If the RSPB hoped to raise awareness about the perplexing concept of “nutrient neutrality” their post calling Rishi Sunak, Michael Gove and Thérèse Coffey “LIARS!” worked: it has, to date, been viewed by 5 million people.
“You lie, and you lie, and you lie again,” the conservation charity declared on X, formerly Twitter, listing a number of environmental statements from the trio over recent years.
LIARS!@RishiSunak @michaelgove @theresecoffey you said you wouldn’t weaken environmental protections.
— RSPB England 🌍 (@RSPBEngland) August 30, 2023
And yet that’s just what you are doing.
You lie, and you lie, and you lie again.
And we’ve had enough. 🧵 pic.twitter.com/ZHlRmd5po3
Despite being cheered by some of its 1.2 million members, the RSPB apologised for attacking “the people not the policy” while reiterating its frustration with “the government’s reneging on its environmental promises”.
So who is doing the backtracking here? And who is closest to the truth?
RSPB claim: In the 2019 Tory party manifesto you all pledged to deliver ‘the most ambitious environmental programme of any country on earth’. Lie.
The quoted words were written by Boris Johnson in his manifesto introduction. His intro also likened Britain to a lion trapped in a cage and a supergreen supercar stuck in traffic, while promising at least two things that definitely are not happening: 40 new hospitals by 2030 and the banning of live animal exports. And he did not actually say “deliver” – he simply vowed to “get on with our work” of making Britain a place with that ambitious environmental programme.
“Ambitious” is a slippery word, and from Costa Rica to Luxembourg it is easy to find countries with more ambitious environmental policies than the UK. Surprisingly, however, Yale University’s annual environmental performance index 2022 puts the UK second behind Denmark in its ranking of the world’s most environmentally friendly countries. Britain scores highly for its greenhouse gas reduction measures.
Verdict: Naive scan of former prime minister’s words.
RSPB claim: Rishi Sunak, in your first speech as prime minister you said you would deliver on this manifesto promise of protecting the environment. Lie.
He did, but perhaps “protecting our environment” meant keeping the road outside 10 Downing Street free of grime and rats. In Sunak’s speech, this pledge was one of a number of classically vague political slogans, alongside “a stronger NHS” and “better schools”. It is as difficult to definitively judge the success of these as to subdue a pop-up tent.
Verdict: Unprovable.
RSPB claim: Rishi Sunak, on 17 August 2022 you said you were committed to protecting our environment for future generations. Lie.
This is a bit more specific, implying that today’s environment will not be made worse by the government’s actions. Even taking a “net zero” approach to environmental damage, allowing some destruction to be offset by positive action, it is difficult to see how Sunak has delivered net “protection” over the past year, having issued new North Sea oil and gas licences, opposed low-traffic neighbourhood schemes, and fuelled an anti-environmental culture war in an attempt to win votes.
Verdict: RSPB correct.
RSPB claim: Thérèse Coffey, on 25 July 2023 you wrote to the OEP [Office for Environmental Protection] and said you were clear in parliament about the government’s ‘commitment to uphold environmental protections’. Lie.
The policy U-turn that triggered the RSPB’s outburst was the government’s amendment to the levelling up bill ordering local authorities to ignore “nutrient neutrality” rules. These ensure new houses that potentially add nitrates and other pollutants to rivers are offset by developers funding nearby riverine improvements. In a letter to Coffey and Gove, Dame Glenys Stacey, the OEP chair, says: “The proposed changes would demonstrably reduce the level of environmental protection provided for in existing environmental law. They are a regression. Yet the government has not adequately explained how, alongside such weakening of environmental law, new policy measures will ensure it still meets its objectives for water quality and protected site condition.”
Verdict: RSPB correct.
RSPB claim: Michael Gove, when you were environment secretary you pledged to ‘do all we can to protect our precious natural environment’. Lie.
The words spoken by Gove immediately before that quote, delivered in 2019, were: “We know we must”. This classic political evasion has got him off the lie hook here. But given Gove’s record of launching potentially far-reaching environmental reforms as environment secretary for two years to July 2019 (before the re-election of this government), his recent undermining of environmental protections as housing secretary is puzzling. More than anyone else left in government, Gove “knows he must” do all he can to protect the environment – but isn’t doing so.
Verdict: Not a lie but difficult re-reading for Gove
RSPB claim: Michael Gove, in July 2019 you spoke of how protecting the environment was a critical duty of government. Lie.
The RSPB is actually under-egging this lavish rhetoric. In this speech, Gove said: “And what more critical duty can government have than to protect our nation and, so far as we can, our planet from those forces that will deprive future generations of their birth right and leave them a world dirtier, more degraded and more divided?”
Once again, this is unlikely to be judged a lie if tested in a court of law but it reveals a government failing to live up to claims that protecting the environment is a genuine priority. Some might say such extravagant green rhetoric belongs to the previous Johnson administration but it is the same Conservative party in government, bearing the same responsibility to fulfil its 2019 manifesto.
For Gove, it appears to reveal a level of cognitive dissonance which the former minister Zac Goldsmith identified after resigning from government over its environmental failings. Gove “understands these issues”, said Goldsmith, adding: “I don’t think you can understand and care about the gravity of this issue, and at the same time, be willing to take your foot off the accelerator for political expediency. I just think that would require you to be a monster.”
Verdict: More uncomfortable reading for Gove.
