restructure tax system| Fossil fuel ban | Technology | Planning | Our homes | Nuclear power | Foreign policy

Environmental policies

Our policies to encourage a technology revolution

policy document in pdf format

Restructure our tax system to incentivise change

The good news is that we will phase out income tax, corporation tax and VAT. We will replace the lost revenue with taxes on fossil fuels (with safeguards for those on low incomes and in special circumstances). This will send a strong price signal to all markets to start working out how to avoid or reduce their use of fossil fuels wherever they can.

A fossil fuel ban in 20 years’ time

We will introduce a complete ban on emitting warming gases in the UK, to come into effect in 20 years’ time. This clear, advance notice will give everyone 20 years to adjust, and will be a spur to action. (Note: the tax system proposed above will be readjusted at that time.)

Technology

In the 1940s the allies assembled their top scientists for the Manhattan Project to invent the atomic bomb. We will introduce a Green Manhattan Project to kickstart innovation in all the science and technologies we need. We will invest in new technology with the same intensity as for World War II, when we perfected radar, the jet engine, sonar and countless vital innovations in record time. We can do it again.

back to top

Planning and industrial policies

We will streamline planning policies to enable rapid development of new energy sources. Investment in renewable capacity should be encouraged with guaranteed fixed prices for selling power for a fixed period. We will invest heavily in renewables, and commission nuclear power, as carefully and safely as possible, to meet any extra need.

Our homes

We support the aim of making each person’s home self-sufficient in energy, and even to become a power-generating source for each homeowner and the nation. This will reduce dependency on big oil, coal and electricity and insecure imports.

We will change the way utility companies bill us. Current bills have a high fixed standing charge, and often a decreasing price per unit consumed. This means that the first units, which virtually all of us need, are very expensive, but subsequent units, which many of us could reduce by simple energy-saving measures, are relatively cheap. The result is that the reduction in the bill for any energy that you save is of little value. We will eliminate the standing charge and make the first units cheap and subsequent ones increasingly more expensive. This will result in large savings if you cut down your usage.

back to top

Pro nuclear

We need every watt of carbon-free power-generating capacity. We must go full speed ahead with both renewables and nuclear — there is no contradiction. We need nuclear, at least for the immediate future, to see us through to a new era where we derive our energy from sustainable and renewable sources.

We are in favour of nuclear power, not because it is perfect, but because it is the least bad option we have. This is our take on the standard objections to nuclear power:

• It’s dangerous, like Chernobyl: Yes, Chernobyl was scary. However, 10 simultaneous Chernobyl disasters would arguably still be less of a threat to human health than the ordinary use of existing coal-fired stations. Overall, nuclear’s safety record is better than all other major forms of energy generation. • It’s expensive: But if we use private investment, surely the economics is up to the investors? • It takes too long: But if we needed it for a war, I bet we could do it fairly quickly. • It will crowd out renewables: But if we move away from fossil fuels, we will need everything we can get – there is room for all. • What about the waste? Handling the waste is technically feasible, and the amount is surprisingly small. The problem is the politics of where to put it. With enough will, that is solvable. First, we need to reuse the material to generate all the energy possible. Then we need to find geologically stable and impermeable granite formations with no faults, drill deep holes and cap them off, leaving no more than a background count at the surface. As leader of the party I would be willing to live close to such a site as long as the count was background. It might even be a useful source of heat. • Decommissioning: Forget decommissioning; just build a new station on the old sites. • Terrorists could blow up the stations: They haven’t so far, but we should be extra careful. It is a risk. • Nuclear weapons proliferation: This is a risk too. However, it will happen in any event. We can do a lot to design the proliferation risk out of power generation. Our party would rather take our chances with a terrorist than with global warming..

We know nuclear power works, and it can step in until we get better at generating energy from renewables. For example, France has for many years received some 80% of its electricity from nuclear power. Nuclear is much less risky for the planet than fossil fuels, although we should have the most sensible designs and the best safeguards

It must be done thoughtfully, cognisant of the risks, but we should not reject it because of excessive fears and prejudices, only to do something worse. It is important to remember also that the new nuclear technologies are much safer and work on a smaller scale. They should be tried.

Like you, we don’t trust people not to make mistakes. However, amongst the general fear of radiation, there are some crumbs of comfort. The really nasty stuff created in a nuclear explosion tends to be quite short-lived. That is why you have been able to stand safely, though sombrely, at Hiroshima’s ground zero since soon after the war. Any harm declines with the square of the distance away from you, so any distance you can place between yourself and a radiation source very soon becomes an effective barrier. Geiger counters are cheap and reliable pieces of equipment, and very sensitive to any radiation – most schools have one. It is therefore difficult to hide radiation from the public. Life evolved in a world that was far more radioactive than today, and appears to have a higher tolerance than one would imagine.

There are far worse things we do casually to our world on a daily basis than nuclear power. The ongoing mass production of long-lived harmful chemicals, which life has not evolved with, is one. Cutting down the rainforest is another, as are the widespread burning of coal and the plundering of the oceans. These are things that we live with and accept every day, but they do immeasurably more harm to the planet and to us as individuals than nuclear power.

back to top

Foreign policy

Whatever we do in the UK is pointless unless other countries stop their emissions too. We therefore need to lead by example and persuade others to join in. We are confident that they, too, will want the abundant cheap, clean energy we will develop, and we will be happy to sell it to them.

We will gear foreign aid and development loans to protecting earth’s natural climate-control systems. The tropical rainforest is a key example. The forest creates thick white cloud at the equator, which reflects much of the sun’s heat, like a parasol. Without the forest, the cloud will not form, and the heat will stream in. We are allowing this precious shield to be destroyed by a few desperados and opportunists seeking to make a few pennies – some even in the name of biofuels. Surely we can put this right? Saving the forest is one of the most profitable things we can do — the land is cheap.

We should promote female education everywhere. This is a practical and effective way to slow world population growth — which is a very urgent priority.

Our philosophy    Election 2010    Our policies       Policy Comparison     THe eco-conomy