{"id":9598,"date":"2025-04-03T15:59:20","date_gmt":"2025-04-03T14:59:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/qpol.qub.ac.uk\/?p=9598"},"modified":"2025-04-03T15:59:20","modified_gmt":"2025-04-03T14:59:20","slug":"doing-what-matters-most-to-stay-within-the-overton-window","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.qub.ac.uk\/qpol\/doing-what-matters-most-to-stay-within-the-overton-window\/","title":{"rendered":"Doing what Matters Most\u2026.to Stay within the \u2018Overton Window\u2019: The Executive\u2019s \u2018Milk and Water\u2019 Programme for Government"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Doing What Matters Most: Programme for Government 2024-2027<\/em>, is already a year late (it was published in early March 2025), with many transformative proposals short of what we need and a rather unambitious and \u2018milk and water\u2019 read.  Or more precisely a programme that does little to stop the overproduction of powdered milk that is the main cause of our polluted waters, including our \u2018great lake\u2019, Lough Neagh.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2018Going for Growth\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The PfG proposes a new \u2018Research and Development\u2019 fund as part of a regional R&D Strategy to \u201csupport sectors including cyber security and software, advanced manufacturing and life and health sciences\u201d.  It has nothing to say about whether the Executive is indifferent to the fact that cyber security might be promoting the further militarisation of Europe or that NI based manufacturing might be part of the supply chain of weapons for genocidal regimes such as Israel.  While Executive ministers must affirm a \u2018Pledge of Office\u2019 that, amongst other provisions, contains a \u201ccommitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means\u201d, apparently this does not extend to ministers supporting the production and sale of weapons and thus promoting violence elsewhere.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Executive\u2019s big plan around \u2018green growth\u2019, with the PfG \u201censuring green growth is a catalyst for our economy\u201d (p.78).   It seeks to do this though decarbonising electricity generation, promoting the \u2018circular economy\u2019 and through technological innovation that will effectively result in the \u2018greening business as usual\u2019 i.e. green growth.  The Executive\u2019s top priority is \u2018Grow a Globally Competitive and Sustainable Economy\u2019, yet zero consideration that a) this might be contradictory or b) economic growth might not be the most important goal.   However, the idea that we can simply \u2018green growth\u2019 and meet climate and ecological targets while leaving the underlying structure of the economy (except for the energy system) unchanged has no empirical support.  We have no evidence, as a 2019 report by the European Environment Bureau, entitled \u2018Decoupling Debunked\u2019, bluntly stated that there is no evidence that we can  \u2018decouple\u2019 a growing economy from resource, pollution and climate impacts.[i]<\/a>   We cannot \u2018electricity the hummer\u2019 as it were, as if we can achieve \u2018green growth\u2019 by simply replacing \u2018bad\u2019 fossil fuels for \u2018good\u2019 renewable energy.  Indeed, as pointed out below, the PfG does not provide a roadmap for a renewable energy powered economy, given its lack of attention to energy demand.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The document aims to boost \u2018Prosperity\u2019, one of the three \u2018Missions\u2019 of the PfG along with \u2018People\u2019 and \u2018Planet\u2019.  However, its understanding of prosperity is limited to Gross Domestic Product and this orthodox \u2018economic growth\u2019.  For example, the PfG states that \u201cOur GDP per capita remains stubbornly low and this is particularly true outside of Belfast\u201d (p.82), and with a hat tip to the Republic of Ireland\u2019s economic model, states its aim to \u201cattract global investment, grow exports, and attract Foreign Direct Investment to support higher productivity\u201d (p.84).  On the one hand this narrow economic focus is linked to the Programme\u2019s concern about low labour \u2018productivity\u2019, and how the Executive parties wish to align education to skills development and promote science-based research for economic benefits).  While not problematic per se, this narrowing of education for example to its economic benefits does smack of a quip from Paddy Johnston, late Vice-Chancellor of QUB that \u201cwhat society does not need is another 6th<\/sup> century historian\u201d.  Should public funding for education be only or mainly justified on the grounds of its economic benefits rather than other non-economic \u2018public good\u2019 objectives?  Equally, this narrow orthodox view of promoting GDP growth might be in tension not only with environmental and climate constraints, as outlined above, but is in tension with the PfG\u2019s claim to be innovative in focusing on measuring success via a wellbeing dashboard.  How will economic growth be balanced or traded off against mental health or energy poverty reduction for example?  And the document itself recognises that NI has some of the highest levels of reported wellbeing in these islands (p., despite the legacy of the conflict, our low labour productivity, low per capita GDP, large public sector etc. etc.  If asked to choose between wellbeing growth and GDP growth, which do we think the Executive would choose?  This document makes it abundantly clear that it will be growth every time.  