Perhaps they don't want to win

Tweet

 

When Labour first announced their plans to spend £28 billion a year, including in the very first year of a Labour government, on action to stop climate change, it was a bold step. It’s true that there was a certain paucity of detail (why is it that politicians and the media like to concentrate so much on the amount of money being spent rather than on what it’s going to achieve?), and the idea that they could get from a standing start to the whole £28 million in less than a year always looked more than a little dubious, but it was setting out a serious ambition to tackle the number one problem facing humanity and raise UK prosperity levels in the process. Or so it seemed.

In an amazing stroke of good luck, their own-goal announcement yesterday that it might actually not happen quite as quickly as they had previously claimed was overshadowed by the Tory own-goal scorer in chief announcing that he was departing in a huff because people were being nasty to him rather than accepting his lies and dishonesty as absolute truth. But Labour’s discharge of a firearm aimed unerringly at one of its own extremities deserves rather more attention than it has been given. The party could have backtracked gently, by saying that whilst the ambition remained unaltered they had always known that they could never deliver that level of spending as rapidly as they might wish, simply because, in practical terms, it would take time to set up schemes and put people and organisations in place. Instead, they chose to say that they would be deliberately deferring action on financial grounds, in order to abide by their self-imposed fiscal rules.

One of Starmer’s aides spelled it out in these terms: “If it’s a choice between the green prosperity plan and the fiscal rules, the fiscal rules would trump the former”. Aditya Chakrabortty of the Guardian has helpfully translated that as “In a choice between planetary life and some bullshit notion of fiscal credibility, we will always choose the latter.” It’s an entirely fair reformulation of what Labour are saying. The fiscal rules by which they insist they must abide are rules they themselves have written. They aren’t laws of nature or even laws of economics, they are rules which have been invented to convince the Tory press that the Labour Party will govern as though they were Tories, in the hope that the Tory press won’t be too hard on Labour in the run-up to the election. It would be nice, comforting even, to believe that it’s all a ruse and that Labour will abandon the self-imposed shackles once in government, but it appears as though they really do believe that they must abide by the rules which they wrote. They really do prefer austerity to prosperity; misery to hope. Perhaps they think that things are so bad they really don’t want to win.

Saving the rainforests

Tweet

In principle, the idea that legislation should be introduced to ensure that goods on sale in the UK have been produced in a way which does not encourage or promote deforestation is a sound one. The particular approach being proposed by the UK has a number of major flaws however, not least that it depends on the production of raw materials to be ‘in accordance with local legislation’. In states where ‘local legislation’ is either non-existent, badly defective, or hopelessly unenforced as a result of them exercising their own sovereignty, it creates a massive loophole which makes it look more like a gesture than a serious attempt to protect the rainforests. I’m sure that a desirable outcome could be assisted by UK legislation, but it would involve a willingness not only to have an independent international arbiter rather than depend on ‘local legislation’ to determine whether the rainforests are being damaged by producing the relevant products, but also to demand, effectively, that companies operating elsewhere which are selling into the UK market would have to abide by the same rules. It’s a clear instance where legislation in one country will never be enough to prevent environmental damage happening on the other side of the world – countries need to co-operate and work to common rules to ensure change. The UK could lead on this - if it really wanted to do more than make gestures.

In completely unrelated news, it seems that the negotiations over a trade deal with the EU are foundering largely because the UK government considers it utterly unacceptable that the EU should expect third parties (such as the UK) to abide by its rules in relation to issues such as environmental protection, rather than recognise that, as a sovereign state, the UK has the right to set its own rules independently of anyone else, and equally unacceptable that whether it is complying with rules should be determined by anyone other than itself.

Where is the planning for change?

Tweet

Last week, the Tory MP for Monmouth accused those expressing anger over job losses at Airbus of ‘crocodile tears’ and argued that some people have “spent the last few years decrying the airline industry and talking about the climate emergencies and the rest of it… I hope they now realise that this is what they have been calling for”. It was a typically robust performance from a man not exactly known either for his sensitivity to the difficulties of others or for thinking about the consequences of his words. And I suspect that those Tories holding seats in the north of Wales – especially those who only won them a few short months ago – won’t be rushing to thank him for his intervention. But however poorly he expressed himself and however unthinking his comments, he does actually have a point. A reduction in flying will inevitably impact some jobs.

There was another, apparently unrelated, story in the Sunday Times a week ago in which a number of politicians, including Tory Theresa Villiers and Labour’s Andy Burnham, called for staff who have been working at home to return to their offices in city centres because the shops and restaurants there depended on their custom. Never mind that they have shown that they can work effectively at home, never mind that public transport is working well below normal capacity meaning that a return to city centre offices means an increase in the use of private cars with its accompanying congestion and pollution: shops and restaurants depend on their business so people should go back to what they were doing before.

The common theme is that those of us who want to build a different type of economy, one where people travel less and one which is less environmentally damaging and more personally fulfilling cannot legitimately also argue that all existing jobs must also be protected at all costs. A move to a different type of economy, to say nothing of the changes which automation and Artificial Intelligence will bring, necessarily requires some jobs to become redundant, and it is dishonest to pretend otherwise. If we get it right, of course, then they will either be replaced by other jobs and/or we will find other means of sharing out both the work and the rewards for doing it; that is all part of the alternative thinking that is required.

The immediate problem is that some of these changes are being forced upon us at short notice by unplanned circumstances. And part of the reason that’s such a problem is that, prior to the pandemic, governments have given far too little thought to how we manage the necessary changes over a longer period. Even during the pandemic, little thought has been given to whether some of the forced changes (such as more home working) might be beneficially continued for the longer term; the emphasis has all been on ‘returning to normal’. The Welsh government prides itself on some of the legislation it has passed, such as the Future Generations Act, and so it should. However, passing laws is meaningless and pointless unless the government also acts to bring about substantial economic change in a planned fashion, and the simple truth is that there has been little evidence of that happening. Ministers have, instead, used every opportunity to support what is rather than building what should be.

