Global Britain: eco warrior or hypocrite?

The UK faces a conundrum: continue to trade with third world countries which damage the environment or cease to and consign millions of people to languish in poverty. This is a dilemma that policy-makers across a wide spectrum face, that of whether to prioritise free trade and anti-poverty measures or anti global-warming measures. However, this dichotomy misses the subtlety in which foreign aid and trade deals can branch the divide. With a fresh new mandate and the Conservatives’ impressive record on conservation and foreign aid, it is more important than ever to make the case for a more radical system of green trade and green aid. This is particularly coupled with the 18-24 voters in the election, over 55% voted for Labour at this last election and only roughly 20% for the Conservatives, and who have been polled to think that the environment is one of their most important issues.

With Brexit looming, the UK has an opportunity to re-evaluate foreign aid and the way it trades in light of global warming. Trade agreements need to be drawn up that maximise our ability to trade with third world countries, that the current EU system penalises. However, the environmental damage from free trade cannot be disregarded. The UK needs to create a system that increases the tariff preferences as beneficiary countries comply with UN conventions on climate change and environmental protection. We also need trade agreements that will spur innovation and support technical innovations through free trade. These market solutions to climate change are all well and good but they may not be enough to tackle climate change and also prevent the untold damage it is causing.

We cannot be hypocrites when it comes to free trade. The UK went through an industrial revolution where we polluted the air and scarred the land, but now we look down on countries that are doing the same thing during their industrial boom. So what's the solution if green trade is not going to be enough? Green aid.

African nations only account for roughly 2-4% of global emissions, but are going to be impacted greatly by global warming, decimating their wildlife, industry, and leading to more famine. We need a system of foreign aid that will protect countries from environmental damage. Britain was said to be a “development superpower” by Penny Mordaunt, and is the only member of the G7 to meet the 0.7% target of GNI being spent on foreign aid. Last year, the budget for foreign aid was £13.9bn; whilst this is commendable, the current system has serious failings. Firstly, the measure used for foreign aid is not fit for purpose. We use ODA - a system which means that many overseas projects we have used for environmental measures do not get recorded in the official figures, and there is less of an incentive to do these measures. The Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy had investments of £575 million in 2017-2018 on overseas projects that didn’t get recorded. Our new prime minister, Boris Johnson wrote a foreword in a HSJ report into global aid calling for “free trade, freedom from oppression, and freedom of thought” to be upheld. The report advocated for a realignment of aid targets, to make spending more flexible but also to redefine aid.

Despite these comments by Johnson, his overall rhetoric has worryingly been erring on the side of reducing foreign aid or merging DfID, which oversees foreign aid, with the Foreign Office. Moreover, his cabinet have been seen to row back on Rory Stewart’s pledges to increase environmental foreign aid. Under Stewart, DfID had said it was committed to spending £3.6bn on climate change between 2016/17 and 2020/21. So how could green aid work? We cannot do it insolation as green free trade must also be pursued to continue lifting people out of poverty. But, the idea that poverty alleviation can mitigate the effects of global warming is untrue. Therefore, we must radically change foreign aid to become greener and divert foreign aid to fund greener projects. Between 2010 and 2017 £680 million of foreign aid was spent on fossil fuels. This must be eradicated. DfID has already made significant achievements such as contributing to the creation of nature protection zones across the world equivalent to the size of Brazil, providing 17 million people with improved access to clean energy and helping over 47 million people to cope with and adapt to the effects of climate change and natural disasters. This is not enough, however, and foreign aid needs to be expanded and focus heavily on exporting UK technology and expertise on how to combat global warming and prepare areas to combat to effects whilst also spurring on innovation.

This may seem like an impossible task but the Conservative Party has an impressive legacy over the last few years of radical changes to global environmental policy. For example, illegal wildlife trade has been dealt with effectively by the Conservatives, with the ivory trade market suffering vastly and criminal prosecutions being introduced - with a ban on these goods. So far, £23 million has been diverted to conservation projects across the world. Moreover, the Conservatives have just pledged £500 million from the international aid budget to export UK expertise in marine habitats for marine conservation and sustainable fishing. Whilst this lobby for foreign aid supporting conservation projects has been incredibly successful and is important, it doesn’t go far enough. We need to go beyond biodiversity and conservation, as whilst they have immeasurable benefits to the environment, they cannot in the short term stave off global warming by themselves. Some may argue that the British people are against foreign aid, as through polling it seems they want it reduced. However, detailed polling shows that the British people are uninformed in regard to foreign aid - thinking it is roughly 20% of GNI. Support for foreign aid increases when the public finds out it is only at 0.7% of GNI.

Global warming is just that: it is global. There is a climate change emergency, and if Britain truly wants to be a global Britain it must position itself in a place to be able to support environmental projects. We must increase our foreign aid budget and make it more efficient so as to support third world countries in environmental measures and reduce global warming, but also protect them from global warming. This must be led with a green foreign trade policy, which is an exciting prospect in the wake of Brexit. But if Britain is going to be a truly green, global Britain, then we must also lead from home. We are hypocrites if we punish third world countries for polluting, and so we must also not be hypocrites by continuing to pollute. The Conservatives pledge to become net-zero by 2050 and measures such as the new green Agriculture Bill and the Conservative pledge to triple tree planting are all steps in the right direction.