“Nobody knows anything”: A brief guide to how Brexit could affect Britain’s cities

You can give up on this for a start. Image: Getty.

A consensus has rapidly emerged around the correct way to respond to Britain’s exit from the European Union: blind panic.

There’s a reason for this. It’s not that new arrangements will inevitably be a disaster (though it’s far from clear that they won’t be) – it’s simply that all bets are off. It’s not clear whether we’ll stay in the single market, or whether there’ll be a recession, or whether the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland will even exist in a few year’s time.

Given all that, the idea that we can predict with any confidence what specific bits of public policy will look like in the near future is a bit of a nonsense. Which, for a man who writes quite a lot about housing/transport/devolution, is a bit of a problem, if I’m honest.

But we are where we are – even if we might be somewhere entirely different by this time tomorrow – so let’s survey the landscape. Here’s a brief guide to why Brexit means uncertainty for the sort of things CityMetric cares about.

Devolution

One man has been the driving force behind the Northern Powerhouse, Midlands Engine and all the other names for the revolutionary idea that maybe British cities should have some measure of control over their own destinies: chancellor George Osborne.

Except, he’s almost certainly not going to be chancellor any more come the autumn. Since he’s ruled himself out of the Tory leadership contest – presumably on the quite reasonable grounds that he would lose – Osborne will almost certainly be less powerful in the next ministry than he’s been in this one.

Without anyone pushing it – and with much of the government distracted by the biggest political event to hit this country in decades – it seems likely that the devolution agenda will come to a halt. And any city that doesn’t have a devolution deal in place now – hi, Leeds – is pretty unlikely to get one.

It’s possible that grassroots pressure from local government will keep the devolution train rolling: London’s mayor Sadiq Khan is already using referendum result to agitate for more powers to London. But it’s unclear how cities without mayors would even make that case.

Oh, and local authority funding will probably be cut because that happens every time there’s a Budget in this country, so.

On which note:


Transport

We haven’t had an emergency budget yet. Once we have a new prime minister, and a new chancellor, though, we almost certainly will.

Even if the promise of an extra £350m a week to spend on domestic priorities hadn’t been a lie – which it was – that money wouldn’t materialise until we actually leave the EU, some time in 2018 at the earliest. In the mean time, economic turmoil means that tax revenues are likely to fall, and extra austerity is the order of the day.

Now personally, I’m quite a fan of Keynsianism: I reckon that making some serious infrastructure investments could be just the counter-cyclical action we need to strengthen the British economy over the next few years. Ministers, however, rarely ask for my views, and they’re distinctly unfashionable in a Westminster more concerned about the deficit.

So don’t be surprised if new grand-projets are in short supply for a while. Indeed, there’s no guarantee that those already approved will go ahead. The new line between Manchester and Leeds (£20bn), London’s Crossrail 2 (£30bn), High Speed 2 (£55bn) – any or all of them could be juicy targets for a new chancellor looking for savings.

Housing

Trying to work out what Brexit will do for housing policy is like trying to work out what your lunch today will do for how you feel tomorrow. There’s a link, but good luck trying to find it.

Here’s what we can say for certain. The referendum has hit the share price of Britain’s house buildings very, very hard. See if you can spot the day of the vote on this chart of Taylor Wimpey’s share price:

Image: Wolfram Alpha.

Explaining small movements in share prices is a mug’s game, but that is not a small movement – it’s about 30 per cent – nor is it an isolated case. The consensus is that Brexit will mean a fall in house prices. That in turn will mean the housebuilders build less, which will make it harder to deal with the fact we don’t have enough homes.

Then again, one big factor in any fall in house prices will be a rise in interest rates. Such a rise may not happen – indeed, there’s also been some talk of a fall in interest rates, effectively to negative levels, so who knows.

Even if house prices do fall, it’s unlikely to make things easier for any first-time-buyer who isn’t sat on a pile of cash, because mortgages are probably going to get more expensive: you just won’t be able to afford a cheaper house than you couldn’t afford before.  As for renters, if landlords are feeling poorer – which they will be – they’ll probably at least try to increase rents. (Whether the market will bear this is another question.)

Then again, if Brexit really does mean a fall in immigration – or even just making it very clear to existing European residents that they’re no longer welcome – Britain’s population increase could slow, or even go into reverse. In 10 years time, it’s quite possible we’ll be talking about the brain drain and half empty cities once again – in which case, housing would be cheaper, but this may not be much comfort.

To sum up: nobody knows anything. But unless you’re a first-time-buyer with £200k in the bank, it’s difficult to see this as good news.

 

There’s more – there’s so much more. The EU directs a small fortune towards regional cultural and regeneration projects - those are all gone, and it’s hard to see anything replacing them. Universities are fretting about lost funding, too, and since they make a big economic contribution to so many British cities, that’s bad for those cities, too.

This week, hilariously, London is hosting the Business & Climate Summit, where leaders from around the globe are meant to be discussing how to implement April’s Paris Agreement on reducing carbon emissions. Climate secretary Amber Rudd says the UK remains committed – but since we’re due a new government, and since abandoning international agreements is the order of the day, it’s difficult to feel too confident.

Oh, yeah, and foreign direct investment will be frozen, at best, and a load of multinationals may or may not leave the country.

On the upside, in the immediate future, Brexit is extremely unlikely to negatively affect the tube map.

Small mercies, eh?

Jonn Elledge is the editor of CityMetric. He is on Twitter, far too much, as @jonnelledge.

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.