The loss of jobs at Airbus is a tragedy for those involved, their families and local communities, but pretending that the downturn in the aviation industry is something that will last a few short months, and seeking to find ways of maintaining the jobs over that period, is a sticking plaster approach. The combination of Brexit and the almost complete shutdown of aviation as a result of the pandemic have made it obvious for months that there would be a problem for Airbus. Where is the thinking about how those valuable skills can best be employed for the future, where is the thinking about how individuals, families and communities can be protected and supported through a period of change? I don’t really expect to see any of that from a Tory government in London but it’s disappointing, to say the least, that we’re not seeing it from the Welsh government either. Protecting existing jobs is no substitute for planning and managing a transition to a different type of economy.

What is it about coal?

Tweet Jeremy Corbyn isn’t the first, and he won’t be the last, to peddle the idea that we should seek to restart the dormant coal industry in order to exploit the massive reserves which still exist underground.  It’s sad - on energy policy, at least, he was doing quite well up to that point, but now he’s blown it.

Like others who’ve put forward similar proposals in the past, he’s intelligent enough to know full well that Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is a technology which has never been successfully scaled up to that which would be required for large scale deployment.  Perhaps one day it will be, although I doubt it.  It’s not just the technological issues of capturing enough of the carbon; it’s also the issue of what to do with it afterwards.  Pumping it underground is the usual proposal, but the long term security of that is very much an open question.

In the meantime, the ‘promise’ of CCS, in some form, at some future date, is used by apologists for the coal industry as a way of justifying continuing – or in Corbyn’s case, apparently, accelerating – the use of the dirtiest fuel of all.  He, like some others, seems to be seduced by the attraction of the coal industry.

There are of course those who simply don’t accept that any element of climate change is in any way man-made, and I can understand why anyone taking that view might see coal as a cheap option, whilst not really caring whether CCS ever does come to fruition.  But Corbyn and others on the ‘left’ don’t seem to be in that category. 

Instead, the ‘left’ seems at times to have a romantic attachment to the idea of a coal industry, bound up with an appreciation of the sense of community which surrounded pits, and the radicalism which often grew from those communities.  I can see the attraction of those aspects of the mining industry of the past – but I can’t escape the import of those last three words, ‘of the past’.

In community terms – even if not in environmental terms, or health terms – many places in Wales might still be more vibrant and confident if the mining industry had not been decimated.  The main drivers for that decimation were economics and breaking the power of the unions; the environmental advantages of moving away from coal were entirely accidental to the government of the day – but those environmental advantages are not ones which we should just ignore and throw away.

The past can often look better than it was – particularly to those who didn’t live in it – but it’s not a place to which we can return.  Rebuilding our shattered communities is no small task; the destruction wrought upon them during the 1980s in particular has left a terrible legacy.  But the way to do it is by looking to a cleaner future, not trying to go back to the past.

The only environmentally safe coal is coal which is left unburnt in the ground.  Failure to recognise that is to seek to build hope around a false promise.

Trenches and trenches

Tweet There are increasing demands for the link from wind farms – both locally in Carmarthenshire and in Powys – to be taken underground.  From the point of view of minimising the impact on the scenery, it makes a lot of sense.

It does however add to the costs (although there is some dispute about the extent of that addition).  Whether it’s a cost worth paying is ultimately a matter of opinion.  Personally I’d like to see the detail of the cost impact before taking a firm view – it might be that the combination of overhead cables in some areas and underground cables in others will offer the best trade-off between cost and scenery.

There are however two major inconsistencies in some of the statements being made by those demanding that the links be underground.

The first is that the same people are also complaining about the high cost of energy, and wind energy in particular.  Yet they are demanding action which will effectively increase the cost.

The second is that some of those who now want to dig a trench across Carmarthenshire to bury electricity cables were implacable opponents of digging a trench across Carmarthenshire to bury gas pipes.  To me one trench looks much the same as another; insofar as it is damaging, it’s the trench which does the damage, not what is buried in it.

There are some hard facts that we cannot easily avoid:

·         We need to move away from carbon-based energy and base our economy on renewables

·         Effective use of renewables – wind, tide, hydro, solar – means siting the generators where the renewable energy is available.  That often means in the countryside.

·         All energy production and use has an environmental impact; the decision we face is either not to use energy, or else to decide which environmental impacts we’re prepared to support.

·         Energy costs may vary from time to time, but over the long term they are headed in only one direction – upwards.

Pretending that one or more of those things are not true, or that the consequences of them being true can somehow be avoided, may help politicians to win votes in elections, but it doesn’t make for a coherent energy policy.

Am I really a mass murderer?

Tweet Just a few days ago I referred to the politicians’ trick of presenting only two alternatives and trying to force us to choose between them as though there were no other way forward.  It’s probably a trick learnt from Sir Humphrey.  As if to illustrate the point, the Minister for Agriculture in England came out with a classic this week.

According to Owen Paterson the only options available to us are either that we adopt GM rice on a widespread basis or else millions of people die from vitamin A deficiency.  As if that weren’t enough, he went on to say that anyone opposing GM is thus a “wicked” person who is directly responsible for those avoidable deaths.

It’s a breath-taking piece of hyperbole – almost as if he set out with the intention of discrediting his own arguments.  But no; he is – apparently – entirely serious.

There shouldn’t be any need to point out the basic fallacy, which is that most of us get enough vitamin A from a varied diet and don’t need GM rice.  If people are not getting enough from their diet because they are over-dependent on a single crop, then the problem is that over-dependence - and the solution is to remove the over-dependence, not to tinker with the rice.

The problem with that solution – from his perspective at least – is that the “wicked” people condemning millions to die would then be seen not as the opponents of GM, but as the supporters of a fundamentally unjust and unequal world order.  People rather like Owen Paterson, in effect.

