ÐÓ°ÉÔ­´´

MARGARET Thatcher’s ‘Green conversion’ at the Royal Society in September
1988 startled environmentalists. Many of them dismissed the initiative as
political opportunism. In an attempt to silence the critics, Christopher
Patten, the environment minister, promised a thorough review of environmental
issues and a considered policy statement of his long-term objectives that
would confirm the government’s Green credentials.

But in a summary of the ensuing White Paper, due to be published at
the same time as the full version in early October, there is little evidence
that the government sees beyond the commitments it has already made, many
of which were agreed as a result of considerable international pressure.

The summary, which New ÐÓ°ÉÔ­´´ has seen, highlights a mishmash of
proposals that are short on practical and financial commitments to ensure
their success. The fuller version may well contain some firmer proposals,
but the abridged summary is noticeably strong on rhetoric and weak on detail.

Notably, however, the government has not shut the door completely on
such radical ideas as a ‘carbon tax’ to discourage overconsumption of fuels
that contribute to global warming. ‘In the long term, action will inevitably
have to include increases achieved through taxation or other means .. in
the relative prices of energy and fuel.’

The preamble describes the White Paper as ‘Britain’s first comprehensive
survey of all aspects of environmental concern – from the street corner
to the stratosphere, from human health to endangered species.’ However,
it reads more like a qualitative and subjective evaluation of environmental
issues with heavy emphasis on ‘encouragement’, ‘promotion’ and ‘guidance’.

The document does not take long to trumpet the government’s adherence
to free market strategies as an essential element of environmental stewardship.
‘The government will look at ways of using the market further to encourage
producers and consumers to act in ways that benefit the environment,’ it
says. ‘We have a moral duty to look after our planet and hand it on in good
order to future generations. That does not mean trying to halt economic
growth.’ Nowhere else in the industrialised world do governments rely heavily
on the private sector for environmental protection. The only rider the British
government offers is that ‘growth has to respect the environment’.

Confirming its support for the carrot and stick approach, the government
says that regulatory policies will ‘continue to be the foundation of pollution
control’. This statement looks reassuring, but it will worry those aware
of how much difficulty the government has had in finding suitable staff
for ‘policing’ organisations such as the Health and Safety Executive and
Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Pollution.

For the scientific community, the White Paper promises more money for
environmental research though it does not say how much nor where the cash
will come from. In a late addition to the conclusions of the document, almost
as an afterthought, the government extols the importance of the work of
scientists and technologists. ‘A major theme is that we need good monitoring
and research, as the basis for all the government’s environmental policies.
Without that, we cannot base our decisions on the best available scientific
and technological advice and analysis.’ After more than 10 years in the
wilderness, researchers in academia and industry may treat this reappraisal
of their worth with caution. The government also promises that the public
sector will do basic research ‘where we need the facts to underpin government
policies and we cannot expect the market to provide them’. This may signal
a change of heart as such research has been underfunded in the past.

The report’s assertion that ‘prevention can often be better and cheaper
than cure’ is welcome but will surprise many environmentalists. The government
has often resisted preventive action on the grounds that scientific evidence
is inconclusive. In the 1980s, Britain earned the tag ‘the dirty man of
Europe’ because of its reluctance to clean emissions from power stations
and halt the damage that acid rain caused to lakes and forests. More recently,
the government resisted international initiatives on global warming before
finally capitulating to international pressure (This Week, 2 June).

Another surprise is the news that ‘the government has made improved
access to information a key part of our new system of pollution control’,
promising to publish ‘comprehensive statistics’ on the state of Britain’s
environment at regular intervals. Despite criticism over the lack of public
information concerning controls on genetically modified organisms, for example,
the summary mentions no new initiatives in this field (This Week, 14 July).

A section on land use underscores the government’s determination to
relieve pressure on the development of greenfield sites by reclaiming more
inner city land that is derelict or contaminated. However, the Department
of the Environment recently opposed the introduction of a national register
to show where the contaminated sites are (This Week, 28 July).

In a blow-by-blow account of all environmental issues of concern, the
White Paper begins by stressing the need for ‘international cooperation
on a scale never before seen’. This is a remarkable U-turn considering the
government’s past reluctance to support directives from the European Council
of Ministers, notably on water quality and beach pollution, and its refusal
to join initiatives such as the ’30 per cent club’ of nations, an alliance
of European countries that pledged during the early 1980s to combat acid
rain by reducing their emissions of sulphur dioxide.

The government promises to encourage developing countries such as China
and India to protect the stratospheric ozone layer and to limit the pollution
that raises global temperatures. The summary says: ‘The government will
contribute financial and technical support to help them achieve the higher
living standards they seek, while conserving fuel and energy.’ The summary
does not say how much Britain is prepared to commit to the programme.

On ozone, the government will examine ways of bringing forward the date
for phasing out chlorofluorocarbons in the EC to 1997. This idea is not
new: it originated during the Montreal Protocol negotiations in London in
July. Thirteen countries, led by Finland and New Zealand, pressed hard for
the earlier deadline but met strong opposition from the US, Japan and the
USSR (This Week, 7 July). The government also restates its pledge to give
developing countries Pounds sterling 9.5 million to assist them in using
more benign alternatives to CFCs. The sum is less than 7 per cent of the
total amount committed by the nations at the London meeting.

Responding to criticism of its efforts to promote energy efficiency,
the government promises to ‘step up’ the work of the Energy Efficiency Office.
For many years, it has been running down the operations of the EEO and few
energy consultants now believe that the organisation can regain its authority.
The Association for the Conservation of Energy says that a new organisation,
independent of government and powerful enough to enforce efficiency, is
required.

The government also pledges to monitor and possibly strengthen energy
efficiency standards for new buildings, and to encourage energy labelling
of houses and appliances, such as washing machines, boilers, fridges and
lightbulbs. Again this is welcome news, as is the government’s stated intention
to push for a new scheme for labelling in Europe. But, again, the government
is rather slow off the mark: Japan, and countries in Scandinavia and North
America, have been enforcing these sort of energy efficiencies for around
10 years; Britain has always resisted telling industry what to put on the
labels of its products.

Mounting criticism of Britain’s lack of investment in renewable energy,
such as wind and waves, has squeezed a promise from the government to review
its policies next year and to ‘reassess its programme of research, development,
demonstration and promotion on all the technologies relevant to Britain’.
This is another startling U-turn: the government has consistently failed
to provide strong incentives for the renewable energy industry and insisted
on strict financial constraints in the run up to the privatisation of the
electricity industry (This Week, 18 August).

The government also vows to ‘work towards’ increasing the capacity of
Britain’s electricity generation from renewable sources to 1000 megawatts
by the year 2000, a tenfold increase on existing capacity, says the summary.
However, this would represent less than 2 per cent of Britain’s generating
capacity – it is technically feasible to meet much more of Britain’s energy
demand from renewable sources.

On transport, the White Paper outlines several schemes to reduce polluting
exhaust emissions. It will encourage vehicle manufacturers to put less emphasis
on speed and acceleration in their advertisements and will consider introducing
taxes to encourage drivers to use less fuel. Similar government initiatives
that have adopted this passive approach, such as those to stop people smoking
cigarettes and to publicise AIDS, have failed miserably. The government
still seems reluctant to force industry to design clean, efficient vehicles.

Against a record of reduced subsidies for public transport and ambitious
plans, costing Pounds sterling 14 billion, to expand Britain’s road network,
the White Paper says the government will ‘encourage provision and use of
public transport’. It is not clear how the government plans to do this.
The firmest promise is that MOT tests will now take into account the quality
of exhaust fumes and the fuel efficiency of vehicles. This idea mirrors
practices introduced in the US in 1978, where old or poorly maintained vehicles
are not allowed on the road if their emissions of nitrous oxides, hydrocarbons
and carbon monoxide exceed specified limits.

