Terri Bloore is the Conservative candidate for Mayor of Newham.
London Climate Action Week has become one of the more interesting fixtures in the policy and business calendar, not simply because of its scale, but because it brings together people who would not ordinarily find themselves in the same room.
Over the course of last week I attended events and spoke on the importance of sustainable investment, finance and importance of profit in purpose, involving investors, financial institutions, corporates, charities, academics and policymakers.
What struck me throughout the week was how far the conversation has moved on from an idealistic target driven approach based on protest, fear mongering and symbolism. Instead, the discussions increasingly centred on resilience, energy security, capital allocation, productivity, supply chains and long-term competitiveness. This is what we can own.
Businesses are increasingly asking how they protect themselves from disruption, how they strengthen domestic supply chains, how they reduce exposure to volatile energy prices and how they attract investment into innovation and growth.
Investors are concerned about resilience and long-term value. Finance directors are asking practical questions about risk and return. The language of sustainability is becoming the language of business.
This presents an opportunity for us to re-engage with the debate from a position of economic realism rather than ideological opposition.
The current approach to Net Zero requires greater honesty about costs, timescales and delivery.
Kemi Badenoch’s criticism that environmental policy has, at times, moved ahead of economic reality reflects concerns that many businesses now express privately. There remains broad support for reducing emissions, improving energy security and protecting the environment, but there is less enthusiasm for policies that increase costs, undermine competitiveness or simply export industrial activity overseas.
The objective should not be to abandon environmental ambition. Rather, it should be to place greater emphasis on secure energy supplies, industrial competitiveness, lower bills and domestic investment. Climate policies that damage economic growth or place disproportionate burdens on households and businesses are unlikely to command long-term public support.
One of the panels I chaired during the week examined the role of the Chief Financial Officer in driving sustainable growth.
The discussion demonstrated how rapidly these issues have moved from corporate responsibility departments into finance functions and boardrooms. CFOs are increasingly being asked to assess climate-related investments in the same way they assess any other strategic decision, considering resilience, operational efficiency, long-term value and return on investment.
The truth is sustainability initiatives that demonstrate commercial value are far more likely to attract investment and survive changing economic or political conditions. Financial directors are interested in whether investments reduce exposure to volatile energy prices, improve productivity, strengthen supply chains or enhance competitiveness.
Energy security featured prominently throughout many discussions. The experience of recent years, particularly following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, has reinforced the importance of domestic energy production and supply resilience. It is entirely consistent to support continued North Sea oil and gas production while demand remains, particularly when domestic production operates under stronger environmental standards than many imported alternatives.
Kemi has been right to argue that Britain should not undermine its own energy security while increasing reliance on imported energy. Maintaining domestic production supports jobs, tax revenues and industrial capability while reducing exposure to international instability.
At the same time, Britain possesses considerable advantages in offshore wind, nuclear power, hydrogen, carbon capture and sustainable fuels. The debate should not be framed as a choice between traditional energy and emerging technologies. A pragmatic approach recognises that the transition will take time and that affordability, energy security and decarbonisation must proceed together.
Let’s be clear the UK has significant competitive advantages. London remains one of the world’s leading centres for sustainable finance. Our universities continue to produce world-class research and innovation. Our engineering, legal and professional services sectors provide capabilities that many competitors would envy.
Yet one issue raised repeatedly during London Climate Action Week was the difficulty of translating innovation into commercial scale.
Britain often excels at research and early-stage development but struggles to support businesses as they move towards deployment and growth. Investors require confidence, businesses require regulatory certainty and infrastructure projects require stable policy frameworks.
This is where government and the private sector must work together. Governments create the conditions for investment through planning, infrastructure and regulation. Businesses provide capital, expertise and innovation. Financial institutions allocate investment and manage risk. The most successful examples discussed during the week were those where organisations had moved beyond traditional boundaries and worked collaboratively.
A credible approach to sustainability should support British industry, strengthen energy security, encourage innovation and attract investment.
What I heard during London Climate Action Week was not a demand for ever greater regulation or unrealistic targets. It was a growing recognition that resilience, competitiveness and energy security sit at the heart of the discussion. We should not retreat from these conversations. We should lead them.
The post Terri Bloore: The nature of the debate about tackling climate change has finally grown up – in London appeared first on Conservative Home.