I’m not a fan of GM foods, it’s true.  But my opposition isn’t based on the question of the safety of eating them – the only concern generally recognised by GM fans.  It’s based rather on a belief that we don’t yet know the long-term effects of releasing organisms with exotic gene combinations – which if they ever could develop through evolution or selective breeding would take many generations – into the environment.  That other species will adapt is a given; how and how quickly is one of Rumsfeld’s “known unknowns”.

Supporters of GM always point to the advantages for the poor and hungry in support of their position – although I don’t think I’ve heard one claim, effectively, that anyone disagreeing with is a mass murderer.  Not until this week anyway.  But the main beneficiaries to date have been, and are likely to continue to be, the huge multinational agri-chemical businesses which produce them, not those who grow and consume them. 

In short, it’s the rich who gain most of all.  If it really were the only way of lifting people out of hunger and poverty, it might be a risk worth taking; and it might even be worth accepting that the companies concerned could keep their profits.  But that’s a mighty big – and wholly unsubstantiated – if.

CO2, fracking, and fig leaves

Tweet Supporters of fracking – and the increased use of natural gas in general – frequently assert that burning gas produces fewer CO2 emissions than burning coal.  It’s one of those statements which is the truth and nothing but the truth - but it isn’t really the whole truth, particularly when presented in such a way as to suggest that it in any way “solves” the CO2 problem.

It isn’t emissions per se which cause the problem (or potential problem, for those still not entirely convinced).  It is, rather, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.  If the earth’s systems – or even man-made systems – could maintain that concentration at a stable level within the right range, we could burn all the coal we like, with complete impunity.  (Well, not quite of course – CO2 isn’t the only problem with coal, but for the sake of an argument, let’s suppose that it is the only thing to worry about the moment.)

But those systems cannot achieve that; and whilst there is still scope for some debate about the impact of an increase in CO2 levels, there are two facts which are not seriously disputed at all.  The first is that CO2 levels are rising; and the second is that burning fossil fuels by mankind is responsible for at least part of that increase.

We know that burning coal and oil adds to CO2 levels in the atmosphere.  We also know that burning methane adds to CO2 levels in the atmosphere.  It may add less, but it is still a net addition to atmospheric CO2. What those advocating fracking and a wider switch to gas are supporting is no more than slowing the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2.  It is not about stabilising that level, and they don’t always seem to understand that key difference themselves.

Is it better to increase the level slowly rather than quickly?  Well, yes – although I’d use the phrase ‘less bad’ rather than better.  And if the choice is limited to ‘bad’ or ‘not quite so bad’, then it makes sense to choose the ‘not quite so bad’.  What we must not do though is to allow people to frame the debate as if these were the only two options.  It’s a typical politician’s trick; but it diverts attention and discussion away from other options by effectively removing them from sight.

Ultimately, the argument for fracking comes down to it providing jobs and adding to GDP whilst being less damaging than coal.  It’s also a fig leaf behind which politicians who know that burning fossil fuels is a problem, but want to oppose wind farms, can hide.  But a renewables based energy policy will provide even more jobs and might actually start to address the real issue.  We need to keep that real alternative in plain sight.  And take away the fig leaf.

Pickles has a point, even if he's missed it

Tweet The little spat between Cardiff and London last week over changes to building regulations in Wales highlighted yet again the loose way in which politicians use the words ‘red tape’.  Eric Pickles claimed that the new law on installing sprinkler systems, and the rules requiring higher carbon emissions standards for housing, are examples of ‘red tape’ which should be abolished; as ever, one man’s ‘red tape’ is another’s environmental protection or improved safety.  And it’s not as if the UK Government can really claim that they’re against regulation anyway – the recent Queen’s speech proposed extra regulation around employment and housing for immigrants as I recall.  It’s only some ‘red tape’ that they’re against.

Pickles’ rationale was based on the potential damage to the house-building industry in Wales, highlighted by some builders suggesting that they’d now prefer to build new homes in England where they don’t have to comply with such standards than in Wales where they do.  It’s the normal capitalist response to changes in the market conditions – existing capitalists must be protected from such changes, preferably by not making them.  (Although the economic purists would argue that change promotes innovation, and that the companies which manage to find the best and cheapest ways of complying will grow whilst the dinosaurs die.  It’s just that capitalist dinosaurs never die quietly.)

He does have a point, though, at a purely economic level.  There is surely no doubt that the changes made in Wales will increase the capital cost of building new homes, in the short term at least; and even in the long term, the capital cost of building a new house in Wales is likely to remain higher than the capital cost of building a new house in England.  With no increase in earnings on the Welsh side of the border, that will put a squeeze on housebuilders’ profits, which is why they are protesting so much (although it is precisely that squeeze which is supposed to drive innovation, isn’t it?).

Forgetting the housebuilders for a moment, the people likely to lose out here are those families in Wales who want to buy a new house.  Prices are already high compared to wages; a further increase in prices with no change to wages simply prices even more people out of the market.  There is a danger that the main beneficiaries will be another group of capitalists – those who operate the burgeoning market for private rented housing.  The Welsh government’s response is hopelessly inadequate – it’s as though they believe, or pretend, that there isn’t a problem at all.  Or at least, if there is, it isn’t their problem.  But there is a problem, and it’s a very real one.

However, the fact that there is a problem doesn’t mean that Pickles is right to call for the abandonment of changes which will, undoubtedly, improve safety and reduce environmental impact.  That’s simply throwing the baby out with the bath water.

The essence of the problem is this: improving the environmental performance, and the safety, of new housing will reduce the lifetime cost of home ownership, but at the cost of increasing the initial purchase price.  Long term revenue costs are reduced in exchange for an immediate increase in the capital cost.  But the financing structures for home purchase – the mortgage market – aren’t changing to reflect that.  Purchasers and mortgagors see only the increased capital cost; the reduced revenue costs aren’t taken into account in assessing affordability of mortgages.  So what we need isn’t to scrap the changes, but to look at how we can reflect that front-loading of cost in financial arrangements.  And that’s something which neither government seems to be willing to tackle.

