Policy after the general election
- Central government ,
- Business & Industry ,
- Reporting ,
Nick Blyth considers how energy and carbon policy could evolve after the election.
Two years ago, IEMA members helped secure one of the few green policy wins of this parliament, with their evidence used to support the introduction of mandatory greenhouse-gas reporting.
Last year, IEMA was involved in successfully removing mandatory GHG reporting from a Defra review of policy. Now, a new consultation by Defra is proposing to look again at GHG reporting as well as ESOS and other guidance (lexisurl.com/iema83923). Combined with Decc’s “simplification” of the CRC, many professionals are understandably critical about the continual review and modification of carbon and energy policy.
Recent IEMA polls highlight concerns about the current energy and carbon policy landscape, including that policies are overly focused on the biggest companies, neglecting the importance of action and support for other businesses.
So what next? Is it time for one big push to clear up a crowded policy landscape or time for a period of calm in which recent schemes are allowed to bed in before being steadily extended? A carbon and energy policy review after the election is looking increasingly likely. The hope is for a considered review with any changes not being rushed in.
The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has published a new 'Green Claims Code' to ensure businesses are not misleading consumers about their environmental credentials.
Over two million hectares of Brazilian rainforest could be legally converted to supply the UK with soy under a new anti-deforestation law proposed by the government, the WWF has found.
In Elliott-Smith v Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the claimant applied for judicial review of the legality of the defendants’ joint decision to create the UK Emissions Trading Scheme (UK ETS) as a substitute for UK participation in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS).
In R. (on the application of Hudson) v Windsor and Maidenhead RBC, the appellant appealed against a decision to uphold the local authority’s grant of planning permission for the construction of a holiday village at the Legoland Windsor Resort.