With energy prices at record highs and the Conservatives trailing in the polls, a Tory prime minister pacifies restless backbenchers and the right-leaning media by promising to cut green costs for consumers, while pinning future bill increases on Labour’s “gimmicky” 2030 decarbonisation goals. That describes 2013, but could just as easily apply to 2023. It seems that Rishi Sunak has not just recycled David Cameron back into his cabinet, he has recycled Cameron’s energy policies, too. But Cameron’s approach to climate policy was more nuanced than many give him credit for. Sunak, as well as Labour, could learn something from his successes and failures.
I worked with Cameron in 2013, and while some will find this surprising, he really did care about the climate. Once in power, he committed significant sums to developing offshore wind, and continued to speak on climate crisis issues at home and abroad. Since 2010, renewable electricity output has grown by 500%, coal has been almost phased out, and electric vehicle sales have soared. Many of Cameron’s policies are ones to be proud of.
However, while he was clear on the direction of travel, there were well-publicised wobbles about how best to get there. The pressure to “cut the green crap” came from three fronts. The first was a Treasury-led war of attrition. Cameron and the Liberal Democrat leader, Nick Clegg, were fairly aligned on environmental issues. However, other cabinet voices were more sceptical. On several occasions – notably when approving carbon budgets – the Liberal Democrat business secretary, Vince Cable, and the Conservative chancellor, George Osborne, formed an alliance to block government ambition.
The second challenge came from the political team’s incessant desire to win the media cycle. In the winter of 2013, Cameron faced months of negative media coverage and felt he had to respond. The public held him accountable for global energy prices, a viewpoint that was given credence by many politicians. In good times, governments claim credit for macroeconomic factors outside their immediate control, such as economic growth and low, stable inflation levels. But when times are bad, politicians gleefully smear rivals for their supposed economic mismanagement. The pressure to be seen to act – despite little immediate power to change anything – is immense.
When faced with the pressure of high energy prices, the left and right take different tacks. Labour tends to blame “vested interests”, while the Conservatives have blamed green levies – except under Theresa May, who blamed “broken markets” and ended up adopting the price cap proposals of “Red Ed” Miliband. Interestingly, despite the Conservatives now wearing Labour’s clothes on windfall taxes and price caps, they have still not escaped media pressure on prices. If Labour comes to office as expected, and prices stay high, my prediction is that Ed Miliband and Keir Starmer will face many of the same political challenges as Sunak does now. My assumption is that Labour will also feel compelled to respond with government intervention, albeit likely targeting the business practices of the energy companies rather than the costs of net zero.
The third factor behind the Conservatives’ hostility to certain green policies is that there is a kernel of truth in their concerns. The 2013 energy company obligation (ECO), Cameron’s infamously downgraded version of the carbon emissions reduction target and community energy saving programme of previous years, was over-complex and costly to deliver, as later affirmed by a 2016 National Audit Office report.
ECO didn’t deserve the gutting it received, but it did require deep-rooted reform. And ECO is sadly emblematic of a broader suite of less-than-ideal government energy initiatives: from the doomed green deal to the green homes grant. Sunak’s September speech on the environment was right about one thing: there needs to be much more discussion about how we reach net zero, not just the fact that we should.
So where do we go from here? Sunak may have the answer. In his speech he suggested that MPs should vote not only on carbon budgets, but the specific strategies required to meet them. In my view, this could be the gamechanger we need. The approach binds politicians to long-term solutions rather than short-term political gain, and is already common in consensus-driven countries such as Denmark. When an MP gets a say on policy, and votes to confirm it, it becomes more substantial than simply saying yea or nay to targets, and harder to evaluate or row back on later.
Embracing such a strategy could transform Britain’s energy policy from a political football into a shared national mission. That is the approach net zero requires, and the approach that we, the public, deserve.
Tara Singh is managing director of public affairs at Hill & Knowlton. She was the government’s special adviser on energy and environment from 2013 to 2015
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.