Yves here. As much as post about UK climate change policy might seem a tad parochial, microcosms can provide insight about macro issues. The fact that this article comes from a financial organ, City A.M., does not necessarily make its depiction less valid. In many different ways, the overwhelming majority of the citizens of advanced economies are making clear that they are unwilling to make even comparatively modest sacrifices to prevent worst climate outcomes. This posture, as we’ve said repeatedly, has been enabled by Green New Deal advocates, who have persistently engaged in climate cakeism: the bogus notion that better shopping, tax incentives and disincentives, and creating new infrastructure (which has environmental costs) will allow us to preserve nearly all of our current lifestyles while saving the planet.
The reality is that only very radical curtailment of energy and resource consumption could conceivably achieve that. In other words, our advanced economy lifestyles are soon to be over. The question is whether is whether societies as a whole or communities within them get in front of the problem of what to cut and what to keep to make the transition less calamitous, or whether governments react as unplanned breakdowns occur more and more often.
The press continues to deliver hair-tearing stories that confirm we are ruled by greedy, short-sighted morons. The lead story in the Wall Street Journal today is Tech Industry Wants to Lock Up Nuclear Power for AI:
Tech companies scouring the country for electricity supplies have zeroed in on a key target: America’s nuclear-power plants.
The owners of roughly a third of U.S. nuclear-power plants are in talks with tech companies to provide electricity to new data centers needed to meet the demands of an artificial-intelligence boom.
Among them, Amazon Web Services is nearing a deal for electricity supplied directly from a nuclear plant on the East Coast with Constellation Energy decrease; red down pointing triangle, the largest owner of U.S. nuclear-power plants, according to people familiar with the matter. In a separate deal in March, the Amazon.com decrease; red down pointing triangle subsidiary purchased a nuclear-powered data center in Pennsylvania for $650 million.
So instead of treating energy as a scarce commodity and making sure uses critical to collective survival get first dibs, instead we have rapacious squillionaires securing supplies to foist more humanity-dumbing-down AI on us. Frankly, we humans entirely deserve the bad outcomes we are creating. The sad part is we are taking a lot of innocent species along with us.
By CityAM.com, the online presence of City A.M., London’s first free daily business newspaper. Cross posted from OilPrice
With the election just one week away, Labour’s pledge to “make Britain a clean energy superpower” has sparked a debate on whether or not their net zero scheme is actually achievable.
Sir Keir Starmer revealed that Labour’s transition team is considering setting up an office for Net Zero, should they win the election, in order to reach their target of decarbonising the electricity grid by 2030, five years before the Conservatives. The party plans to allocate £28bn each year towards climate initiatives, citing economic limitations and emphasising the importance of fiscal responsibility.
But the costly ambition of this net zero roadmap has triggered discussions within the party about finding a balance between environmental goals and financial caution.
This 2030 deadline will be achieved with the creation of Great British energy, a publicly-owned clean power company aimed at strengthening energy security and cutting bills, which will be funded by increasing the windfall tax on oil and gas companies, and then preventing them from lowering their windfall tax bill.
Labour’s net zero secretary, Ed Miliband, believes that the 2030 target is attainable and an essential step towards a green economy.
However, the policy does not appear to be convincing everyone.
Javier Cavada, the European boss of Mitsubishi Power, argues that the party’s plan has little chance of success and said that the focus should be on creating “a path that is realistic, affordable and achievable”.
Despite Labour declaring that its schemes will ultimately decrease the price of energy bills, Cavada is not entirely convinced that less than six years will be enough time to achieve this. He fears that the project will also be extremely expensive and questions whether the whole country and its industries will be able to invest in it.
Sir Jim Ratcliffe, CEO of INEOS, also voiced his concern for Labour’s “absurd” manifesto, claiming that their policy will only lead to the UK importing their energy from overseas.
Electricity demand is expected to rise from currently around 300 terawatt hours per year to about 360 terawatt hours by 2030, and Ratcliffe said that the 2030 goal will increase the risks of energy crises and electricity shortages as it will coincide with the expected closure of most of the UK’s remaining nuclear power stations.
The GMB Union has said that the net zero plans will lead to “power cuts and blackouts”, tarnishing the reputation of the party and it is insisting that Labour reconsider their manifesto.
Sharon Graham, leader of the Unite trade union, said if Labour follows through with their proposal to ban new drilling licences in the North Sea, it could result in oil and gas workers becoming “the coal miners of this generation”.
The Conservatives say they will continue licensing oil and gas production in the North Sea as they plan a slower transition to renewables. The move has come under considerable criticism. Ex-Tory MP Chris Skidmore revealed earlier this year that he would now be supporting Labour because he refused to support “a party that has boasted of new oil and gas licences in its manifesto”.
Nevertheless, the Tories still aim to reach net zero by 2035, and this transition will be aided by tripling offshore wind capacity, building a new carbon capture facility, expanding nuclear power and adding new gas power stations to support renewables.
The party claims it is taking a more ‘pragmatic’ approach in cutting consumers’ costs and limiting the creation of any green levies on household bills.
The Labour Party has recently received backlash from the Conservatives’ Energy secretary Claire Coutinho, who claimed a ban on North Sea oil and gas will result in large tax hikes for workers, and that this would only “accelerate the worsening climate crisis”.
She defined the opposing party’s policies as “a triple whammy on the UK: jobs lost, higher taxes and investment destroyed.”