Will new UK PM get away with economic growth at expense of climate/environment?

original title: Should Labour really value its economic ambitions over its environmental duty?

by helena Horton in ‘Down to Earth’ Guardian magazine

On the face of it, Rachel Reeves and Liz Truss have almost nothing in common. One is the Labour chancellor, the other a hard-right former Tory prime minister most recently seen courting Donald Trump stateside. While Reeves has taken a very cautious approach to fiscal policy, vowing to rule with an “iron fist”, Truss did the opposite; ignoring the experts to announce a series of unfunded tax cuts, crashing the economy and spectacularly torpedoing her short-lived premiership.

But listen to Reeves’ growth speech on Wednesday, and to other recent comments she has made, and you might think she had employed Truss as a ghostwriter. Gone are the days Reeves spent in opposition, vowing to be the “first green chancellor” and vowing that climate targets would be the heart of her policies. Now, she is pursuing growth at any cost.

Reeves even went so far as to tell those at the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos last week that growth is more important than net zero – despite the UK having a legally binding target set in 2008 to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050.

This puts into context her commitment to expand Heathrow, Gatwick and Luton airports – against the recommendations of the Climate Change Committee. If the expansions go ahead, it shows that, for this Labour government, economic growth certainly does trump net zero. This is also illustrated by government plans to massively expand artificial intelligence capacity in the UK, seemingly with little regard for the huge water and energy needs it is predicted the industry will need.

Farcically, when Reeves was asked by the Times whether she had a preference between bats and great crested newts, Reeves replied: “Neither, because I want growth.”

Liz Truss has made similar comments, criticising net zero as a drag on economic growth, branding nature charities an “anti-growth coalition” and planning to deregulate in investment zones, allowing for development that rode roughshod over environmental concerns. Similarly, the Labour government is looking at creating areas with fewer constraints on planning, where environmental laws have less heft.

They are also bringing changes to the planning system, which would mean developers can build without providing an environmental impact assessment for their project. Such assessments aim to stop developments damaging the environment, and make mitigation of any damage part of the planning consent. In future, however, developers may be given the go-ahead to build if they pay into a general nature restoration fund.

Keir Starmer also seems to be taking lessons from Truss. The prime minister vowed to weaken the powers the public have to bring judicial reviews regarding the environment when they think that an infrastructure project is breaking the law. As a former director for public prosecutions, Starmer should know that it is rare for the courts to hear cases that do not have any merit. But it appears he thinks judges, as well as fish, newts and environmentalists, are getting in the way of growth.

Recently, the prime minister singled out a veteran nature campaigner as an environmental “zealot” who was getting in the way of growth because of his two-year campaign to stop a road being built in Norfolk, accusing him of “self-righteous virtue signalling” and vowing to stop the courts from hearing such cases. But this is not an issue with the courts or judiciary – it’s the result of laws Starmer has voted for and campaigned to keep, such as the Environment Act 2021 and the EU-derived environmental laws put at risk by Truss in her short-lived premiership.

If Reeves and Starmer really want to clear a path for industrial development and economic growth at all costs, they will have to amend or repeal these laws. That would require their MPs to vote in favour of removing protections for beautiful landscapes and precious wildlife in their own constituencies.

This is perhaps why they are choosing to blame newts, judges and nature campaigners instead – another lesson they may have taken from Truss’s time in power was when she tried to force her MPs to vote in favour of fracking. They didn’t fancy causing uproar – and earthquakes – in their constituencies, and the ensuing rebellion and chaos was the nail in the coffin for her time as prime minister.

Though Starmer and Reeves have a huge majority, they should be wary of waging a war on nature. The British public and their MPs will not put up with it for long.