Sez report

1.2.8.2. A priority for Britain 
Britain has some catching up to do; other nations are leading the field in the greening of their 
economies. Japan leads the way on hybrid car technology. Germany spends more than twice what we 
spend on research into nanotechnology. The US wants to lead the development of the hydrogen 
economy. Other countries have already taken the lead in developing renewable energy technology 
from wind ($18bn market in 2006) and solar photo voltaics ($16bn market in 2006). The UK drags its 
feet on facilitating clean coal demonstration plants, despite all the evidence of their potential.
Britain under Labour has been dangerously slow to wake up to the fact that the need to transform the 
world’s energy and transport infrastructures represents one of the greatest wealth creation 
opportunities since the Industrial Revolution. Britain led that process and profited enormously from it. 
Conservatives should see the same opportunity in the Low Carbon Revolution.
In this we would place particular emphasis on the opportunity for small businesses to profit. Small and 
medium sized businesses should be the lifeblood of the British economy, but in recent years have been 
stifled, by complex and unnecessary regulations emanating from government, and often supported by 
the anti-competitive power of big business. Radical incentives to drive energy efficiency should work 

---

24 
with the grain of growing concern about energy bills among small companies. A simpler approach to 
regulation, a clearer direction of travel and a genuinely level playing field provided by government 
should help to redress the balance. So too will the emphasis we place on localism and the diffusion of 
power. All this should make small businesses better placed to create the radical new innovations that 
will make our economy genuinely sustainable. 
A new Conservative administration must be the catalyst for a step change in business attitudes towards 
greenhouse gas emissions and natural resources. We must put greater resource productivity at the heart 
of our value system and become a lot smarter about how we use energy and natural resources. The 
cleanest and cheapest power plant is the one that is not built because it is not needed. 
Given the unacceptable levels of waste in our economic and energy system, we see a big financial 
upside for Britain in this agenda. Every £ saved on energy, water or waste management is a £ that can 
be reinvested more productively or returned to shareholders and taxpayers. The more efficient we are 
in our use of resources, the more competitive our cost base. Reducing our demand for fossil fuels can 
only improve our energy security as we move towards being an energy importer in the age of ‘peak 
oil’.
A war on waste and a commitment to the protection of our natural resources is consistent with 
traditional Conservative values. It also reflects an understanding of modern consumer attitudes which 
are shifting in response to higher energy prices and growing engagement with recycling and the 
management of waste. We must align ourselves with the progressive voices in business such as the 
Corporate Leaders Group and 3C. To engage business leaders, we need to engage the three audiences 
that really matter to them – customers, shareholders and employees. Success will create a virtuous 
circle where the the best of business will drive the politicians to be more ambitious to get the best for 
business. We want Britain to prove the principle of Green Growth – to show that we can grow our 
economy without damaging the environment. In the context of climate change it is not a choice; it is a 
moral imperative reinforced by economic interest.
1.2.9. Green growth: absolute limits 
Even without the threat of climate change, the kinds of things which we are recommending would 
make the UK economy cleaner, leaner and more efficient. However a greening of economic growth 
does not just involve a series of green tweaks to the ‘business as usual’ model. Human activities are 
ultimately constrained by environmental limits. The problem with relying solely upon ‘green growth’ 
is that it deals primarily with mitigating the 
relative
impacts of consumption, but fails to respect 
absolute
environmental limits. Putting a price on environmental damage is important but it can only 
take us so far. Other mechanisms must also be used to protect and enhance the environment.
We may, for example, need regulations to set aside crucial areas or vulnerable habitats,. A fixation on 
the idea that the market can manage all things if ‘externalities’ are ‘internalised’ is wrong, firstly 
because of the scale and urgency of the challenge which means that we simply do not have time for the 
market to ‘adjust over time’, and secondly, because we have a far from perfect understanding of the 
complex interactions between the climate, biosphere, soils and other elements which make up the 
delicate balance of the Earth. We know too little of the potential implications of the changes in sea 
p.h., temperature and salinity. We don’t fully comprehend how these interact with climate or how 
climate impacts on sea life and the fish stocks upon which large sections of the global population rely. 
It is areas of debate such as this that it is clearly not possible to put a value and ‘price’ on the natural 
world. Simply to ignore anything of which we are not certain would be irresponsible so we have to 
protect where we cannot be utterly certain. 
If, however, our appetite for material goods continues on its current trajectory, it is unlikely that 
resource-use efficiency in and of itself will halt or reverse our impacts on the planet, and in particular 

---

25 
its ability to maintain a stable climate. It is also crucial to understand that in some circumstances 
increasingly efficient or ‘greener’ production processes can lower the costs to business and thus, 
paradoxically, ultimately lead to higher total rates of production and consumption. 
Simply cleaning up existing lifestyles and patterns of economic growth will not take us far enough, not 
least if we are to achieve equitable global development within the natural limits of the planet. After all, 
if everyone on Earth equalled the resource consumption of our citizens here in the UK, it would take 
three planets to support us. If we all aspired to US patterns it would demand five planets.
The issue is not whether but when we recognise that fact. The current economic model, relying on 
universal cheap energy, is bust. There are sticking plaster solutions but, in the end we have to find an 
alternative way forward. Sensibly, we should do that before we damage the environment irreversibly. 
If we are stupid, we’ll fail to act now and then seek the solution in extremis when, even if an answer is 
still possible, it will be immeasurably more difficult and infinitely more expensive. If society at large 
can shift its thinking away from ‘what can I buy?’ to ‘what do I want from life?’ or ‘what needs do I 
have?’ then perhaps we can decouple economic growth from resource input. This is our challenge. 

---

26 
Section 1.3. The Journey
1.3.1. Summary 
We have established the need to move beyond an economy focused solely on economic growth to a 
‘wellbeing economy’ – one focused on environmental and social outcomes as well. In order to do this, 
the key actors in society need to be engaged. The government, the market, individuals and 
communities should all play their part.
Government’s job in this regard is to create the correct economic and political framework; one which 
rewards responsible behaviour and penalises that which damages the environment or social structures. 
The means which a Conservative government will need to use to achieve this are fivefold: the market 
and regulation; individuals and communities; business; public procurement; and national sovereignty. 
Our proposals in each area include: