Reform UK and the climate – why long-term vision is a necessity

At Reform UK’s “Contract with You” launch this election, amidst all of the talk about freezing immigration and the proclaimed need to protect British identity, we saw Nigel Farage lamenting over climate change and proposed climate responses. “We must not impoverish ourselves” is a stand-out phrase found in the “contract”. However, millions are already in poverty, with job and food insecurity at levels never seen before. Farage suggests that the pursuit of net-zero climate emissions is “crippling our economy”, but scrapping climate targets and subsidies will not instantly increase the economic standing of those already in poverty. The short-term logic is there, but in the long-term, even Farage acknowledges a need for cleaner energy. We must ask if any of the proposed cuts under a Reform UK banner will improve lives, or if they will merely serve to row back on the progress made in protecting the UK population from climate change.

Failure to counter global warming could see UK public sector net debt rising to 300% of GDP by the end of the century.

In the one page dedicated to the climate, titled “Net Zero”, the party splits their policies in two. The first is their immediate approach, and the second is their long-term strategy. Three policies make it into the “contract” for the first 100 days of any Reform government. The first, unsurprisingly, is “Scrap Net Zero”. This is followed by two brief lines that claim the ditch of “net zero” targets could save the public sector over £30 billion per year for the next 25 years. This statement has become a key tactic of Reform UK’s press, with their “common sense” approach winning support amongst many who have been disappointed with what they see as a leftward move by the Conservatives.

Yet, many analysts have looked into these policies and concluded that despite saving £30 billion a year, failure to counter global warming could see UK public sector net debt rising to 300% of GDP by the end of the century, due to the economic shocks provoked by a hotter climate. While nobody denies that climate policies will not be perfect, the need to strive for a moderate global temperature increase compared to an intolerable one remains the same.

It is uncertain whether scrapping subsidies would reduce costs as opposed to increasing prices even further.

Secondly, the party urges that by scrapping an annual £10 billion of renewable energy subsidies, and replacing them through taxes, we can reduce their cost, with the aim of making them more affordable for working families. This argument lies in the logic that many firms producing renewable energy, and that receive a subsidy, effectively take it as profit, meaning that they don’t reduce their prices as a subsidy would traditionally encourage. However, it is uncertain whether scrapping subsidies would reduce costs as opposed to increasing prices even further. This method also acts a sharp contrast to current environmental campaigns, who continue to pressure policymakers to implement stricter regulations, binding targets, and an approach in which the government seeks to incentivise the production of green energy sources.

The third and final of these “critical” reforms is “cheap, secure energy for Britain.” Reform UK hopes to achieve energy security through the fast-tracking of licenses for North Sea gas and oil. There is no doubt that the UK sits on a gold mine of unused energy, and during the backdrop of global uncertainty, making use of these resources in the short term appears logical. However, beyond this, there appears to be little from those who advocate this approach with regard to the long-term de-escalation of the fossil fuel industry. Of course, using these resources could reduce the cost of energy, but to the detriment of our environment, and arguably only serving as a short-term solution.

In a world where urgent action is needed, merely slowing the rate of growth in emissions will do little to truly combat the question of environmental sustainability.

In terms of Reform UK’s long-term policies, there is only one. This section, titled “cleaner energy from new technology” does appear to have some viable solutions. Perhaps less sensational than scrapping targets and funding, these tech solutions haven’t received the same media attention as their other environmental policies. Under this policy, Reform UK has promised to deliver fast-tracked clean nuclear energy, centred in Britain. This is intended to create new job opportunities, as well as incentivise ethical lithium mining and seek cleaner ways to extract resources. Whilst this policy does little to completely reduce emissions, it does offer a policy to slow down the rate of growth. However, in a world where urgent action is needed, merely slowing the rate of growth in emissions will do little to truly combat the question of environmental sustainability.

As a set of ideas, the policies are possibly more suited to deal with the issue of climate change as it was seen in the 1980s, but for the 2020s, much more action is required at an urgent rate. Whilst cutting duties on fuel and reducing the cost of these energy sources could help people suffering, these are merely short-term solutions to a long-term issue. To achieve real action on the climate, there must be a universal commitment to sustainable investment, and most importantly, ambitious, binding targets to work towards. Whilst some of their policies could make life easier for those suffering the most, the consequences not too far down the line could place the policies of Nigel Farage and his party into a context of severely lacking in detail, let alone action.