The document reminds me of current UK Chancellor, Rachel Reeves and her obsession with \u2018growth, growth, growth\u2019, the monomaniacal pursuit of which justifies abandoning climate commitments or cutting the welfare of the most vulnerable in society.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lough Neagh<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is welcome to see attention to Lough Neagh in the Programme.  While there are commitments to delivery policies on environmental action by the end of 2025, we will have to wait until 2027 (or rather the Lough and those who depend on and care for it will have to wait) for the delivery of the actions in the Lough Neagh Report and Action Plan.  Which itself was launched in July 2024 a full year after the \u2018blue-green algae\u2019 first appeared in May 2023.   There seems to be a pattern here\u2026 So, three years from launch to action and four years from the problem first being identified\u2026 and all the while the Lough continues to degrade.  Think of it like being badly injured and waiting a day for the ambulance to arrive. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Perhaps the most disappointing aspect of the focus on Lough Neagh is the PfG\u2019s utter failure to address the root causes of the problem (industrial scale beef and dairy farming). The Programme only deals with the effects of the blue-green algae via outsourcing or perhaps crowdsourcing solutions via a competitive Small Business Research Initiative to \u201cexplore potential solutions to treat\/reduce blue-green algae blooms without impacting the natural environment of Lough Neagh and associated Northern Ireland waterways\u201d (p.53).  I read this as actually meaning how the Executive will explore solutions without impacting the current structure of the agri-food sector and its unsustainably large cow head and associated phosphates and slurry problem.  That is, without upsetting the Ulster Farmers’ Union (and their many friends in the DUP) and large multinational agrifood corporations such as Moy Park.  The PfG outlines how the Executive will produce NI\u2019s first Environmental Improvement Plan, which is to be welcomed of course, but there is no recognition of NI as one of the most nature depleted part of Europe, though perhaps this will be forthcoming in the promised Nature Recovery Plan (p.52).  Indeed where \u2018nature\u2019 is mentioned in the document, it is sometimes in terms of \u2018nature-based solutions\u2019 rather than the protection of nature per se.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wellbeing Dashboard<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, there are some good proposals in the document, such as a new \u2018Wellbeing Dashboard\u2019 and commitment to decarbonise electricity generation.  Wellbeing, it would have been welcome, though surprising given the orthodoxy and timidity that characterises the PfG, if for example the Anti-Poverty Strategy promised was in fact an Anti-Inequality Strategy.  One that flipped the policy approach away from thinking we have a \u2018poverty problem\u2019 to us having a \u2018wealth problem\u2019, and given how both unequal NI is and that poverty is caused by inequality, why address the root causes and not the symptoms?  The PfG \u2018Wellbeing Framework\u2019 is useful, and very easy to navigate and you can monitor progress of the Executive across 10 domains.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Of the 9 indicators under \u2018Cleaner environment\u2019, only three are improving.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

While currently we see renewable electricity falling as per the dashboard below (due to RE production falling below 50% from 2022 to date), the PfG commits the Executive to a \u201c80% renewable electricity by 2030 target\u2026by publishing a final design of a Renewable Electricity Support Scheme\u201d.  This is in line with the longer-term ambition, as set out in the 2022 Climate Change Act, for the region to achieve \u2018Net Zero carbon emissions\u2019 by 2050. The 80% RE target by 2030 is also what the local renewable energy industry has been calling for. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

This push to reduce fossil fuel use in generating electricity is a step in the right direction, and there are also welcome commitments to increasing energy efficiency and home insulation (p.79-80) in the PfG (after all the cheapest and most climate friendly form of energy is the energy you don\u2019t use) as per the Energy Strategy.  Though there are no concrete plans, targets or funding for how this home insulation is to be achieved.  A worrying omission that is repeated throughout the document (though perhaps to be fair all this detail will be provided in the follow up action plan. It is very welcome also to read the commitment from the Executive to launch a new Fuel Poverty Strategy by the end of this year (p.43).  It is a missed opportunity (one of many) that the PfG did not broaden this out to be an \u2018Energy Poverty Strategy\u2019 and address the additional energy shortfalls of households beyond space heating.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, electricity only accounts for around 15% of overall energy use\u2026leaving 85% of the energy system still relying on coal, oil\u2026and increasingly gas.\u00a0 The PfG, in not changing the statutory duty to promote the extension of the gas network, is thus continuing to lock the region into carbon energy overall, and given we have to import gas, thus undermines not only the commitment to decarbonisation of the economy to achieve climate change goals but also undermines another of the PfG\u2019s goals which is to increase energy security.