Environment

Why does hydroelectric power have such a friendlier image compared to other forms of renewable energy? In this week’s magazine cover, our first ever Matt Ridley Prize winner Pippa Cuckson examines why hydroelectricity is not just bad for the taxpayer, but also bad for the environment. In our View from 22 podcast, Fraser Nelson discusses this hidden scandal: ‘The principle of hydroelectric power, which is great for mountains, does not apply England’s green and pleasant lakes. But that hasn’t stopped the government subsidising this because they love the idea so much…every week three hydro-plants are being authorized which pretty much have the power of a candle.

It is always sensible to pay attention to Ben Brogan's Telegraph column, if only because it so frequently seems to have been dictated by friendly chaps at the Treasury. Today's is no exception. Cunning Wee Georgie Osborne has had another one of his master-wheezes that, with a fair wind, will seal the next election for the Conservatives. Again. You see: ‘Conservatives yearn for red meat policies to please the voters. They want a political Plan B for a Tory majority in 2015 to replace the one based on the assumption of economic recovery and tax cuts that blew up in George Osborne’s hands last year. MPs wondering how to achieve a victory in today’s darkened circumstances want compelling measures that can be described in a few crisp words on the doorstep.

The environmental movement hasn’t responded well to the setbacks it has suffered seen since the failure of the Copenhagen climate conference.  The #endfossilfuelsubsidies campaign — trending worldwide on Twitter this morning — is the latest example of their descent. To be clear, fossil fuel subsidies are not a good idea; that is why governments like ours don’t offer them. Fossil fuels are huge cash cows for every western government.  When someone fills up their car with petrol, around sixty per cent of the pump price goes to the Exchequer. When an oil company drills in the North Sea and extracts a barrel the amount that the Treasury gets varies but it is invariably a substantial share of the price, and the sector was raided again at Budget 2011.

Here’s a U-turn that we can all welcome: felling the wind farms. Matt Ridley described, in a Spectator cover story some while ago, how George Osborne has turned against them. Today, the Observer has more details, saying that Osborne is:     As Ridley argued, wind farms are a ‘monument to the folly of mankind’, representing the triumph of ideology over reason. We could not afford them in the boom years, and we certainly can’t now. The subsidies make a small number of rich people even richer, and a huge number of companies are doing very well from the renewable energy racket. But if you apply rational analysis to it — ie, how much energy does it produce for the money it costs? — there is no reason at all. They generate just 0.

The Government takes a lot of stick for blaming the weather when there are queues at airports or lacklustre growth figures. Now the European Union is blaming a ‘colder winter’, as well as ‘economic recovery in many countries’, for emissions in 2010 being 111 million tonnes of CO2-equivalent higher – about 2.4 per cent –than they were in 2009. They are insistent that ‘the increase could have been even higher without the fast expansion of renewable energy. ’ Looking at the record of emissions in the European Union and the United States though, it is clear there is a deeper problem.

It did not take long. Last month, Matt Ridley argued in a Spectator cover story that the wind farm agenda is in effect dead, having collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions. The only question is when our ministers would realise. In an interview with the Sunday Times (£), climate change minister Greg Barker admits that his department has adopted an ‘unbalanced’ approach to wind farms and will now look at other options. ‘Far from wanting thousands more, actually for most of the wind we need… they are either being built, being developed or in planning. The notion that there’s some new wave of wind [farms] is somewhat exaggerated.

The 2013 Matt Ridley Prize is now open. Click here for more details. We've already had some entries for the £8,500 Matt Ridley Prize for Environmental Heresy, and an inquiry as to whether it's open to non-British residents. Misunderstanding of science and environment is, alas, a global phenomenon and CoffeeHousers hail from all over the world. So it's open to everyone. The condition is a piece of 1,000 to 2,000 words which gores one of the sacred cows of the green movement — using facts to confront myths, and science to confront pseudo-science. The winning article will be published in The Spectator. Read Matt Ridley's piece, laying out the scope of the prize, here.

The 2013 Matt Ridley Prize is now open. Click here for more details. Matt Ridley has long deplored the wind farm delusion, and was appalled when a family trust was paid by a wind farm company in compensation for mineral rights on land on which it wanted to build a turbine. The trust would be paid £8,500 a year for it, and Matt couldn’t abide the idea of profiting — even in part — from this. So he is donating £8,500 in an annual prize to be given to the best essay exposing environmental fallacies. Entries open today. The rules are simple. We invite pieces from 1,000 to 2,000 words in length, to gore one of the sacred cows of the environmentalist movement.

Bjorn Lomborg’s article on why Germany is cutting back on its support for solar power is well worth reading and has clear implication for this country’s debate about energy policy. As Lomborg argues: ‘there is a fundamental problem with subsidizing inefficient green technology: it is affordable only if it is done in tiny, tokenistic amounts. Using the government’s generous subsidies, Germans installed 7.5 gigawatts of photovoltaic (PV) capacity last year, more than double what the government had deemed “acceptable.” It is estimated that this increase alone will lead to a $260 hike in the average consumer’s annual power bill.

The economist Dieter Helm is one of the few policy thinkers respected on both sides of the coalition. Oliver Letwin is a long-standing friend of his and Clegg’s office views him as one of the best economic brains in the country. All of which makes Helm’s attack on Chris Huhne’s energy policies in The Times today as interesting as the anti-wind farm letter signed by a 101 Tory MPs. Helm argues that the policy of huge subsidies for renewables is a mistake and that shale gas is a game-changer. Helm writes that, while renewables have a role to play, ‘Coal burning is not going to go away because of wind. Gas is one transition option, a bridge to decarbonisation.

One Cabinet minister fretted to me yesterday about the implications of Justine Greening’s appointment as Secretary of State for Transport. Their worry was not Greening’s position on the Tory ideological spectrum but her views on aviation. This minister worried that Greening, who helped lead the opposition to a third runway at Heathrow, would be against any expansion in airport capacity. In recent months, opinion has been shifting at the top of the Tory party on the airports issue. People were increasingly coming round to the view that there was need for an extra airport or at least an extra runway somewhere close to the capital.

George Osborne told a Conservative Party increasingly wary of expensive climate policies that Britain needs to "cut [its] carbon emissions no slower but also no faster than our fellow countries in Europe. That’s what I’ve insisted on in the recent carbon budget."  What he actually insisted on was what Chris Huhne described as "a review of progress in early 2014 to ensure our own carbon targets are in line with the EU’s".  Even if that review is serious, and energy intensive industries have every reason to be sceptical, it is only going to hold our policy to the same standard as today.  The current targets require us to cut our emissions faster than our European competitors, and the policies we are adopting to meet them are far more draconian.

Luciana Berger is a frequent speaker at this year's conference and her creed is simple: tax energy use to tackle climate change. But, journey along the Mersey, from the glamorous fringe events held on Liverpool’s well rejuvenated quays to the post-industrial wasteland that lies beyond and you discover a different breed of Labour MP. ‘Is the green economy a threat to growth?’ asked Ellesmere MP, Andrew Miller at a seminar earlier this afternoon.