Green futures

Editorial
The Guardian, Tuesday 23 December 2008

Seeking light in the coming darkness, it has become commonplace for politicians to hope for a green revolution that could rescue jobs and the economy as well as the planet. Gordon Brown was at it last Friday in his final press conference of the year, promising to "build tomorrow's world today" by making Britain "a world leader in cutting edge technology". Barack Obama, of course, wants the same thing and has unveiled a committed team of scientific advisers in order to achieve it. "Today, more than ever before, science holds the key to our survival as a planet and our security and prosperity as a nation," he said at the weekend.
The Obama lineup is heartwarming for anyone who feared that his message of change might turn out to be hype - on climate change, at least there is substance. His team is informed, outspoken and determined to break with the murky legacy left by George Bush. Jane Lubchenco, for instance, an environmental scientist and marine ecologist who has been picked to run the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, is a conservationist of the sort kept far from power by the oil-soaked Texans who have run America for the past eight years.
The catch, as energy secretary Ed Miliband pointed out yesterday, is that the benefits of new environmental technologies remain some way off, but the need for them is getting stronger by the day. He is caught between the immediate need for energy, and the equally pressing need for carbon emission reductions. Yesterday the head of the national grid warned that lights in Britain will start going off within seven years, without massive investment in the country's antique power generating infrastructure. Logic suggests that the £100bn he suggests the grid needs should be spent on clean technologies. But, other than wind power, which cannot in itself meet demand, the technology - carbon capture and storage for instance - is not ready. Even new nuclear power cannot be brought online so quickly, which is why Mr Miliband finds himself pressed to allow new coal plants in Britain even though, environmentally, that is obviously the wrong thing to do.
On top of that, the new technology is also supposed to provide jobs. As the energy secretary admitted yesterday, Britain has been better at rhetoric than reality. "The great irony of this [is] that America, which is a very laissez-faire country, does a huge amount to support some of these new industries." The lure of a green new deal does not make getting one underway easy. It will take massive investment and cross-European coordination, and not everything that it produces will work. But it is also something that only government can organise. In America, the Obama team is already starting to discuss specific projects that could be funded with some of the $700bn stimulus plan he plans to put in place - investment in solar and wind technology, and a new grid to carry power to where it is needed. Britain can not compete on this broad scale, which makes it all the more important that the government is clear about which technologies it does want to back. Sweeping talk of change will come to nothing if it is not pegged down with specifics. As today's Guardian story on emissions from public buildings shows, the state's failings begin at home. Grand plans to green the Palace of Westminster have faltered.
In the search for British technologies with export potential, the government should prioritise tidal energy - the Pentland Firth alone has the potential to power the equivalent of London, and UK firms lead the way. Tidal power could fuel electric vehicles - where again skills here are more advanced than many think. So rescue Jaguar and Land Rover, if necessary. But if the green revolution is to mean anything, the cars they produce must no longer be gas guzzlers. That is not a daydream. Together, Europe and America could make it happen.