The West Midlands needs to address its dismal employment rates

Birmingham looking festive. Image: Getty.

With the Midlands Engine policy, Joseph Chamberlain’s legacy being back in vogue and – perhaps most notably – CityMetric’s recent tour around the area, the West Midlands is finally getting the attention it deserves. Over the next few months, the run-up to the election of a metro mayor in the West Midlands Combined Authority (WMCA) should mean even more thought is given to what’s needed to help the region thrive.

And top of that list should be turning around its dismal employment performance.

The West Midlands’ rusty jobs machine isn’t a new problem, as a report published this week by the Resolution Foundation highlights. In the years leading up to the financial crisis, the conurbation’s employment rate remained stubbornly low compared to other city regions.

And while the recovery has seen the proportion of people in work nationally rising to record levels, the West Midlands still hasn’t got back to where it was, with an employment rate of just 64.5 per cent compared to 71.6 per cent across all the city regions.

The WMCA is made up of Birmingham, Coventry, Dudley, Sandwell, Solihull, Walsall and Wolverhampton – diverse areas with different histories and populations. But bar Solihull, each of those local authorities has an employment rate below the average across the UK’s other city regions. A cross-city plan is needed.

The big challenge for the new mayor, along with other local leaders and central government, is helping people from groups that have traditionally been disadvantaged in the labour market to find work. That doesn’t mean that we should expect, say, people with disabilities to have identical employment rates to the rest of the country. But the gap between the kinds of workers who tend to be in employment whatever the economic weather – in their thirties or forties, highly-educated – and these disadvantaged groups is significantly larger in the WMCA than in other city regions. Targeted support designed to help some of those groups that fare worst in the the region – younger workers, those with low qualifications and people from BAME backgrounds – could make a meaningful contribution.

Of course, it’s not enough to just think about potential employees: the kinds of jobs and sectors setting up in the city region are crucial too. The WMCA can be rightly proud of its industrial heritage, still evident today with companies like Jaguar Land Rover. And while a higher share of the WMCA’s workforce are employed in manufacturing, it’s still only 13 per cent. The city region should also look to expand into more “jobs-rich” areas such as the high value services sector. When it comes to industrial strategy, it should be proud of, but not constrained by, its past.


And hand in hand with attracting those sorts of jobs is having workers with the right skills. Qualification levels in the WMCA are below average. Despite having one of the highest proportions of students among city regions, it has trouble retaining them once they graduate, with fewer staying on than in Bristol or Manchester. More high-skilled jobs would help – but it’s worth thinking too about what those other “stickier” cities offer and how the WMCA can mark itself out and tap into the asset of its large student population.

While the mayor will have powers that can make a real difference, a shared focus with central government and other leaders in the West Midlands will be needed to boost employment. But with a targeted, ambitious plan that puts jobs growth at its heart, there’s every reason to hope that the West Midlands will be talked about for all the right reasons for years to come.

Conor D'arcy is a policy analyst at the Resolution Foundation.

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook.

 
 
 
 

Seven climate change myths put about by big oil companies

Oil is good for you! Image: Getty.

Since the start of this year, major players within the fossil fuel industry – “big oil” – have made some big announcements regarding climate change. BP revealed plans to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by acquiring additional renewable energy companies. Royal Dutch Shell defended its $1-$2bn green energy annual budget. Even ExxonMobil, until recently relatively dismissive of the basic science behind climate change, included a section dedicated to reducing emissions in its yearly outlook for energy report.

But this idea of a “green” oil company producing “clean” fossil fuels is one that I would call a dangerous myth. Such myths obscure the irreconcilability between burning fossil fuels and environmental protection – yet they continue to be perpetuated to the detriment of our planet.

Myth 1: Climate change can be solved with the same thinking that created it

Measures put in place now to address climate change must be sustainable in the long run. A hasty, sticking plaster approach based on quick fixes and repurposed ideas will not suffice.

Yet this is precisely what some fossil fuel companies intend to do. To address climate change, major oil and gas companies are mostly doing what they have historically excelled at – more technology, more efficiency, and producing more fossil fuels.

But like the irresponsible gambler that cannot stop doubling down during a losing streak, the industry’s bet on more, more, more only means more ecological destruction. Irrespective of how efficient fossil fuel production becomes, that the industry’s core product can be 100 per cent environmentally sustainable is an illusion.

