By Ciara Brady (Current Affairs Correspondent)
Edited by Sophie Brown (Social Affairs Editor)
Following Boris Johnson’s resignation on the 7th of July, driven by an unprecedented wave of over 50 resignations from conservative government ministers due to their lack of confidence in his leadership, the conservative party entered a fierce leadership race.
As of late, the two remaining candidates are Foreign Secretary Liz Truss and former Chancellor Rishi Sunak. They have both proposed a range of policies on the most pressing current issues, including the cost of living crisis and taxation.
However, as global warming is swiftly approaching catastrophic levels, climate change seems to be regarded as an alarmingly low priority among our two potential future prime ministers. Whilst both have rightfully pledged to honour the 2050 net-zero target, there is a distinct lack of concrete proposals between them. Statistics show that climate action is the bottom priority for conservative party members in this leadership race, with just 4% declaring that hitting net-zero is their top priority in the new Prime Minister, a survey by YouGov shows.
Although the candidates are simply electioneering at this stage, a lack of concrete promises may well give rise to a lack of concrete actions.
Truss’s Climate Action Proposals
Despite speaking of ‘accelerating our transition to net-zero’ at COP26, some of Truss’s proposals may potentially hinder this goal.
For instance, during her time as environment secretary, she cut subsidies for solar farms, claiming them to be a ‘blight on the landscape.’ Such actions greatly detriment hopes of transitioning to green energy sources, which would reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, helping us to reach our net-zero targets. Truss seems unwilling to make the necessary sacrifices to save our planet, a worrying quality for the potential future Prime Minister of the 6th largest economy in the world. This is further evidenced in her plans to suspend the green levy to address the cost of living crisis.
Furthermore, she has spoken of plans to review the ban on fracking, a process which has extreme environmental consequences and causes great damage to landscapes and ecosystems. This proposal seems to contradict many of her others, such as her bid to protect biodiversity, pledging to the CEN that she will ‘continue to protect Britain’s biosecurity, biodiversity and natural environment,’ and her previously mentioned view on solar farms.
She also says the UK needs to build more nuclear power plants. Relying on nuclear power may help us reach our net-zero targets, but this is the only proposal she has made to this effect. It is also important to note that nuclear power is not a renewable energy source, suggesting that Truss’s plans are not the best way forwards.
Sunak’s Climate Action Proposals
Sunak has repeatedly highlighted the importance of green energy in our bid for net-zero by 2050 but has laid out very few concrete proposals, simply choosing to make vague claims about what needs to be done. This is most likely in the hopes to win over voters by not discussing the sacrifices they may have to make.
For instance, he emphasises the need for green energy and economic growth to meet net-zero and claims that politicians need to make sure they ‘bring people with them’ rather than hurtling towards net-zero targets. However, his plans on how he will achieve that are limited to maintaining the ban on building new on-shore windfarms and starting to expand offshore farms in place of that.
He has previously made promises to make the UK the ‘first ever net-zero aligned global financial centre,’ but has also been accused of blocking green policies with spending implications whilst he was in the treasury. Just like Truss, his approach seems contradictory and arbitrary.
What does this mean?
Both candidates are attempting to appeal to their voter base, a demographic that generally does not view the climate crisis as a top priority. Therefore, their campaigns are understandably geared toward other issues, albeit irritatingly. Their attitudes and proposals toward the climate crisis will only be fully revealed if they are elected.
However, it is frighteningly evident that the two candidates seem to lack the sense of urgency that is vital to tackle this crisis in a way that will save our planet from collapsing and prevent the impending disaster. Both candidates seem to be unwilling to make sacrifices or make significant changes to how our country operates. Their lack of promises at this stage gives them an excuse, upon being elected, to do very little for our planet.
Source List
Comments