Politics, Economics and Climate Action
In January the House of Commons Library published an update on the UK economy which noted its recent slow growth and that the government “has repeatedly said that growth is its number one, or defining, mission”. It went on to describe some of the plans proposed by Chancellor Rachel Reeves to achieve growth. These included plans to improve infrastructure; deregulation and simplification of environmental protection rules to remove barriers to growth; and measures intended to boost investment from UK businesses and from abroad (Harari, 2025).
In February
an online article from Politico reported on the attitude of the Conservative opposition
led by Kemi Badenoch to the UK’s net zero target, which was signed into law by
former Prime Minister Theresa May in June 2019. While “Badenoch insists she
wants to tackle climate change” she and her team “say the target damages the
country” and want to abandon it. The Shadow Energy Secretary Andrew Bowie is
reported to have said that the 2050 target “leaves us economically worse off,
and at a competitive disadvantage to other nations” (Wallace, 2025).
Rachel Kyte,
the UK's climate envoy, was reported as saying that “climate action would boost
Britons' security by protecting them from extreme weather like flooding, which
has saturated farms and homes, and by encouraging other countries to do more to
slow global warming” (Seabrook, 2025). The same article states Ms Badenoch’s
opinion that the 2050 target "can't be achieved without a serious drop in
our living standards or by bankrupting us". These claims were “at odds
with findings from the UK's climate advisers, the Climate Change Committee”
according to Seabrook and “come in the wake of US President Donald Trump
attacking US climate laws - rolling back nature protections and wrenching it
out of the landmark Paris Agreement. His actions as head of the world's largest
economy and second-biggest polluter have raised fears others may be emboldened
to follow suit and ditch their own attempts to go green”
The attitude
of the Conservative party towards pursuing net zero emissions and the threat to
finance and growth which it believes would result may become clearer in the
coming months: this post will address some general issues on how attitudes to climate
action vary with position on the political spectrum.
An article
on the Inside Political Science website lists twenty-one political ideologies under
seven group headings from Left to Right. They are: Extreme Left: Communism,
Marxism, Socialism, and Anarchism; Left-Wing: Democratic Socialism and
Progressivism; Centre-Left: Social Democracy, Liberalism, and Environmentalism;
Centrist: Centrism and Moderate Liberalism; Centre-Right: Moderate Right-wing
Politics, Classical Liberalism and Conservatism; Right-Wing: Libertarianism,
Authoritarianism, Nationalism and Traditionalism; Extreme Right: Fascism,
Radical Right-wing Extremism and White Supremacy/Nationalism (Inside Political
Science, 2024).
In contrast
to other ideologies, Environmentalism is described as “not inherently tied to
the left-right political spectrum” although it is “often associated with
left-leaning ideologies due to its emphasis on social justice and
sustainability.” Considering only the narrower spectrum from Left-Wing through
to Centre-Right (i.e. Democratic Socialism to Conservatism) the descriptions
given in the article do indeed show references to environment mainly to the
left of centre. References to promoting the free market are more common right
of centre, along with policies limiting government intervention in markets. Intervention
might include efforts to control greenhouse gas emissions, and some right wing
ideologies may therefore find it difficult to reconcile climate change
mitigation with a free market. From their perspective the growth of an economy
may be linked to the success of free market economics, and growth is seen as
essential to maintaining living standards. The relationship of growth to living
standards needs to be discussed separately; the following sections address Centrism
and its economics; three views of economists on free markets; and an argument
that the free market is necessary for climate mitigation.
Algarhi and
Lagos (2024) claim that despite manifesto differences, once in power, both
right wing and left wing parties in the UK in the past 50 years “tend to
gravitate towards relatively centrist economic policies that lead to highly
converging economic impacts over time.” Centrism is described by the think tank
Centre as “about looking for good policies from both the left and right of the
political spectrum whilst also rejecting the extremes” (Centre, 2025). They list their core ideas as
pragmatism, which makes them pro-business and pro-public services;
evidence-based policy, which involves “looking to other countries and systems
to understand what works”; and using nationalisation and privatisation as tools
when appropriate. Their values include enterprise and innovation; environmental
sustainability; strengthening communities through creating shared spaces; equal
opportunities; and accountability applied to everyone including those in
politics, business and the public services.
