In defence of renewables

Huhne is right on climate sceptics and "armchair engineers".

WWF-UK yesterday launched Positive Energy, a report demonstrating that renewable technologies could provide the UK with well over 60 per cent of our electricity needs by 2030; and that we could do this without breaking the bank. The report was welcomed by a wide range of major companies, consumer associations and key commentators. Yet it comes at a time of increased anti-renewable energy sentiment in the media, to the extent that energy secretary Chris Huhne, speaking at the RenewableUK conference today, felt the need to directly rebut the "faultfinders and curmudgeons who hold forth on the impossibility of renewables".

Not only are renewables being blamed as the main reason for energy bill increases, but some outlets are increasingly arguing there is no point in the UK trying to fight climate change: the rest of the world is doing nothing anyway. "Let's focus on shale gas instead", cries the increasingly vocal anti-renewables lobby, claiming that this "wonder gas" will solve all our energy problems. These claims are inaccurate at best, downright disingenuous at worst, and should be seriously challenged.

Saying that renewables are the main driver behind people's bill increases could not be further away from the truth. The wholesale gas price, which rose by 84 per cent between 2004 and 2009, has been the main factor in increasing UK electricity bills by 63 per cent over that same period. Support for renewable technologies has, in contrast, represented only a small fraction of consumer bills to date. Furthermore, the industry is crying out for political certainty to drive costs down, belying the argument that we shouldn't support renewables until their costs drop.

By creating a low-risk environment with clear renewable targets and stable financial support schemes we can reduce the cost of capital, attract companies such as Vestas to invest in renewable energy factories in the UK, incentivise companies to mass produce renewable technologies and increase investment in R&D. All of these are critical to cost reductions -- and to job creation. Look at Germany, which already employs some 367,000 people in its renewable energy industry; something which the UK, which has seen the share of manufacturing per unit of GDP halve in the last 20 years, should surely want to emulate.

On the point that the rest of the world, especially China, is doing nothing to tackle climate change, that again is far from the truth. In terms of investment in renewable energy, the UK -- not even a top-10 world investor -- is playing catch up. According to a recent report from Pew, China is now the world's leading investor and installer of renewable energy, having ploughed over $54bn (£34bn) into renewable energy in 2010 alone;equivalent to the entire world's investment in the sector in 2004.

It's not just compared to China that the UK is lagging behind. Germany and Denmark are already heading towards a 100 per cent renewable electricity future and even Italy and France (well-known for its focus on nuclear) have substantially more renewables than the UK.

Saying that shale gas is the answer to all our energy problems is also fundamentally flawed. Leaving aside the environmental uncertainties around fracking -- such as groundwater contamination and methane gas leakage -- do we really think that relying even more heavily on a single fossil fuel (which already accounts for 80 per cent of our domestic heating and almost half our electricity) is a sensible idea?

Continuing to rely heavily on gas will take the world on a path to at least 3.5C of warming, according to the International Energy Agency. This is almost twice the temperature limit which scientific consensus says we should not exceed if we want to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.

Unfortunately, climate change seems to have completely dropped out of the current energy debate, which is a tragic oversight. Putting aside the catastrophic environmental and human consequences that climate change could trigger, the cost of adapting to a changing climate will absolutely dwarf any of the costs needed today to decarbonise our power sector.

Nick Molho is Head of Energy Policy at WWF-UK

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Emmanuel Macron can win - but so can Marine Le Pen

Macron is the frontrunner, but he remains vulnerable to an upset. 

French presidential candidate Emmanuel Macron is campaigning in the sixth largest French city aka London today. He’s feeling buoyed by polls showing not only that he is consolidating his second place but that the voters who have put him there are increasingly comfortable in their choice

But he’ll also be getting nervous that those same polls show Marine Le Pen increasing her second round performance a little against both him and François Fillon, the troubled centre-right candidate. Her slight increase, coming off the back of riots after the brutal arrest of a 22-year-old black man and Macron’s critical comments about the French empire in Algeria is a reminder of two things: firstly the potential for domestic crisis or terror attack to hand Le Pen a late and decisive advantage.  Secondly that Macron has not been doing politics all that long and the chance of a late implosion on his part cannot be ruled out either.

That many of his voters are former supporters of either Fillon or the Socialist Party “on holiday” means that he is vulnerable should Fillon discover a sense of shame – highly unlikely but not impossible either – and quit in favour of a centre-right candidate not mired in scandal. And if Benoît Hamon does a deal with Jean-Luc Mélenchon – slightly more likely that Fillon developing a sense of shame but still unlikely – then he could be shut out of the second round entirely.

What does that all mean? As far as Britain is concerned, a Macron or Fillon presidency means the same thing: a French government that will not be keen on an easy exit for the UK and one that is considerably less anti-Russian than François Hollande’s. But the real disruption may be in the PR battle as far as who gets the blame if Theresa May muffs Brexit is concerned.

As I’ve written before, the PM doesn’t like to feed the beast as far as the British news cycle and the press is concerned. She hasn’t cultivated many friends in the press and much of the traditional rightwing echo chamber, from the press to big business, is hostile to her. While Labour is led from its leftmost flank, that doesn’t much matter. But if in the blame game for Brexit, May is facing against an attractive, international centrist who shares much of the prejudices of May’s British critics, the hope that the blame for a bad deal will be placed solely on the shoulders of the EU27 may turn out to be a thin hope indeed.

Implausible? Don’t forget that people already think that Germany is led by a tough operator who gets what she wants, and think less of David Cameron for being regularly outmanoeuvered by her – at least, that’s how they see it. Don’t rule out difficulties for May if she is seen to be victim to the same thing from a resurgent France.

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.