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

Keystone/Hulton Archive/Getty Images
Show Hide image

What Donald Trump could learn from Ronald Reagan

Reagan’s candidacy was built on more than his celebrity. Trump not only lacks experience as an elected official, he isn’t part of any organised political movement.

“No one remembers who came in second.” That wisdom, frequently dispensed by the US presidential candidate Donald Trump, came back to haunt him this week. Trump’s loss in the Iowa Republican caucuses to the Texas senator Ted Cruz, barely beating Senator Marco Rubio of Florida for second place, was the first crack in a campaign that has defied all expectations.

It has been a campaign built on Trump’s celebrity. Over the past eight months, his broad name recognition, larger-than-life personality and media savvy have produced a theatrical candidacy that has transfixed even those he repels. The question now is whether that celebrity will be enough – whether a man so obsessed with being “Number One” can bounce back from defeat.

Iowa isn’t everything, after all. It didn’t back the eventual Republican nominee in 2008 or 2012. Nor, for that matter, in 1980, when another “celebrity” candidate was in the mix. That was the year Iowa picked George H W Bush over Ronald Reagan – the former actor whom seasoned journalists dismissed as much for his right-wing views as for his “B-movie” repertoire. But Reagan regrouped, romped to victory in the New Hampshire primary and rode a wave of popular support all the way to the White House.

Trump might hope to replicate that success and has made a point of pushing the Reagan analogy more generally. Yet it is a comparison that exposes Trump’s weaknesses and his strengths.

Both men were once Democrats who came later in life to the Republican Party, projecting toughness, certainty and unabashed patriotism. Trump has even adopted Reagan’s 1980 campaign promise to “make America great again”. Like Reagan, he has shown he can appeal to evangelicals despite question marks over his religious conviction and divorces. In his ability to deflect criticism, too, Trump has shown himself as adept as Reagan – if by defiance rather than by charm – and redefined what it means to be “Teflon” in the age of Twitter.

That defiance, however, points to a huge difference in tone between Reagan’s candidacy and Trump’s. Reagan’s vision was a positive, optimistic one, even as he castigated “big government” and the perceived decline of US power. Reagan’s America was meant to be “a city upon a hill” offering a shining example of liberty to the world – in rhetoric at least. Trump’s vision is of an America closed off from the world. His rhetoric invokes fear as often as it does freedom.

On a personal level, Reagan avoided the vituperative attacks that have been the hallmark of Trump’s campaign, even as he took on the then“establishment” of the Republican Party – a moderate, urban, east coast elite. In his first run for the nomination, in 1976, Reagan even challenged an incumbent Republican president, Gerald Ford, and came close to defeating him. But he mounted the challenge on policy grounds, advocating the so-called “Eleventh Commandment”: “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.” Trump, as the TV debates between the Republican presidential candidates made clear, does not subscribe to the same precept.

More importantly, Reagan in 1976 and 1980 was the leader of a resurgent conservative movement, with deep wells of political experience. He had been president of the Screen Actors Guild in the late 1940s, waging a campaign to root out communist infiltrators. He had gone on to work for General Electric in the 1950s as a TV pitchman and after-dinner speaker, honing a business message that resonated beyond the “rubber chicken circuit”.

In 1964 he grabbed headlines with a televised speech on behalf of the Republican presidential candidate, Barry Goldwater – a bright spot in Goldwater’s otherwise ignominious campaign. Two years later he was elected governor of California – serving for eight years as chief executive of the nation’s most populous state. He built a conservative record on welfare reform, law and order, and business regulation that he pushed on to the federal agenda when he ran for president.

All this is to say that Reagan’s candidacy was built on more than his celebrity. By contrast, Trump not only lacks experience as an elected official, he isn’t part of any organised political movement – which enhanced his “outsider” status, perhaps, but not his ground game. So far, he has run on opportunism, tapping in to popular frustration, channelled through a media megaphone.

In Iowa, this wasn’t enough. To win the nomination he will have to do much more to build his organisation. He will be hoping that in the primaries to come, voters do remember who came in second. 

This article first appeared in the 05 February 2015 issue of the New Statesman, Putin's war