A potential glimmer of hope is carbon capture and storage (CCS), a process that sucks carbon out of the air and sends it back underground. But despite being praised by big oil as a silver bullet solution for climate change, CCS is yet another sticking plaster approach. Even CCS advocates suggest that it cannot currently be employed on a global, mass scale.

Myth 2: Climate change won’t spell the end of the fossil fuel industry

According to a recent report, climate change is one factor among several that has resulted in the end of big oil’s golden years – a time when oil was plenty, money quick, and the men at the top celebrated as cowboy capitalists.

Now, to ensure we do not surpass the dangerous 2°C threshold, we must realise that there is simply no place for “producers” of fossil fuels. After all, as scientists, financial experts, and activists have warned, if we want to avoid dangerous climate change, the proven reserves of the world’s biggest fossil fuel companies cannot be consumed.

Myth 3: Renewables investment means oil companies are seriously tackling climate change

Compared to overall capital expenditures, oil companies renewables’ investment is a miniscule drop in the barrel. Even then, as companies such as BP have demonstrated before, they will divest from renewables as soon as market conditions change.

Big oil companies’ green investments only produce tiny reductions in their overall greenhouse gas emissions. BP calls these effects “real sustainable reductions” – but they accounted for only 0.3 per cent of their total emissions reductions in 2016, 0.1 per cent in 2015, 0.1 per cent in 2014, and so on.


Myth 4: Hard climate regulation is not an option

One of the oil industry’s biggest fears regarding climate change is regulation. It is of such importance that BP recently hinted at big oil’s exodus from the EU if climate regulation took effect. Let’s be clear, we are talking about “command-and-control” regulation here, such as pollution limits, and not business-friendly tools such as carbon pricing or market-based quota systems.

There are many commercial reasons why the fossil fuel industry would prefer the latter over the former. Notably, regulation may result in a direct impact on the bottom line of fossil fuel companies given incurred costs. But climate regulation is – in combination with market-based mechanisms – required to address climate change. This is a widely accepted proposition advocated by mainstream economists, NGOs and most governments.

Myth 5: Without cheap fossil fuels, the developing world will stop

Total’s ex-CEO, the late Christoph de Margerie, once remarked: “Without access to energy, there is no development.” Although this is probably true, that this energy must come from fossil fuels is not. Consider, for example, how for 300 days last year Costa Rica relied entirely on renewable energy for its electricity needs. Even China, the world’s biggest polluter, is simultaneously the biggest investor in domestic renewables projects.

As the World Bank has highlighted, in contrast to big oil’s claims about producing more fossil fuels to end poverty, the sad truth is that by burning even the current fossil fuel stockpile, climate change will place millions of people back into poverty. The UN concurs, signalling that climate change will result in reduced crop yields, more waterborne diseases, higher food prices and greater civil unrest in developing parts of the world.

Myth 6: Big oil must be involved in climate policy-making

Fossil fuel companies insist that their involvement in climate policy-making is necessary, so much so that they have become part of the wallpaper at international environmental conferences. This neglects that fossil fuels are, in fact, a pretty large part of the problem. Big oil attends international environmental conferences for two reasons: lobbying and self-promotion.

Some UN organisations already recognise the risk of corporations hijacking the policy-making process. The World Health Organisation, for instance, forbids the tobacco industry from attending its conferences. The UN’s climate change arm, the UNFCCC, should take note.

Myth 7: Nature can and must be “tamed” to address climate change

If you mess with mother nature, she bites back. As scientists reiterate, natural systems are complex, unpredictable, and even hostile when disrupted.

Climate change is a prime example. Small changes in the chemical makeup of the atmosphere may have drastic implications for Earth’s inhabitants.

The ConversationFossil fuel companies reject that natural systems are fragile – as evidenced by their expansive operations in ecologically vulnerable areas such as the Arctic. The “wild” aspect of nature is considered something to be controlled and dominated. This myth merely serves as a way to boost egos. As independent scientist James Lovelock wrote, “The idea that humans are yet intelligent enough to serve as stewards of the Earth is among the most hubristic ever.”

George Ferns, Lecturer in Management, Employment and Organisation, Cardiff University.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.