Flying off on a tangent

Tweet

Last week the idea of a new airport in south-east Wales popped up again, as it does – in one form or another – every few years.  And, as is invariably the case, the coverage focused on the practical aspects and consequences, rather than on the underlying principles and assumptions.

From a UK-wide perspective, building a new airport to the west of London somewhere around the Newport-Bristol-Cardiff area makes a great deal of sense, if you believe that:

• continued globalisation is either a good thing, or else simply inevitable
• demand for air transport will continue to grow
• demand for air transport can and should be satisfied
• we will find a way of dealing with the environmental consequences of an approach to aviation policy which simply sets out to satisfy every demand

I didn’t see much attention given to any of that last week; it was all about GDP and jobs – the usual approach of those who talk green, but act rather differently when they have to make choices.

The coverage – presumably because it started in Wales – also assumed that such an airport should be on the Welsh side of the estuary.  But hold on just a minute there – why should that be?  Clearly any airport on such a scale is well beyond Welsh needs, and has to serve a wider area. Indeed, as I said above, it makes sense only when viewed as a UK-wide project.  And from a UK perspective, it is far from being obvious that the best site is on this side of the estuary rather than on the other.

Nor can such an airport, any more than the existing one at Rhŵs, ever be a Welsh National  Airport in the sense of serving the whole of Wales.  Even in a wholly independent Wales, with the best conceivable north-south links, much of the north of Wales still be better served by using airports such as Liverpool, Manchester or Birmingham.

And why not?  There’s nothing fundamentally wrong with people in one country depending on an airport in another.  Geneva is in Switzerland; its airport is in France.  And the proponents of a Severnside airport are depending on the assumption that large areas of England will depend on, and choose to use, an airport in Wales; so large areas in north Wales continuing to depend on airports in England is not incongruous.

So, from a UK perspective, with a number of assumptions about future transport choices, Severnside airport may indeed make a great deal of sense, even if the most logical location is on the English side.

But does it make sense from a Welsh perspective, given a government commitment to putting sustainability at the heart of government decisions?  Does it make sense if one believes that globalisation will turn out to be a comparatively short term phenomenon, doomed in the long term by environmental and resource constraints?  Scarcely.

It owes more to a preoccupation with the ‘grands projets’ so beloved of many; and a belief that increasing wealth in one small corner of Wales is the solution to poor average GVA  per head.  It is yesterday’s thinking not tomorrow’s.

To frack or not to frack

Tweet For those who remain unconvinced, despite the scientific consensus to the contrary, that the man-made contribution to climate change is significant enough to warrant action, the deposits of shale gas which apparently underlie these islands can only be a bonanza.  For those who are convinced about the climate change argument, but think that the solution is to use lower carbon fuels rather than renewables, having large reserves of gas on (or rather under) home territory makes it easier to argue the case for gas.  

I disagree with them, but those are honest arguments; it’s just the premise on which they are based which is in question.  Equally honest are the arguments of those who think that what is required is a wholesale shift from carbon fuels to renewables, and that extending the large scale use of gas is deferring, rather than solving the problem.  From that viewpoint, opposition to fracking is a natural consequence.

Rather less honest, though, are those who seem to be arguing that we should continue to use gas ‘but not that gas’.  Any politicians who have supported – or merely failed to oppose – the construction of new gas-fired power stations are being more than a little disingenuous in trying to ride a wave of public opinion concerned about fracking.  Effectively they’re saying that using gas is fine as long as it comes from somewhere else.

Now it might be argued that fracking has an environmental cost associated with it; but then so does all extraction of fossil fuel from the earth.  It’s just that, when we see the gas being delivered to the Haven in large tankers, we’re not seeing that environmental cost.  It doesn’t mean that nobody else is.  A determination to protect the environment at home whilst depending on products produced by environmental damage done elsewhere isn’t being green; it’s just nimbyism writ large.

We can make choices about policy on energy as on anything else; but when we’ve made a choice, we have to be willing to accept the consequences, not just load them on someone else.  For me, the choice is a simple one; either plan to phase out the use of gas, or else accept that, sooner or later, it has to come from fracking.  It’s not honest to support the continued use of gas whilst opposing the exploitation of reserves. 

Two sides to the equation

Tweet Fuel poverty is a real problem, and it is one which an increasing number of families are facing.  It is no surprise to see politicians competing with each other to offer 'solutions', nor to see newspapers competing to criticise the situation.  What is a surprise, though, is to see such a high degree of consensus suggesting that the 'problem' is to do with the price of fuel and that the 'solution' is therefore to find ways of reducing it.

For the Tories, in particular, such an approach seems to go against their usual belief in the ability of the market to set prices; not so long ago the idea that any government should intervene in the price-setting process would have been complete anathema to them.

It's true, of course, that the range of tariffs available is both large and confusing; it has become increasingly difficult to work out which tariff is the best one for any particular customer.  Whether that's a 'problem' or simply a 'feature' of a market in which suppliers are trying to compete whilst retaining customers and profits is a matter of opinion.

It's also true that energy prices in general have gone up significantly in recent years, increasing the number of people falling into the category labelled 'fuel poverty'. But whilst large and increasing profits may have played a part in that - blaming the energy companies is a sport that we can all play - it's not the whole truth.  Energy is a commodity of which a rapidly developing world is demanding every greater quantities, at a time when the extraction of some fossil fuels is becoming more expensive and when decarbonising the economy should be an environmental priority.  In environmental terms, using price to reduce consumption is not as entirely bad a thing as one might think from reading recent coverage.

