Four reasons Labour needs a resource reduction target  – Inside track

Speaking in a parliamentary debate in 2022, Daniel Zeichner, then shadow environment minister, stated Labour’s agreement with those who “want to see a target to reduce resource consumption.” Explaining the reasons why, he chastised the then Conservative government for failing to use its Environment Act powers to deliver change: “Not setting a target for resource use… means we will just carry on exploiting natural resources and exporting waste abroad… which can be an environmentally damaging substitute for meaningful progress towards a circular economy. Will the Minister tell us why no target has been introduced and what she is going to do about it?”  

Now, Daniel Zeichner is a newly appointed government minister in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, serving alongside longstanding champion of resources issue, Mary Creagh (who has the circular economy brief) and Secretary of State Steve Reed, who has come out strongly in favour of delivering meaningful progress towards Labour’s manifesto promise of a circular economy. So, with Labour in the driving seat, they have a chance to do exactly what they called on the last government to do and introduce a target for resource consumption. 

Here are four reasons why Labour must follow through on their commitment and introduce a resource reduction target: 

1. We won’t achieve necessary progress without it
Our recent report assessing five different consumption-based measures of resource use found that progress is far too slow. Although we have seen some improvements, it is still nowhere near sustainable levels. The UK’s material footprint is a measure of the primary resources – food, fuel, minerals and metals – extracted for the UK economy. It’s more than double what it should be.

Similarly, the ecological footprint, an estimate of the biologically productive area required to produce the resources needed to satisfy demand and absorb waste like greenhouse gases, is also more than double. Resource productivity, an economic ratio comparing materials used to economic growth, is already stalling and can never guarantee a safe level of resource use. Meanwhile consumption emissions, ie those that the country is responsible for at home and abroad, are not declining as fast as territorial emissions, and are even farther off a net zero trajectory.  

In the context of such slow and erratic progress, a statutory target would provide the impetus for rapid action to match the urgency of the crisis we find ourselves in. As the Office for Environmental Protection advised the last government, a target would lay bare the high levels of ambition we need to achieve fast-paced change. 

2. It will show the UK is a world leader on the global stage
Ambitions to reduce resource use are becoming more common across Europe, for example in the Netherlands, Austria, Finland, and Spain. Speaking in March this year, new Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Steve Reed commended the ambitions of these countries, adding that the UK should “set ourselves an objective like that.” However, none of these nations have actually set statutory targets, meaning they are not legally binding, as the ones from the UK’s Environment Act are.

Efforts from the European Parliament and civil society to get statutory resource use targets included in the EU’s Circular Economy Action Plan were unsuccessful. While countries like Sweden, France, and Denmark are starting to monitor consumption emissions, they have not introduced legally binding targets. This paints a picture of a world that knows what needs to be done when it comes to resource consumption, but is failing to commit to decisive action.  

With Keir Starmer making it an early priority to show the UK is “back” as a leading global player, the government has a chance to stand out and take a global leadership role by setting legally binding, ambitious targets to reduce resource use.  

3. It can help reset a fairer relationship with the global south
Far from just wanting to be “back” on the global stage, the prime minister has also promised a reset of relations with the global south. But, as a wealthy nation, the UK continues to consume far more than its fair share of the world’s primary resources, and well above the level that the world can sustainably supply. At our current level of consumption, we use 13 times more resources per capita than the low-income nations of the global south.

In the absence of a target to drive progress, we have been slow to act and to take responsibility for our impact on the wider world. Resource extraction and processing drives 90 per cent of biodiversity loss and 55 per cent of global emissions, with countries in the global south bearing the brunt of these consequences. UK consumption has global impacts, exacerbating problems like deforestation, water scarcity, and species loss.  

It is essential that we don’t have an ‘out of sight, out of mind’ attitude to the offshored impacts of consumption. A reset of relations with the global south should mean we take a meaningful approach towards only using our fair share of the world’s scarce resources. 

4. Economic resilience (and green growth) will not be possible without it
Using our resources more efficiently is essential to achieving economic resilience and enabling green growth. As a resource poor country and net importer of materials, we are vulnerable to volatile international supply chains. The nature and climate impacts of overconsumption put supply chain security at risk.

According to the Green Finance Institute, the impact of nature’s degradation on UK supply chains could wipe six per cent off GDP by 2030. That’s greater than the impact of the financial crisis. On the other hand, circular innovations to help meet resource reduction targets offer significant economic opportunities, creating green jobs and boosting our economy.

An ambitious approach to repair, remanufacturing, reuse, and recycling could create over 450,000 jobs by 2035, and macroeconomic studies on improving resource use in manufacturing consistently show it has a positive impact on GDP. Setting resource reduction targets will not only mitigate supply chain risks but also allow us to capitalise on the economic benefits of greater circularity, enhancing resilience and sustainable growth. 

In opposition, Labour talked the talk in identifying the need for a resources target. Now’s the time to walk the walk.