What planet are the Tories on? Because this one is dying

We learned in today’s Independent that the former home secretary Dame Priti Patel has called on ministers to pause Britain’s net zero targets, warning that voters are being left behind in the pursuit of green policies.

The argument that she and other like-minded individuals in her party espouse, is the fear that costs will be driven up for households already struggling with spiralling inflation.

She speaks as if the steps that would lead the UK to achieve its net zero target by 2050 are somehow cosmetic frivolities that could be and should be dispensed within the interim period. This line of thinking assumes that the UK’s economy will rapidly bounce back post-Brexit, post-Covid-19, and amid the Russian war with Ukraine. These issues have already had a huge impact on our economy, and experts have predicted an ongoing diminishment of 4 per cent on the UK’s gross GDP for the foreseeable future.

She is correct to acknowledge that there is a significant percentage of the population that is living hand to mouth currently or living with the constant threat of financial insecurity. However, the introduction of these measures, no matter how uncomfortable, are vital to reducing further emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere. This urgently needs to be prioritised not delayed, marginalised, or, worse still politicised.

It is akin to a surgeon advising a patient diagnosed with a cancerous lesion, on the grounds of expense, to delay initiating a hasty, operation at this time. Recommending instead, that a delay of a few years would enable the patient to build up the finances necessary to tackle the result.

Patel’s concerns for this struggling demographic of society is commendable but surely misplaced. To dither now would be catastrophic. I don’t know what planet Priti Patel lives on but our one is dying and it is due to years of political procrastination.

Nigel Plevin

Somerset

Lord Goldsmith in The Independent makes an impassioned case against deep-sea mining but his environmental claims, like those of fellow Tory grandee Lord Hague, aren’t supported by any data. While the energy transition could proceed without seabed minerals, he neglects to mention the costs of the inevitable alternative: more mines on land with more deforestation, pollution, emissions, and risks to human health and life.

Cognisant of this, countries and companies have not ruled out seabed minerals but have opted to wait until further research – currently underway – has been conducted. The evidence-based science approach we’re pursuing shows concerns about sediment plumes to be grossly overstated and we look forward to sharing all our data with the world.

The energy transition must have social justice at its core, and it’s right that developing states like The Metals Company’s sponsor Nauru – whose natural resources were exploited by the British, Germans, and Australians, and is at the mercy of the climate crisis – should benefit from this emerging industry, a legal right this former minister for the Pacific ignores. Goldsmith’s arguments are spurious and, if accepted, would result in a far worse outcome for the world than an alternative he doesn’t even consider.

Gerard Barron

Chairman and CEO of The Metals Company

The Tories have concluded that opposition to the ULEZ scheme helped them hold Uxbridge in the recent by-election and now, clearly, believe they can avoid a meltdown at the next general election by showing the public they have nothing but contempt for the environment and the future of the planet.

As North America, Europe, and China experience record high temperatures and the seas boil, the UK government has made it cheaper for companies to pollute. In addition, Rishi Sunak has taken a private jet – his preferred method of travel – to Aberdeenshire to announce he will “power up Britain” by granting 100 new North Sea oil and gas licenses.

It’s clear that the Tories don’t care for our future so long as they have the chance to retain office.

Sasha Simic

London

It has been evident that the overriding political strategy of the Tories over the last few years has been simply the retention of power. They have pursued policies aimed not at improving the lot of the nation as a whole, but pushed issues they think may appeal to certain sections of the British public and which may deliver some electoral advantage. As a consequence, we have a prime minister committed to “divide and rule” over issues ranging from Ulez, inheritance tax, and the appalling “stop the boats” policy targeted at asylum seekers and a willingness to break international law to enforce it.

As a result, our leaders are now pursuing policies that would see the air in our cities polluted and our roads made more dangerous, steps to reducing global warming undermined, the industrial and economic future of the nation weakened, government revenues potentially reduced and our international reputation as a country of integrity and probity trashed. For the Conservative Party and its friends in the right-wing media, this begs one huge question: Why are you so afraid of losing power?

The Tories purport to stand for all the qualities and values that have traditionally epitomised the United Kingdom. Before the next election, voters need to ask what pecuniary benefit, what social advantage, what political influence to the Conservatives and their supporters can possibly be worth displaying such a callous disregard for this nation’s health, economic, and environmental future.

Malcolm Harris

Grimsby

The Infrastructure and Projects Authority (IPA) has told the government something that many of us have suspected for some time now. Namely that HS2, at least its second phase from Birmingham to Crewe is simply “unachievable”.

Already complex design issues at the intended starting and finishing points in London and Manchester are already compounded by the geological and tunnelling challenges as HS2 attempts to cut through Cheshire’s highly unstable salt geology and South Manchester’s heavily built environment.

With costs continuing to spiral above the original 2010 estimates and overshooting its estimated completion time, despite already abandoning the Eastern leg to Leeds. Burying this “vanity project” now before it helps bury the economy looks to be the softer of the many hard choices the country is having to make.

Paul Dolan

Cheshire