Insofar as there is a pricing problem, it seems to me that it is partly a result of the way in which those who use the least pay the highest unit price; the worst excesses of energy wastage are happening as a result of usage by those who can afford the lower unit price they are often paying.  Adjusting tariffs so as to reverse that situation might be one useful adjustment to pricing which could be done without resorting to full-scale price regulation.

However, it is the other side of the equation, the one which is getting ignored, which interests me.  If people can't afford to buy the quantity of energy which is necessary to ensure a basic level of heating, then isn't it at least a possibility that the 'problem' is as much to do with incomes as it is with prices?  We have a very unequal - and becoming more unequal - distribution of income; wouldn't fixing that long term problem be preferable to trying to manipulate prices to provide relief in the short term? 

Where else should it go?

Tweet Last week's announcement by National Grid of the preferred location for the substation to serve wind farms in Wales brings a long-running dispute to the surface once again.  But like many Welsh political arguments, it is an argument which seems to generate more heat than light.

Many of those I saw interviewed by the BBC were refreshingly honest - they concentrated on issues such as the view from their homes and villages and the effect on property values as the basis of their opposition.  These are issues to which most of us can relate; but ultimately, electricity generation, and the infrastructure to support that, have to go somewhere, and local concerns have always to be balanced with wider needs.

We need electricity, and we need to generate it somehow.  We cannot all assume that the electricity we want and need will be generated ‘somewhere else’.  If we are going to build wind farms in Wales then the infrastructure to connect them to the grid has to go somewhere.  Not building substations is simply not an option.

That in turn brings us right back to two underlying questions.

The first is whether and to what extent onshore wind has a role in the energy mix, and the second is the subsequent question of where it should be sited. 

The second of those is the easier of the two to answer - the best location is always going to be the one where the presence and speed of wind is most consistent.  And whether we might choose it to be thus or not, Welsh uplands are ideal from that perspective.

The first question is rather harder.  It is an issue on which opinion is seriously divided, and raises a number of issues.

Some opponents of on-shore wind don't accept the need to reduce emissions, and reject the idea that anthropogenic climate change is a real phenomenon.  This is, at least, an honest position to adopt.  It may fly in the face of majority scientific opinion, but majority scientific opinion hasn't always been proved right.  If emissions are not a problem, we can simply go on using gas, oil, and even coal.

However, the consequences of rejecting the majority view if it's right are much worse than the consequences of accepting the majority view if it’s wrong.  That balancing of risks and consequences would be enough to convince me that we should act, even if I wasn't convinced that the scientific majority was right.  And once we decide to act to reduce emissions, the fact that, as of today, on-shore wind is the most proven and readily available source of renewable energy is an inescapable fact.

"The benefits will flow elsewhere", we are told.  It’s true of course.  But it's also true of many other things that happen in Wales, whether relating to energy generation or not.  It's an argument (and one I’d entirely accept) for changing the economic model under which we exploit a resource, but it's not an argument for non-exploitation as such.  I want Wales to have control over its own infrastructure, and to be able to make a decent profit from those things of which we can produce a surplus.  But I also want there to be some infrastructure and surpluses for us to bring under our own control.

“It's exploiting Welsh resources for the benefit of England."  Again, possibly true, but over-simplistic.  Exploitation doesn't recognise, or stop at, borders.  If turbines were built on some of the more suitable locations in England (whether as well as, or instead of, is irrelevant in this context), that exploitative (if it is indeed such) relationship between users of electricity and those living close to the points at which it is generated would still be the same; it would merely have become internalised within a different set of human-defined borders.  (In any event, is either the wind or the landscape really 'owned' by those who happen to live nearby, or is it more widely 'owned' by us all?)

"They wouldn't be built without the subsidies."  Again, it's true that the subsidy regime encourages renewable rather than fossil fuel electricity generation.  That's exactly what it is intended to do, in order to reduce emissions from energy generation.  But it's also true that other forms of generation are effectively "subsidised" by being able to externalise some of their costs.  Not all subsidies appear in our electricity bills, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t exist.

But perhaps the favourite counter argument is the one about "wind farms are useless".  It is an issue which I have posted on before a number of times.  If it were true, then it would indeed be something of a killer argument against both turbines and the supporting infrastructure.

It is, though, a claim which is often based on selective use of facts, some interesting ‘interpretations’ of facts, and sometimes even simplistic axiomatic assertion.  Whilst a sensible policy wouldn’t go above around 15% - 20% wind in the overall generation mix, the argument that it is completely useless doesn’t stand up to examination.

The argument about whether the sub-station should go on the proposed location will no doubt continue – but it has to go somewhere, and the best form of opposition would be to come up with a more acceptable location rather than simply oppose its construction.

Racing for the bottom

Tweet The Welsh government frequently refers to the extent to which sustainability is seen as being its central principle in everything it does.  The idea is sound and it's a nice sound bite as well.  The problem arises in living the implications of making such a commitment.

Last week for instance, Tata steel, the operators of the Port Talbot plant, raised an issue over the price which they have to pay for energy.  Their European chief executive described high energy prices as an “obstacle" to growth.  Specifically he also complained that his company pays more for energy than competitors in France and pays business rate double those of competitors in Germany.  I have no reason to doubt either of those figures, but it's notable that his company would also be paying considerably less corporation tax on any profits in the UK than it would in either France or Germany.

Keen to support a major employer in South Wales Carwyn Jones, our first Minister, leapt to their support.  He called for what he referred to as a "level playing field" when it comes to energy prices, and urged the UK government to take steps to ensure such a level field.

What exactly he had in mind is unclear, but it seems reasonable to assume that what he was in fact calling for was government action to reduce energy prices.  That is, however, looking at only one factor.  And looking at one factor in particular is not giving proper consideration to the overall economic environment in which companies operate.

There is a question also over the extent to which Jones's call conflicts with his own government’s “central organising principle".  Indeed, he recognised the conflict when he said "Sustainability is important, but one of the main planks must be economic sustainability and sometimes they have to be trade-offs."

