Good morning from New Economy Brief.
The Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee is set to raise interest rates again tomorrow.
This risks limiting private sector investment and pose a political problem for a government wanting to ‘ramp up’ capital investment to grow the green economy.
But what if the Bank had a lower interest rate for green projects (as they do in Japan)? Read on for an explanation of how green credit guidance - a policy solution championed by the Monetary Policy Committee’s newest member, Megan Greene - can keep finance flowing towards net zero.
Raising interest rates harms the economy in various ways…Markets are pricing in further interest rate hikes before the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee meeting tomorrow, as the UK’s persistently high inflation rate is expected to stay higher than comparable economies, for much longer than expected. Media commentary is focusing on the negative impact of higher interest rates on people trying to repay their mortgages and on the higher costs of government borrowing, but less attention is being paid to another consequence of rising interest rates; the impact on business investment. How will the UK meet its legally-binding Net Zero targets, when financing the investments needed for the green transition are becoming more expensive?
Is green credit guidance the answer? One proposal for making green investments cheaper is to have a lower interest rate for borrowing for low-carbon projects. The policy has been championed by the newest member of the Monetary Policy Committee, Megan Greene. This ‘dual interest policy’ is part of a wider framework called ‘green credit guidance’.
Implementing a dual interest rate policy in the Bank of England. The New Economics Foundation’s (NEF) Frank van Lerven and Lukasz Krebel have proposed that the UK could adopt such a scheme by repurposing the Bank of England’s Term Funding Scheme (TFS) - which currently providers cheaper credit to businesses and households - to provide cheaper credit to banks to lend for sustainable investments. This would keep interest rates lower for green investments. (The question of which investments qualify for the lower interest rate, and how to determine if they are actually sustainable, will be explored in a future Digest.)
A holistic strategy for green finance and decarbonisation. Whilst more interventionist credit policies would be particularly useful for political parties looking to stimulate private finance as a way to fill the green investment gap in the UK and ‘ramp up’ spending on Net Zero without using public money, economists have warned that “fiscal policy must lead the way on the green transition” and green credit guidance should be not be seen as a ‘silver bullet’, but part of a holistic strategy of discouraging ‘dirty’ investments as well as ramping up both public and private green finance.
Three tests for AI regulation. As the Government’s White Paper consultation on AI regulation closes today, Michael Birtwistle and Matt Davies of the Ada Lovelace Institute lay out three key tests for the Government’s proposals: coverage, capability and criticality. In other words, how well the UK’s “regulatory patchwork” addresses AI, how well-equipped regulatory institutions are to deliver the Government’s AI principles, and how quickly the UK will be able to respond to “urgent risks”.
Investment-phobia. With “public investment well below the G7 average and business investment at the bottom of the league, the UK has little hope of breaking out of its growth doom loop without sustained investment”, argue George Dibb and Luke Murphy of the IPPR. Contrary to the common worry that public investment can “crowd out” business investment, they argue that public investment is a “core component” of enabling private investment and raising GDP.
Fiscal rules and Labour’s climate billions. “Treasury orthodoxy” threatens a much-needed “transformative agenda”, argues NEF’s Lukasz Krebel. Following accusations that the Labour Party is “watering down” its pledge to spend £28 billion per year on green investment, Krebel argues that in adopting strict fiscal rules, the two main parties “totally disregard the harms of not borrowing and investing enough in essential infrastructure”.
Private finance and conservation goals. Reliance on large-scale private finance to fund biodiversity targets as proposed by the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework could “pose contradictions in delivering conservation outcomes”, warn a number academics in a joint, peer-reviewed article. The authors instead propose “a critical ongoing role for direct public funding of conservation and public oversight of private nature-related financial mechanisms”.
Cost of living crisis. 5.7 million low-income households are having to cut down or skip meals because they don’t have enough money for food, while the number going without items such as food, heating or basic toiletries (63%) has remained around 7 million for more than a year, according to the latest data from JRF’s cost of living tracker. The tracker, which is the fourth in a series of large-scale studies of over 4000 households on low incomes, finds that “situation has been almost universally dire for people on Universal Credit”.
Varieties of industrial policy. City University of New York Professor J. W. Mason outlines how debates about the Inflation Reduction Act in the US and similar industrial policies are obscured by ‘ideal types’ and instead proposes four ‘dimensions’ through which we should analyse industrial policies: ownership, control, the target of the investment, and “how detailed or fine-grained the intervention is”. Mason illustrates how these dimensions might interact in this diagram.
Scottish greenhouse gas. As Scottish Government statistics show that total greenhouse gas emissions in Scotland increased by 2.4% in 2021, Future Economy Scotland explains why Scotland’s climate targets have now been missed in four out of the past five years. It argues that the Scottish Government should do more not only to reduce territorial emissions, but “consumption-based emissions” (i.e. emissions created overseas that are embedded in imported goods and services) which are currently not counted in Scotland’s net zero targets.