The
political differences between economists are entertainingly discussed by Murphy
(2021). In his view the key is how they think markets work. “They are either
true believers, naive optimists or non-believers … The true believers are on
the right wing of politics” and for them “the only reason people exist is to
function within markets.” They also believe that markets send out signals that
are “readily available, free, and always enough for anyone to make all the
decisions that they need to make” but markets can only do this if they are
“kept pure and uncluttered by interference”, meaning government action and
taxation. Right wing economists also believe that markets work instantly, and
that “because we have no other priorities in life” we can be assumed to react
to market signals in the same prompt manner. This means that “government need
never intervene in any issue”. Any failure of the market is therefore due to
government intervention, so that “less regulation, less government and less
tax” is the cure for market ills.
Middle
ground economists accept that markets work, but are “realistic enough to
recognise two problems … that people aren't pure economic automatons … [and
they] take time to react to data.” The result is “the muddled thinking of most
governments in the supposed neoliberal era. The politics these economists
support promote market solutions, but with a string of half-hearted measures
added to the mix to soften the continual blows of market failure.”
The third
group of economists do not believe in the efficacy of market signals. They do
not think that markets fail because of government interference, but because in
practice markets are inherently flawed. They know that market signals “can be
abused to send incorrect information”, and that “markets manufacture wants and
then deny responsibility for the resulting debt oppression and climate change
and straightforward waste, as well as the waste of human lives lived in pursuit
of false dreams.” These economists “rarely say we should get rid of privately
owned business” but do say that markets must be regulated with regard to health
and safety, employee rights, environmental issues and accounting. They want
better democracy, which together with the interests of all people should drive
policy within society, and they suggest that based on evidence “governments
must intervene in the economy if we are to have the best possible outcomes for
all.”
The view
that action to mitigate climate change actually depends on market solutions is
proposed by the Foundation for Economic Education, a think tank in the US which
describes its principles as including “individual liberty, free-market
economics, entrepreneurship, private property, high moral character, and
limited government”. The FEE claims that “If the world is to stave off climate
change, then capitalism and the free market will be among its chief allies.”
This is supported by the observation that since the 1980s “capitalist countries
reduced their greenhouse gas emissions significantly more than non-capitalist
countries.” Figures from the International Energy Agency were quoted to show
that investments in renewable energy have eclipsed those in fossil fuels and
nuclear power, supporting the view that “capitalism has facilitated some of the
most important advances in reducing carbon emissions” (FEE, 2018).
References
Algarhi, A.
S. and Lagos, K., 2024, Have Labour or the Conservatives run the UK economy
better in the past 50 years? New research, The Conversation, online, accessed
21 March 2025
Centre,
2025, About centrism, Centre, online, accessed 26 March 2025 https://centrethinktank.co.uk/centrism/
FEE, 2028,
In the Fight against Climate Change, Free Markets Are Our Biggest Ally,
Foundation for Economic Education, online, accessed 21 March 2025
https://fee.org/articles/in-the-fight-against-climate-change-free-markets-are-our-biggest-ally/
Harari, D.,
2025, Economic update: Slow end to 2024 and growth plans announced, House of
Commons Library, online, accessed 20 March, 2025
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/economic-update-slow-end-to-2024-and-growth-plans-announced/
Inside
Political Science, 2024, Understanding the Political Spectrum from Left to
Right, online, accessed 26 March, 2025
https://insidepoliticalscience.com/political-spectrum-left-to-right/
Murphy, R., 2021,
The differences between right wing, centre ground and non-market believing
economists, Richard Murphy, Funding the Future, online, accessed 26 March, 2025
Seabrook,
V., 2025, Climate action will make British people 'more secure', says UK envoy,
after Badenoch claimed it would hit living standards, MSN, online, accessed 25
March, 2025
Wallace, A.,
2025, The Tories set the UK net zero target. Now they are dumping it, Politico,
online, accessed 20 March, 2025
Comments
Post a Comment