That sounds to me as though he is in fact saying that the commitment to sustainability applies only in so far as it does not conflict with the interests of major employers.  And such a commitment is no commitment at all.

There are indeed differences in energy prices between different countries.  And there are differences in tax regimes as well.  There is a danger in trying to be the lowest in order to compete in the interests of economic growth.  And that danger is that economic sustainability leads to environmental unsustainability.

I’m sure that Jones recognises that danger himself.  Indeed, some months ago, he argued that corporation tax should not be devolved to Wales because it would lead to a ‘race to the bottom’ as different parts of the UK sought to compete with each other for economic investment on the basis of a lower tax regime.  Up to a point, I agree with him.  That's part of the reason why I would argue for devolution of a range of taxes rather than considering a single tax in isolation.

Reducing energy prices to large consumers of energy to compete with other countries is another form of a race to the bottom.  But this isn't just an economic race to the bottom; it is also potentially an environmental race to the bottom, given the impact of energy consumption on emissions.

Now steel is going to be made somewhere.  It's an essential product to any developed or developing economy.  And we certainly would not want to create an economic environment which drives such industry elsewhere.  Solving our own emissions problems by moving them elsewhere is no solution at all. 

Creating an environment where companies are both successful economically and have incentives to reduce their environmental impact is a difficult balancing act.  But simply responding to their pressure for reduced energy costs is avoiding any attempt to do any balancing at all.

Off the line

Tweet

As was widely-trailed in advance, common sense has prevailed on the issue of rail electrification, and the project will now terminate at Swansea rather than Cardiff, and include the Valleys lines.  It’s good news, as far as it goes (pun intended).

Transport expert, Mark Berry, was quoted as saying that “Without electrification [Swansea] would have been perceived as being off the end of the line”.  True, of course.  And, even with electrification, what will be the perception of Llanelli, Carmarthen, and Pembrokeshire?  The statement, surely, is just as applicable.  And the additional danger is that the need to change train at Swansea will increase as the proportion of electric services to Swansea increases, thereby also increasing the perception that we are somewhere beyond the end of the line.

It would have been unreasonable and unrealistic, of course, to expect today’s announcement to have included the electrification of our lines down here in the far west.  It would have been nice, though, to have seen today’s announcement placed in the context of a wider ambition to electrify the whole network, and to see some sort of outline timetable for achieving that.  It isn’t just West Wales that’s left out; the north is largely ignored as well.  And nor are the forgotten or ignored limited to Wales either.

I accept that it would be some years before the work could be carried out, and that there are real opportunities for us to get more, and improved, rolling stock as the hand-me-downs from those areas lucky enough to be electrified are redeployed.  Existing diesel rolling stock has probably got up to 30, maybe 40 years of useful life; so the timescale that I’d like to have seen put on completing the electrification of the network would be one which enabled the government to proclaim that ‘all new rolling stock will be electric’.  That lack of a strategic view of rail investment is one which has dogged the UK for decades, and it’s still lacking today.

I’m still unconvinced by the claim that saving 15-20 minutes off journey times to London will make a huge difference to the economic prospects of Wales.  The benefits of electrification as I see them are more around increased reliability, lower cost, and the environmental benefits (provided that the electricity is generated from ‘clean’ sources).  In that context, the announcement that it will be partly paid for by above inflation fare increases is rather less welcome.  The idea of investment in rail as a way of encouraging a switch from road to rail for environmental reasons still doesn’t seem to have been fully understood.

Verbal gymnastics

Tweet

There is a lot with which I can agree in the report (available here) on Energy Policy and Planning published last week by the National Assembly’s Environment and Sustainability Committee.  I was surprised by their apparent faith in the future viability of Carbon Capture and Storage, however.  That faith does not seem to be justified by the evidence at this stage, but that’s a comparatively minor disagreement.  My real disagreement is with what they have to say about nuclear energy and in particular with the support of a majority on the Committee for the construction of Wylfa B.

I tend to agree with the views expressed by Gareth Clubb of Friends of the Earth in the report in the Western Mail, who referred to a lack of evidence presented to the committee which would support their conclusion that there are “strong economic arguments” for Wylfa B.  It looks, rather, as though the supporters of nuclear energy on the committee had pretty much made their mind up before even considering the evidence.

It’s clear from the report’s wording that the committee sees nuclear energy as both a “low cost” form of energy and a “short term” solution.  Unless they are using some very odd definitions of those terms, it’s hard to see how they can make either of them stand up.

The most optimistic estimates of timescales for new nuclear build suggest that it will be at least seven years before any new stations will be exporting power to the Grid.  And given previous experience both in the UK and elsewhere, the most optimistic timescales are unlikely to be achieved.  Short term solution it most definitely is not.

Back in the 1950s / 1960s, it was claimed by the proponents of nuclear energy that the electricity produced would be ‘too cheap to meter’.  It wasn’t true then, and it’s not true now.  The construction costs of new stations are enormous, as are the decommissioning costs, and it is clear that new stations will only be built in the UK if the government stumps up massive subsidies.  The subsidies may be disguised in terms such as underwriting waste management costs, but subsidies they will be.  Low cost?  No chance.

The report’s conclusion that nuclear energy is an essential part of the energy mix is rather fatally undermined by the attempt to claim that it is only so if new stations are built at existing sites.  This is simply verbal gymnastics; if nuclear is an essential part of the energy mix, then whether it is built at new or existing sites is irrelevant.  And if the location outweighs other arguments, then it cannot be an essential part of the mix.  (In any event, the proposed Wylfa B isn’t really ‘on an existing site’ anyway – it’s alongside it, which is why the consortium was busy purchasing additional land for the construction.)

