To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
The dangers of putting the environment on hold
Share this:
Of course when a States Member exhibits both characteristics, then that’s a very toxic mix which brings me close to ignition.
The views of the senator about States spending are unlikely to change because the senator finds some support in the equally well-researched and thought-through views of many Islanders, including some who you might describe as the business elite.
They know that there’s untold waste in the States and the Island is dragging its feet in ‘modernising’ the public service. Modernising in this context, of course, means ‘making less expensive’, so the possibility that a modernised public service could actually cost more, is not a concept that the good senator would recognise.
The senator therefore continues to push extreme views even though they are based on two totally erroneous premises – (1) that Jersey spends more than comparable jurisdictions on public services, and (2) we are more highly taxed than comparable jurisdictions. Neither premise is true but that doesn’t stop the good senator peddling these myths, despite the senator’s apparent respect for scientific evidence.
However there should be more hope that the attitude towards environmental issues might change because there’s now more proof to show the level of apathy in Jersey towards the environment and how poor are Jersey’s environmental credentials.
This has actually come as something of a surprise even to me because I had always thought the Island was pretty keen to contribute to environmental measures which would help reduce global C02 emissions.
To begin with we’ve got a head start on many other countries because we’re in the lucky position of being able to import nearly all of our electricity from low-carbon sources in France. We largely ignore the emissions created in the production of that energy because it conveniently takes place across the water (although perhaps we shouldn’t), and therefore we come fairly low on the list of C02 emitters.
However, as the recent publication of the Island’s first Better Life Index shows, we still deserve a pretty bad reputation for environmental quality. Indeed among the 37 members of the OECD plus Jersey, the Island is ranked number 30 for environmental quality according to the index. Only the Netherlands, Korea, Greece, Mexico, Turkey and Chile have a worse record for environmental pollution on average.
Of course it depends a lot on where the pollution measurements are taken and in Jersey’s case the amount of particles in the area of substances such as nitrate, sulphate and carbon was measured near the central Market and Havre des Pas.
The readings would have been different on the headland at L’Etacq, for example, but so too would be the number of people in the area enjoying Jersey’s fresh air.
The results are also weighted according to the urban population, but the readings show that the ‘annual mean urban concentration’ of these particles at those sites was broadly similar to those found in London and Bristol, and above the OECD average. This may not be the end of the world, but it’s not something to be proud of either.
So what have we been doing all those years when we have talked a lot about the importance of environmental issues? Yes, well we’ve talked a lot.
There was yet more talk about the environment in the States the other day, and the result was very similar to much of the rest of the debate about the environment, i.e. nothing.
In this case, a private member put forward the idea that Jersey should have a special green initiative fund that would invest in environmental industries and help create ‘green growth’ in the economy which most jurisdictions, except apparently Jersey, believe is vital for the future.
The proposition was lost partly because some States members would vote against anything this particular private member proposed. However it was also obvious that a lot of money would be needed to do the job properly, and many States members have been beaten into submission by the Scrooges in the treasury and the council of ministers who have told them not to spend money on anything unless they like it.
A private member doesn’t stand much of a chance in our political system, which is supposed to laud the independence of States members and the ability of the individual to get things done.
But members recognised that the private member had nevertheless made a powerful argument, so the proposition was lost by only 19 to 26. The bean counters only just won.
So now we can safely put off actually doing anything again and go back to arguing about the environment and the need to create green or sustainable economic growth. There’s plenty of time. The environment can wait. Our competitors can wait.
The frankly appalling aspect of this particular States debate was that the private member was actually criticised by some members for bringing forward the idea of a fund to promote green growth. He should have waited until the big guns on the Council of Ministers was ready to proceed with what should have been a pretty obvious development and which they themselves should have proposed years ago.
But I’ve not heard the chief minister, the treasury minister, the economic development minister or any other minister apart from perhaps the environment minister, make any great fuss about the environment. Sure they are prepared to plough millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money into schemes designed to create work because of our unemployment problem.
I don’t see any of them putting forward a good case for using some of this money to not just create more jobs, but to create more sustainable jobs, and put the Island on the route to green growth. That will not just put more people into work, but solve a few environmental problems along the way, such as putting the economy on a path suited to the 21st century, rather than desperately trying to resuscitate a 20th century economy.
I can’t be sure but it seems to me that most of the Council of Ministers are still at the stage of looking at the environment as a cost which is going to slow down economic growth. They don’t see the opportunities, and therefore don’t put the environment at the heart of everything they do. It’s something to be shouted about only when we need to buff up our green credentials.
Unfortunately it may be a bit more important than that but let’s just hope, as I say, that the environment (and our competitors) can wait for us to get real.
Peter Body
Related