Expanding on these themes in a section on ‘towns and cities’, the White
Paper says that the government will ‘promote measures to civilise traffic
in towns, and to reduce congestion through better traffic management and
public transport, including providing bus priority schemes and sensible
parking strategies’. Lobby organisations say that the huge problems of congestion
in cities can be relieved only if people leave their cars at home and switch
to public transport, bicycles and walking. The summary exhorts the public
to follow this advice but makes no positive suggestions on how to ensure
that the public does.

The lobby group Transport 2000 dismisses the proposal in the White Paper
to use ‘red routes’ in London, which would mean heavy parking restrictions
on arterial roads to ease traffic flow. The lobby group says that this would
simply encourage more people to drive into the capital at faster speeds,
adding to pollution and congestion.

Air pollution in cities is so bad now that the White Paper says the
government will set up a group of experts to monitor air quality – though
it makes no promises about how it will use the group’s results or whether
they will be published. The government also proposes to provide guidance,
but nothing stronger, on indoor threats such as radon and cigarette smoke.

Expressing support for the newly created European Environment Agency,
the government outlines goals for all European countries to become ‘self-sufficient
in waste disposal’. This may mean the contraction of an industry that the
government has encouraged but which has caused embarrassment, notably last
year when British ports refused to handle consignments of polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) from Canada destined for incineration in Britain.

In an attempt to counter long-standing criticisms that Britain abuses
the North Sea, the White Paper pledges to ‘work to bring industrial waste
disposal at sea to an end and stop the dumping of sewage sludge and incineration
at sea’. It also pledges to ‘tighten worldwide standards for chemical and
oil discharges at sea’, and to reduce pollution from offshore oil installations.

To help to meet these commitments, the newly privatised water industry
in England and Wales will invest Pounds sterling 28 billion by the year
2000, says the summary. The summary says that Pounds sterling 13.7 billion
will be used to improve sewerage works, including Pounds sterling 2.9 billion
to bring most bathing waters up to European standards by the mid-1990s through
building long sea outfalls and treating the sewage discharged through them.
The government has faced persistent criticism over the state of British
beaches (This Week, 28 July). A further Pounds sterling 1.8 billion will
be used over the next five years to bring drinking water fully up to European
standards.

Responding to criticisms about the state of Britain’s rivers and waterways,
the government pledges ‘to increase maximum fines for water pollution offences’.
It will also strengthen controls of waste from livestock and ‘introduce
new regulations setting minimum standards for the construction of silage,
slurry and agricultural oil stores’.

The government plans to establish ‘legally defined water quality objectives
covering all types of water courses’. The report suggests that the National
Rivers Authority should rely on public spiritedness to help it to do its
job better – an environmental equivalent of the British police force’s Neighbourhood
Watch Scheme, which has not prevented the increase of crime.

In a section on hazardous substances, the White Paper reveals government
intentions for Nirex, the country’s nuclear waste disposal agency, to accelerate
its search for an underground site that could safely accommodate Britain’s
mounting stocks of low and intermediate-level radioactive waste. Nirex has
run into difficulties because of local opposition to the use of potential
sites.

To safeguard and improve rural environments, the White Paper mentions
plans for a new ‘national countryside initiative’ to be worked out with
the Countryside Commission. The government also proposes a new hedgerow
protection scheme, and declares its intention to ‘press the EC where possible
to make support for farmers conditional on action to protect and improve
the environment on farms’. It also advocates a new scheme to plant community
forests.

On recycling, the White Paper promises to widen its support for clean
technologies, press ahead with integrated pollution control and introduce
the long-awaited financial credits for people who recycle materials. And
to meet its target of recycling half the country’s recyclable domestic waste,
as opposed to 10 per cent today, the government states that among other
things, it will ‘work with local authorities to assess the effectiveness
of experimental recycling projects’ and ‘encourage more recycling banks’.
The government seems to have missed the point that many recycling schemes
are not commercially sustainable (see ‘Recycling Britain’, this issue).

The general conclusion of the White Paper is that further policy changes
are likely. ‘The world is not standing still,’ it says. The government promises
to adapt its environmental policies to changing circumstances. The White
Paper says that the government ‘will continue to base its policies in the
future, as now, on the best analysis of all available information, to preserve
and enhance our common heritage’.