Given that Wales is already a net exporter of electricity, and has a number of other new projects in the pipeline already, there is clearly no need in terms of Welsh energy policy for new nuclear capacity.  Such capacity can only be aimed at consumers elsewhere.  And that brings us back to the “strong economic arguments” to which the report refers.

Nowhere in the report are these arguments spelled out, but given that the overall economics of nuclear energy are open to debate, to say the least, it’s hard to escape the conclusion that this is simply a euphemism for the jobs which such a development would provide.  It’s a pretty narrow view of the economics of nuclear energy.

There’s nothing wrong, of course, with the idea that we should produce a surplus of some products and services for export in order to purchase those things which we cannot supply ourselves.  That’s as true for electricity as it is for widgets.  It’s a sensible approach and provides unemployment.

There’s a non-sequitur here though, if that’s the basis of the argument.  There is no necessary or obvious link between a decision to over-produce electricity in order to provide gainful employment, and a requirement to build a new nuclear power station.  In fact, quite the opposite – there are other, better ways of achieving the same objective.

The obvious one is investment in renewable capacity.  Less obvious is investment in energy conservation and insulation – reducing our own demand is as effective a way of producing a surplus as is generating more.  But the key thing is that either of those approaches would almost certainly generate more jobs at lower cost than the nuclear option.  It could be argued, of course, that that’s all very well in theory, but where are the developers proposing to provide those alternative jobs on Ynys Môn?

It’s a valid question, but it betrays an underlying mindset that energy policy is really about government reacting to proposals put forward by private developers rather than driving policy on the basis of what’s right environmentally as well as economically.  And that’s an abdication of responsibility for setting out an energy policy rather than merely tinkering with planning control policy.

One of the problems with the “jobs trumps all else” argument is that it ignores qualitative judgements about what sort of future we want to build in Wales.  And it can be very open-ended.  But there’s surely more to these decisions than that. 

Wales is rich in potential for renewable energy, it gives us a huge advantage over a lot of other countries in decarbonising our economy.  Ignoring that and pursuing a technology on which so many others are busy turning their backs,  for the sake of a smaller number of jobs than we could gain by exploiting our advantages, shows a remarkable lack of vision for an institution which prides itself on having sustainability at its core.

Hain's legacy

Tweet

Seizing hold of a single major issue, and dedicating time to pursuit of that issue, is in the finest tradition of parliamentarianism in the UK, and if Peter Hain had stated last week that he was going to dedicate the rest of his parliamentary career to championing a switch to renewable energy, I’d be forced to seriously reconsider my opinion of him.  That isn’t quite what he said, however.  I don’t expect to be eating my non-existent hat for a while at least.

Rather than pursuing a commitment to the adoption of renewable energy, he is committing himself to a single scheme being promoted by a single consortium, and his statement seemed to suggest that the attraction of that scheme is more to do with the size of the investment involved and the number of jobs created (albeit temporary) than with the energy generated.  Indeed, the fact that it would produce green electricity seemed to me to be almost a bonus rather than being core to the scheme.

I think he’s backing the wrong horse of course; whilst I support the exploitation of the tidal energy in the estuary, I think that there are better ways of doing that than building a giant barrage with all the environmental impact that would have.  That isn’t my main concern about his action, however.

I also rather suspect that the viability of this ‘private sector’ scheme is in reality highly dependent on the public sector coughing up large sums in order to build the barrage higher and run rail and/or road links across the top of it.  But that isn’t my main concern, either.

There is a fine line between campaigning for a particular outcome on the one hand and becoming a parliamentary spokesperson for a particular company promoting a particular scheme on the other.  And it seems to me that he’s in real danger of crossing that line.  MPs are not employed to promote the interests of specific private companies through their parliamentary activity; and that’s my main concern about his statement.

To date it has been claimed that he has no paid position with the consortium concerned, and I have no reason to doubt that.  There is, though, a long and not very honourable history of politicians helping companies whilst in office and reaping their rewards at a later date; cynicism is often, sadly, justified.

Hain is, by his nature, something of a bruiser.  He seems to have difficulty seeing an issue without wanting to disagree vehemently with someone else about it.  But he would probably actually achieve more – and leave a more worthwhile legacy behind him – if he turned his attention from the specific to the general, and tried to build a consensus around that.

Green armies

Tweet

If there’s one aspect of human activity which I’d never describe as being in any way environmentally sound, it has to be warfare.  Using the earth’s resources to build weapons to kill, maim, and destroy is never going to be on anyone’s top ten list of sustainable activities.  So I was fascinated to read at the weekend that the army is ‘going green’.

It seems that they’re planning to install solar panels and wind turbines at bases in Afghanistan, and have been testing such an installation in Cyprus.  The plan is to deploy the new equipment later this year, and that it will slash fuel consumption by 45%.

However, lest anyone should think that the army is going soft, a member of the test team made it clear that this plan was all about saving lives, and had nothing to do with “tree hugging”.  The problem to which this is a response is really nothing to do with the environment at all – it’s just that the efforts to pacify that country have been so unsuccessful that fuel convoys are being regularly attacked by the Taliban.  The equation is a simple one: fewer convoys = fewer attacks = fewer deaths.

Now of course we should commend the army for reducing fuel usage, and for doing anything and everything it can to cut the loss of life in Afghanistan.  But we should not pretend that it has anything to do with environmentalism.  The only ‘green’ warfare is no warfare.

Red tape holding us back?

Tweet

‘Red Tape’ is one of everybody’s favourite bêtes noirs.  It’s something which prevents people doing whatever it is that they want to do and think that they should be allowed to do; ties up resources in unnecessary activity; and is generally a ‘bad thing’. 

Businesses in particular hate the stuff.  Apparently it stops them hiring people because they can’t simply sack them when they want to, stops them from keeping their employees at work for however many hours they need them to work, and forces them to abide by all sorts of rules and regulations, such as health and safety and environmental protection, without which they could get on with making their profits.