\u00a0 The latter would be better achieved by policies to wean us off natural gas and scale up the electrification of the economy beyond electricity production, such as in manufacturing, tourism, health, transport and farming. \u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A final missed opportunity here, in my estimation, is that the energy transition as described in the PfG (which on a positive note is consistently presented as a \u2018just and fair transition\u2019, ensuring an equitable distribution of the costs and benefits, and also to be informed by a soon-to-be established \u2018Just Transition Commission\u2019) does not adequately address energy demand, focusing mostly on the production and supply side of the energy transition.\u00a0 With the noticeable exception of promoting home insulation (which will reduce energy use), there is a missed opportunity in the Executive not presenting the energy transition from a high carbon to low carbon energy system as one that should be premised on energy reduction, conservation and efficiency.\u00a0 The reason for this is that as we see in differ countries and globally, the current energy transition is one where while we see renewable energy increasing, it is not replacing or displacing carbon energy.\u00a0 That is, in keeping with \u2018worse practice\u2019 from other countries and regions, the NI Executive\u2019s plan is premised on increasing overall energy consumption, and that despite the increase in renewable energy, this energy transition will result in a \u2018fossil fuel\u00a0 plus\u2019 energy system, not a decarbonised or renewable one.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While the PfG has been through Equality and Rural Needs and Child Right impact assessments, like all the other PfGs before it, has not been \u2018climate proofed\u2019 in terms of assessing the climate and ecological impacts of its various elements individually and cumulatively.  To that extend the PfG is ecologically and scientifically ignorant in my judgement.  While the document highlights how the new Executive is using science \u2013 for example through its appointment of a new \u201cChief Science and Technology Adviser and a Northern Ireland Science and Technology Advisory Network\u201d (p.18) \u2013 that no assessment has been made of the PfG\u2019s climate or ecological impacts is telling.  This is a missed opportunity for the Executive to be innovative in pioneering a new way for governments to operate.  And let us not forget that the NI Assembly declared a \u2018Climate and Ecological Emergency\u2019 in February 2022, but there is nothing in this PfG, neither in the polices, the targets, ambitions or language that remotely suggests that the Executive really believes that. The Executive\u2019s plan does state that, \u201cThe world has entered a period some describe as a \u2018permacrisis,\u2019 characterised by economic volatility, political polarisation, growing global tensions, and environmental deterioration\u201d (p.57), but the document has no sense of being a response to that \u2018permacrisis\u2019.  As such we might describe it as the political equivalent of \u2018virtue signalling\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is a \u2018business as usual\u2019 document, firmly within the \u2018Overton window\u2019 of normal policy making, which is completely out of step with the extraordinary and increasingly dangerous climate and ecological \u2018tipping points\u2019 we have now reached.  And we have collectively as a species reached these points precisely because of \u2018milk and water\u2019 PfGs such as this one.  If we are destined to be the first species to accurately document our own demise, given the mountains of scientific and social scientific data and evidence of our worsening climate and ecological life support systems, this PfG might be used by historians of a future where parts of the earth are uninhabitable, as a textbook case study of yet another missed opportunity. The PfG should and could have been more radical and transformative, \u2018radical\u2019 in the Latin understanding of this term meaning \u2018getting to the roots\u2019.  While the document talks about \u2018Building New Foundations\u2019 (p.64) it largely misses looking at the causes and drivers of the problems we face.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If this were a student essay on identifying the problems faced by NI now and in the near future and proposing solutions to them, I would be generous and not fail it. But it would be a bare pass, and I would give some critical feedback to the author along the lines of the need to better identify causes of problems and not just look at and address effects, and above all being much more innovative, transformative and imaginative given the polycrisis we face and will continue to face for decades to come.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

[i]<\/a> EEB (2019), Decoupling debunked \u2013 Evidence and arguments against green growth as a sole strategy for sustainability<\/em>, available at: https:\/\/eeb.org\/library\/decoupling-debunked\/<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This image <\/a>is licensed under the\u00a0Creative Commons<\/a>\u00a0Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International<\/a>\u00a0license. Courtesy of Greenjellyfish25<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Professor John Barry. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2480,"featured_media":9601,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":true,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[41],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-9598","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-europe"],"mb":[],"acf":{"authors":{"simple_value_formatted":"