglia had his big geoengineering paper in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Vol. 9, 1-50, 2009, reviewed Jan. 28 in NS online, and he also pointed to pyrolysis as perhaps the only viable to get some control of the carbon recycling to stop GW. Perhaps Forum for the Future should get interviews with them to see what they say about pyrolyzing those messes.
I have detailed this in several comments on the Greeninc. Blog of the NY Times. In the March 13 writeup about shipping carbon dioxide to a sea burial, I have comment 23; March 16 about Green Jobs being overhyped, I have comments 3, 19,& 25; and March 18, about oil co.getting into bioethanol, I have comment 2. These stress the need to recognize those massive ever-expanding messes as possibly being what overwhelms our descendants with more and more water pollution problems to go with GW.
Dr. J. Singmaster, Fremont, CA, USA

Add your comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions. Case insensitive.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

Our Partners

Contact

  • Forum in the UK
  • Forum in the USA

Keep in touch

  • Join us on Facebook
  • Follow us on Twitter
  • See us on LinkedIn
  • Forum pics on Flickr
  • Forum on YouTube

 Sign up to our newsletter

About Us

  • Meet the team
  • Our history
  • Our achievements
  • Our governance
  • Who do we work with?
  • Annual reports

Forum Network

  • Work with us
  • Members area

Our Work

  • What we work on
    • Food
    • Energy
    • Finance
    • Other sectors
  • How we do it
    • Futures & Diagnosis
    • Innovation
    • Scaling up
    • Sustainable Business

Projects

  • Show all
  • Food
  • Energy
  • Finance
  • Other Sectors
  • Futures & Diagnosis
  • Innovation
  • Sustainable Business
  • Scaling Up

Blogs

  • Show All
  • Forum Blog
  • Jonathon Porritt
  • Weak Signals

© 2011 Forum for the Future | Terms of Use | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Site Map | Login | Logout

Site built by : New Digital Partnership

The Forum for the Future is a registered charity and a company limited by guarantee, registered in England and Wales. Registered office: Overseas House, 19-23 Ironmonger Row, London, EC1V 3QN, UK. Registered charity no. 1040519. Company no. 2959712. VAT registration no. 677 7475 70