Ian Pearson MP, Minister of State, DEFRA, led a discussion on the future priorities in environment policy for the Government over the next decade, in the first seminar in the 2007 EPN programme.

Secretary of State for Climate Change, Ian Pearson MP, addressed an Environmental Policy Network seminar chaired by Sunder Katwala, General Secretary of the Fabian Society, on 07th March 2007. Amongst network members, participants included representatives of the energy industry, environmental organisations, business interests and Members of Parliament. Ian Pearson broadly introduced a number of key issues prominent in Defra's approach to addressing climate change, as well as a range of aspects of the emerging environmental debate.

A series of points were raised about the very nature of the climate change debate itself. The environment was recognised as a key electoral battleground of the future, and questions were raised as to whether the government is doing enough to champion environmental arguments, not least in areas such as road pricing and congestion charging for example. Participants noted the need for the government to offer a compelling environmental vision, and to reframe the debate within a suitably long-term perspective, allowing adequate timescales for business planning. In this regard, one participant questioned the merits of encouraging a party political debate on the environment, suggesting greater political stability and certainty would be assured by the creation of political consensus in the area. Nonetheless, the UK was noted as a particularly apposite forum for moving these debates forward.

Discussion also covered the business case for environmental action, and the need to better regulate the carbon off-setting market was accepted as central to creating the right incentives for sound environmental investment. In this respect, the potential for investment in off-setting projects in the developing world was seen as significant, and a market mechanism for funding that offers far greater efficiency and scope than delivering funds through the World Bank or other international organisations was seen as essential. Questions were also raised as to the remit of domestic regulators such as OFGEM, whose priorities, it was suggested, may no longer be aligned with government policy.

In terms of specific solutions to climate change, the absence of heat energy from the remit of OFGEM was noted as particularly problematic. Similarly, the absence of combined heat and power from the debate was noted as unfortunate, and requiring a better mix of incentives to promote its uptake. Indeed, heat and transport were seen as two weak points of the energy review requiring greater attention in policy terms. There was some discussion of the potential of carbon sequestration, which it was recognised will be likely to play a key role in the fight against climate change. Difficulties with the planning system were also noted, in terms of its slowness and tensions between national and local objectives. In this regard, there were mixed feelings about the potential of the Independent Planning Commission to make a positive difference.

There was also discussion of the best means to enhance 'carbon literacy' amongst the wider population. It was noted that always presenting climate change as a problem for either national governments or the EU ETS, for example, can tend to absolve individual citizens of their responsibilities. It was suggested that schools and the voluntary sector should have an important role to play in this area. Ultimately, the ability to engage all relevant parties in a progressive approach to climate change was recognised as essential.

Back to Government Priorities in Tackling Climate Change