And that’s the rub.  Whilst it’s easy to agree with the general (unnecessary regulation is a bad thing), it’s a lot harder to agree on the specifics (which regulation is really unnecessary).  Tuesday’s Western Mail contained an article about economic activity in the Haven, and the headline was that experts and businesses were complaining that the future of the area was being put under threat by too much red tape.

It was a lengthy article, quoting various people complaining about the extent to which their activity is regulated; but it was remarkably short when it came down to detailing which regulations were causing the concern and why.  The closest that it came was in talking about "the increasing burden of environmental regulation, regulatory pressure and issues surrounding the planning procedures for new developments”.

Now I don’t doubt for a moment that relaxing controls on environmental pollution and doing away with planning controls would make it easier for some organisations to make money.  It might even lead to more material prosperity for a larger number of people.  But at what cost?

There is always scope for debate about whether particular rules and regulations are entirely necessary or can be amended or tweaked with no detrimental impact.  But, and not for the first time, I‘m left with a feeling that an attack on red tape is really a backdoor request to be allowed to do greater damage to the physical environment in pursuit of private profit.

Elusive proof

Tweet

Science and politics don’t always sit easily together.  It’s tempting to suggest that that is because science seeks truth, whereas political ‘truth’ is always changing.  That isn’t entirely fair though; scientific truth can change as well, albeit not as easily or conveniently as political truth.  The timescale question is probably a more relevant one.  Politicians’ horizons are often limited to the date of the next election, whereas science tends to the longer term view.

Climate change – or more specifically, the anthropogenic element thereof – is an example of the way in which scientists and politicians are driven by different considerations, and on very different timescales.  Seen through the eyes of a politician interested in short term economic benefit, these comments by the MP for Monmouth make some sort of sense.

His core argument seems to be that if one country alone tries to take radical action to reduce carbon emissions, whilst others do little or nothing, then that one country will be seriously disadvantaged economically in the short term.  He’s right; the problem is not with that part of his argument.  (Although the conclusion drawn – that we should not do anything either – is far from being the only possible conclusion from that line of thinking.)

Such reasoning leads to a situation where no-one does anything until everyone else agrees to act as well.  If the science is right on climate change, such a conclusion is a recipe for disaster.  But as long as it doesn't happen in the timescales of any elections which current-day politicians are likely to be fighting...

Underlying his argument is another strand, which goes well beyond the question of unilateral action.  It is clear that he is not convinced about the existence of anthropogenic climate change in the first place, because it hasn’t been ‘proven’ to his satisfaction.  And he highlights a number of issues and statistics which underline that lack of conclusive proof.

In taking that viewpoint, of course, he’s far from being alone, although it’s a view which seems to be more widely held by politicians and economists than by the experts in the field.  And, up to a point at least, he’s right on that as well. 

‘Proof’ of a scientific proposition is an elusive beast, and greater understanding over a period can, and frequently does, lead to refinement or even fundamental change of the basic proposition.  But lack of complete proof is not at all the same thing as complete lack of proof; however, a jump from one to the other is all too readily made.

I’d accept the basic point that the impact of what we’re doing to the earth is not currently fully understood, and that many of the predictions are based on models which make a number of assumptions.  They may be the best possible assumptions, and they may be made by people who’ve spent a lifetime working in the field, but they’re still assumptions.

What we know for certain however is that human activity is adding CO2 and other greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere, and that the concentration of those gasses in the atmosphere is increasing.  The danger behind the thinking of people like David Davies is that we wait until the impact of that is entirely proven before acting – at which point it will be too late.

I don’t unquestioningly believe every prediction being made by the climate scientists; but given a choice of following their advice or that of a layman who happens to be an MP, I wouldn’t choose the MP.

Need for long term view

Tweet

I'm sure that I’m far from being the only one who wonders how sincere Carwyn Jones really was in his call for the devolution of power over large energy projects.  And his party isn’t the only one which might be more than a little wrong-footed if power actually did get passed to Cardiff.  (Wylfa B, anyone?)

Trying to make sure that people blame someone else for unpopular decisions is all good fun, and the growth of opposition to the implications of a renewables-based solution is a fact of life to which politicians will naturally respond.  Trying to be seen to support those opponents may be an obvious response from those seeking their votes, but it isn’t the right way to make energy policy.

And there’s a more general point there, which I’ve touched on before.  If it is clear that we need to build renewable generating capacity, then that capacity has to go somewhere; and there will probably be objectors to any and every site suggested.  So how do we decide where to put it?

Opponents of on-shore wind (who generally, though far from exclusively, live a longish way from the coast) often suggest putting it off-shore.  There are certainly some advantages to off-shore installations – and there are disadvantages as well.  But they’re every bit as likely to generate opposition, even if it’s from a different group of opponents.

There is simply no such thing as generating capacity which has zero environmental impact.  And sub-stations will be needed in support of any new capacity, as will pylons to connect it to the grid; both of those apply whether we are talking about wind, hydro-electric, tidal power, or even large arrays of solar collectors.  (Some connections might be shorter than others, based on the location of the capacity, of course – but connections there will be.)

The real underlying problem is that, whilst people say at one level that they want to be ‘greener’, government and politicians have not really convinced enough of the populace of the need to move to a renewables-based energy economy.  Without doing that convincing, individual proposals are not put into a proper context. 

Actually, it’s worse than that.  Many of the politicians know perfectly well what needs to be done, and they know that many of the arguments against harnessing the wind are untrue, but they are afraid to be robust in putting the counter arguments for fear of losing votes.

During one hustings meeting last year, I was asked whether I was, on the whole, optimistic or pessimistic about mankind’s reaction to man-made climate change.  My response was that I was pessimistic – not because I thought that we couldn’t deal with the issue, but because I thought that we wouldn’t.  One of the reasons for that is that politicians taking a long-term view are always likely to be trumped by those prepared to take the opposite view for short-term electoral reasons.