86% of London’s corporate sustainability experts want to remain in the EU

On the 11th May The Crowd hosted a debate on whether the UK is better off remaining in or leaving the EU from an environmental policy perspective, with over 200 corporate sustainability executives. The final poll result was emphatic: 86% voted to remain, 9% to leave, and 5% were unsure.


Was it a victory for remain or for intelligent debate? What startled us most was the positive atmosphere in the room after the debate. With much of the national debate focusing on emotion and sound bites, both sides can quickly become fearful of the wrong outcomes. Thanks to the passionate but intelligent positions of our experts, there was a feeling that both outcomes could be OK as long as we have the right people making decisions.


We had some of the leading minds on both sides of the argument, with tight moderation by Axel Threlfall. We began with an overview of our environmental policy relationship with the EU from The IEEP’s David Baldock, who made it clear that there needs to be a lot of upside if we are to undergo a period of considerable environmental policy uncertainty. The remain argument was articulately made by Caroline Lucas MP and Professor Paul Ekins, with support from Lord Marks. Michael Liebreich and Lord Callanan made the case for leaving the EU.


There were so many good points, but here are four arguments that we found striking.


The EU undermines our cultural willingness for environmental policy


Michael Liebreich made an argument for leaving that we hadn’t heard before, and which generated a lot of conversation afterwards. He said the existence of Europe means a lot of our environmental lobbing is focused on Brussels rather than Westminster, which takes debate and education out of the UK. When policies then arrive from Brussels, they are then seen to be imposed by the mother ship, which increases them being unpopular.


“The fact is why would any NGO bother doing all the campaigning for all these things to influence the Tory party, my party or to change the debate in this country when quite clearly you get funded in Brussels to do so. And then the results are imposed… The politicians don’t really mind because they can turn out and say it’s Brussels fault.” – Michael Liebreich said.


The EU provides important environmental policy stability


One of the grounding arguments for remain is closely linked to the nature of the UK election cycle. When a newly elected government changes environmental policies it weakens the business case for key internal decision makers, diminishing the company’s willingness to respond. The EU protects against such volatility and gives credibility and security for companies to invest. Businesses would rather have a slow moving stability rather than fast moving volatile political environment.


Environmental problems need to be solved through collaboration


We had a healthy debate on air pollution, with all panelists agreeing that the London has one of the worst air pollution in Europe. For Lord Callanan that’s a sign that the European approach isn’t working. But for Caroline Lucas it is an example of why we need to collaborate more on policy. “Environmental problems do not queue politely at borders waiting for their passports to be checked. They are by their very nature cross border and therefore need cross border solutions.” Echoing his partner point, Professor Paul Ekins says: “if you want to collaborate, you have to be a member of the club.”


The EU lacks an understanding of environmental innovation


A big thrust of Michael Liebreich’s argument was that we need innovation to tackle environmental challenges, and he cited Elon Musk as example of why we can be optimistic. His views drew a lot of discussion on Twitter, #crowdforum. Michael told the audience that very few Horizon 2020 grants go towards environmental innovation – there are only 2 graphene projects, for example – whilst there are hundreds of social engagement projects. “We can only make environmental progress through innovation. Europe is not innovative” – he said. 


At the beginning of the debate, Axel Threlfall quotes some of the latest public polls, which are showing around a 45% Remain vote. The question we’re pondering over is why we got such a different outcome for this vote from the national vote. Is it because environmental policy requires more collaboration than other areas of policy making? Is our community just more collaborative than the population at large? Are we lacking in little Englanders? Whatever is the answer to that question, one thing we know for sure is that if the vote on the 23rd June is for Brexit, this community will feel a significant sense of loss.  


Watch the full EU referendum debate here.


Elina Yumasheva is head of content at The Crowd. 

  • twitter
  • fb
  • stumble
  • linkedin
  • reddit
  • email

What EU referendum could mean to the UK environment?

Several aspects of the UK’s relationship with the EU have been chewed over, or at least skimmed over, in recent weeks as the media has laid its own foundations for the referendum. Largely absent from the cavalcade however have been some of the areas of policy where the EU is most active. Amongst these is the environment. Environmental policy has become a joint effort between the EU and its constituent countries over the last four decades and now it would be difficult to unpick the purely national from the European, as noted by the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee earlier this week. 


There are at least three reasons for this. First, many of the key environmental issues are cross-border by their nature. These include the response to climate change, the management of the marine environment and the conservation of migratory species. Second, there is an economic logic in agreeing common standards and approaches to many issues inside a single market where there are no barriers to trade. Common technical barriers, for example on polluting emissions from cars, on the levels of chemicals and heavy metals in consumer products and the energy efficiency of electrical appliances, prevent indirect barriers to trade and avoid giving competitive advantage to countries adopting lower standards. Third, there is the historical reality that governments have proved more comfortable in making long term decisions, for example in reducing water pollution and building a low carbon economy, when their neighbours and partners commit to the same obligations as well. This is partly a question of political courage. Facing possible short term opposition and potential costs for the sake of longer term gains is more palatable if others are doing it as well. The chances of facing unfair competition from those less committed to sustainability are greatly reduced when there are relatively consistent rules applying throughout the EU. 


Nearly all the studies examining the EU’s record on the environment come to similar conclusions. Standards have been raised, pollution has fallen, new processes and targets have been put in place; the influence of European countries in international negotiations almost certainly is enhanced by acting together within the EU. Decisions can be slow as there is extensive discussion and consultation; some are difficult to change which can be a drawback but the solidity of the policy provides industry with greater regulatory predictability than purely national law. Club membership has both merits and frustrations, not unexpectedly. However, the recent reports from the House of Commons, a group of academics led by Andrew Jordan and Charlotte Burns and my own institute, IEEP, all agree on how much progress has been made with the collective approach. They also agree that the UK has been an influential player in establishing the now substantial edifice of EU law. 


So what next? Government witnesses to the Commons Committee thought that Brexit would trigger a “long and torturous” negotiation on environmental policy and there would clearly be a period of extended uncertainty. This is a concern for both the environmental community and the body of industry that is affected by EU law on the environment, climate change, energy, agriculture and fisheries. 


Beyond this largely unavoidable outcome, my institute has agreed that there are two distinct scenarios that could arise if the UK were to vote to leave the EU.


Under one, the UK successfully negotiates membership of the EEA, which is not a foregone conclusion. Often referred to as the “Norway” scenario, this would entail an obligation for the UK to follow most EU environmental legislation (with a few important exceptions) while being excluded from decisions about making or amending such legislation. Opportunities to tailor EU law to UK concerns, often taken in the past, would greatly diminish. 


Under a second scenario, outside the EEA, the UK would be free to choose its own environmental legislation, within certain limits imposed by international law and the requirements applying to goods exported to the EU market. This would be a major undertaking, complicated by a legitimate role for devolved administrations within the UK to pursue their own, more distinctive approaches if they wished to. Outside the EU Single Market, the UK government would be more tempted to seek competitive advantage (including cutting administrative burdens) where they could. So it is not unreasonable to expect an attempt to roll back a number of environmental standards under this scenario. 


Despite the relative silence of the media on this topic, these issues are highly strategic and the choices far from trivial. 


David Baldock is Executive Director at the Institute for European Environmental Policy. He will speak at The Crowd’s EU referendum debate on 9th May alongside Caroline Lucas MP Green Party, Michael Liebreich BNEF, Lord Deben The Committee on Climate Change, and Lord Callanan House of Lords. More info is here


  • twitter
  • fb
  • stumble
  • linkedin
  • reddit
  • email