Energy

A couple of days ago, I wrote about the deleterious effects of political consensus on energy policy. A good example of this has emerged today. According to Politics Home, Luciana Berger and Caroline Lucas are seeking an amendment to the Green Deal to impose a target for domestic carbon reduction. A number of salient points emerge from this. First, it’s a fine instance of the obsession with targets; itself an indication that this area of policy is largely a top down initiative – driven by targets, taxes and penalties. The Green Deal, as it currently stands, is one of the few areas that put incentive before directive. The idea was to ‘nudge’ consumers into improving domestic energy efficiency.

What do the TUC, heavy industry and the European Commission have in common? This is not the start of a bad joke; the answer is that they all oppose the government’s energy policy. Ten days ago, Tata (formerly British Steel) announced that it was to cut more than 1,500 jobs at plants in Scunthorpe and on Teeside. The directors later confirmed that their decision was influenced, in part, by the introduction of a costly carbon floor price at the last Budget. The floor price, which exists on top of levies imposed by the EU, has increased the burden of taxation on energy consumption to subsidise renewable energy research. In last week’s issue of the Spectator, Matt Ridley predicted how this policy will likely be an expensive fiasco.

George Monbiot is undergoing an astounding and very public transformation. Last week he overcame the habit of a lifetime and fully endorsed nuclear power as a safe energy source. He went further this week, attacking the anti-nuclear movement for perpetuating lies and ignoring the consensus around scientific facts. He levels special criticism at the allegedly lax scholarship of Dr Helen Caldicott, a decorated primate of the anti-nuclear communion.  He also debunks the myths surrounding the disaster at Chernobyl and laments that campaigners have abused that tragedy by exaggerating its consequences. Monbiot’s tone is neither arch nor righteous. Rather, he’s disappointed and the piece has a dignified poignancy.

Remember when Nick Clegg said that the coalition was shuffling into a new phase? One where his party would would make their presence, and their differences with the Tories, more acutely felt? Turns out the Lib Dem leader wasn't kidding. Judging by this report of a press briefing he has given in Mexico, the brave new phase is very much in effect. For starters, Clegg luxuriates in the anti-nuclear hysteria that has arrived in the wake of Fukushima — emphasising not just that our planned nuclear power stations will be more costly and difficult to build now, but also his party's policy that no public money should be used to fund their construction.

Few observers would have expected Simon Hughes to tear into the coalition with full force in his speech today. The mood in Liverpool is geared towards support, not destruction. But the deputy Lib Dem leader's effusiveness was still fairly surprising. He reassured the audience that he is a "rock solid supporter of the coalition – which our party has democratically agreed will last for five years". He echoed one of Clegg's central messages from yesterday, saying that "when you move from the touchline to the pitch, there is a risk you may get some knocks and pick up a few bruises – but on the touchline you never get the chance to change the game." And he finished with a flourish of optimism: "This is the best opportunity of our lifetimes".

As Pete notes, Nick Clegg is moderating the debate over the spending review in David Cameron’s absence. It’s an unenviable task. IDS and Liam Fox have been the most cussed opponents of George Osborne, but all ministers are fighting for their budgets behind the scenes. This morning, reports suggest that Chris Huhne could break from the ranks of the silent. The Times gives details of ‘intense discussions’ over the future of nuclear clean-up and renewable energy funding, worth more than £2bn of the Energy department’s £3.4bn budget. Obviously, any reductions in environmentally friendly initiatives carry a political cost for the Liberal Democrats.

Most of Tim Yeo’s proselytising on climate change must be resisted. He calls for a dramatic reduction in carbon emissions in the short-term, which would paralyse Britain’s already geriatric economic competitiveness. He also endorses a policy that would push consumer energy prices to punitive levels in the hope that their behaviour is moderated. And he is adamant that David Cameron’s Husky photo-op was the last word in political positioning. But, his central point, one shared with John Redwood and Peter Lilley, is unanswerable: ‘Working towards a low carbon economy is not a “luxury”; it is essential to our future prosperity.