Nigel Farage speaks during a press conference with Ukip MEPs in London on May 26, 2014. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

It's time to challenge Ukip over its climate change denial

The party should face a far more rigorous examination of its unscientific beliefs.

The success of Ukip in the local and European elections should bring greater scrutiny of its policies, particularly on energy, ahead of next year’s general election. While the party capitalised on concerns about immigration and the EU in order to gain MEPs and councillors in many parts of the country, its manifestos also outlined energy policies that reflect an outright denial of man-made climate change.

The Ukip European manifesto attacked EU targets for renewables and efforts to close the most polluting coal-fired power plants, on the grounds that they increase the "risk of blackouts", but also promised to scrap the UK’s targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and to reduce fuel duty on petrol. The party’s manifesto for the English local elections offered fewer pledges on energy, but vowed to "end wasteful EU and UK subsidies to 'renewable energy scams,' such as wind turbines and solar farms."

These commitments were very loosely based on Ukip's energy policy pamphlet, which now lies relatively hidden on the party’s website after its publication earlier this year. The pamphlet complains of policies that are "dictated by Brussels," but also lashes out at domestic measures, suggesting we should abandon renewables and instead "base our energy strategy on gas, nuclear and coal."

Most strikingly of all, it recommends "a re-think" to allow the UK to exploit its remaining coal reserves, claiming that the local impacts of mining can be avoided by "emerging technologies enabling energy to be recovered from coal by underground combustion".  But it fails to admit that although underground coal gasification has been the subject of research for many years, it is still far from being proven as a widespread commercially viable technology.

While acknowledging that coal-fired power stations "must use clean technology to remove sulphur and nitrogen oxides, particulates and other pollutants", the pamphlet attacks the Large Combustion Plant Directive which requires all member states to limit such emissions. This is one of many stark examples of Ukip opposing EU rules on ideological grounds, even though it is purportedly in favour of the UK adopting such restrictions unilaterally.

The pamphlet goes on to state that nuclear waste should be buried underground, while dismissing the risks of an escape of radioactive material in the long term on the spectacularly optimistic grounds that "our descendants in a few hundred years will have made vast technical strides that we cannot even imagine today" and "may be mining our waste deposits, safely, to reuse in new ways."

Further inconsistency is evident in its criticism of public support for renewables, "especially in current economic times", while simultaneously arguing for bigger tax cuts to promote the exploitation of shale gas through fracking. The pamphlet claims that fracking will lead to "cheaper and abundant energy," even though analysts have pointed out that the UK is unlikely to have enough shale gas to reduce the European price of natural gas.

Given the apparent concerns about costs, one might have expected the pamphlet to discuss the price tag on its proposals to increase the UK’s dependence on fossil fuels and nuclear power. But it offers no such estimate. Apart from its rejection of Europe-wide policies on principle, the other common theme running throughout the pamphlet is an avowed denial of the scientific evidence for man-made climate change. It claims that the rise in global average temperature so far is due to "natural" causes, and refuses to accept that carbon dioxide has anything but a beneficial effect because it is "essential to plant growth and life on earth".

It is not surprising, then, that Ukip wants to repeal the 2008 Climate Change Act and to abandon its legally-binding targets for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. The architect of Ukip's energy policy is Roger Helmer, who was re-elected this weekend as an MEP for the East Midlands. Helmer is also the party’s candidate for the Newark by-election next week, and has already publicly reiterated his hatred of wind turbines as a key part of his campaign.

Newark’s voters can gain an insight into Helmer’s worldview by visiting his blog where he recently used public protests against the annual slaughter of migrating birds by hunters in Malta to highlight his own greater concerns about the threat posed by wind turbines. Earlier this year, his blog publicised a book that suggested the sun, rather than greenhouse gas emissions, is driving global warming.

Helmer is not the only Ukip MEP who actively promotes climate change denial. He is joined by Paul Nuttall, the party’s deputy leader, who represents North-West England in the European Parliament where he has been a member of Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety. Last September, Nuttall made a speech against biofuels and described "so-called global warming due to man-made carbon emissions" as "increasingly discredited as a climate theory". He cited the recent slowdown in the rate of rise in global average surface temperature as justification, along with a notorious article in the Mail on Sunday, which wrongly suggested that Arctic sea ice extent increased by 60 per cent between 2012 and 2013.

Of course, Ukip is not the only party to have openly denied the science of climate change while supposedly representing the best interests of British voters. The BNP shares Ukip's disregard for the scientific evidence, with its leader, Nick Griffin, previously having called global warming "a hoax".

But with the wipeout of the BNP in last week’s European elections, Ukip has become the standard bearer for all those who believe that the science of climate change has been concocted by environmental groups and scientists. However, with Ukip now setting its sights on seats at Westminster, and Nigel Farage speculating openly about holding the balance of power in a hung parliament, its candidates should face a far more rigorous examination of their unscientific beliefs and the lack of robust analysis behind their energy policy.

Bob Ward is policy and communications director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at London School of Economics and Political Science.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Is Francois Fillon Marine Le Pen's dream opponent?

The former French prime minister's unexpected surge puts him in the box seat for the Republican nomination - and the French presidency. 

Former French president Nicolas Sarkozy's comeback bid ended in ignominy yesterday after a chastening third-place finish in the Republican primary, ending his hopes of being the centre-right candidate for the French presidency. That we expected from the polls - but what we didn't expect was the surge for Francois Fillon, former prime minister, beating Alain Juppé, anotherformer French prime minister into first place.

Fillon is as close to French politics gets to a Thatcherite ultra - read this very good Anne-Sylvaine Chassany interview with him to get a measure of who he is - which has some commentators nervous that if, he, not the more centrist Juppé, faces Marine Le Pen in the second round, he will lose, as leftwingers stay at home. 

(For those of you who aren't au fait with the French electoral system: you have two rounds. If no candidate secures more than half of the vote in the first round, the top two go through to a second round, held in this case next Sunday. Le Pen is widely expected to lead in the first round and then lose in the second. It is highly likely that it will be the Republican candidate that makes it into the second round with her.)

Are they right? Well, no-one has gone broke betting on the far right in recent years (which is more than can be said for betting on sterling) but there is plenty of reason not to get out the bunting for Le Pen just yet. 

Fillon's chances are good - that the beaten Sarkozy has endorsed him, not Juppé, is a measure of the challenge that Juppé faces - but 15 per cent of voters in the primary yesterday came from the left and there may be more in the second round. Juppé's chances aren't quite gone yet, though Fillon looks the favourite by some distance.

And while I am reluctant to generalize from the thin anecdotal pool of a handful of friends in the French socialist party, my sense is that for all there is a political gap between Juppé and Fillion, the two men are both hated on the left.  Unlike Sarkozy, however, neither is loathed, meaning that the so-called "Republican front" - the historical alliance of non-extremist parties against the parties of the fringe -  is as likely to hold for Fillon as for Juppé.

But if it is Fillon, it will have big consequences. Not for Brexit, where both men - as with most of the French establishment - are unsympathetic to Britain. (And as I've written before, both will be preoccupied with containing Le Pen, which means giving Britain as raw a deal as possible.) But Fillon, crucially, is pro-Putin, and believes that a deal must be done with Russia and Bashar-Al-Assad to combat the soi-disant Islamic State, which will, after Trump's victory, further orient the powers of the West in Putin's direction.

One heck of an intray for the new leader of the free world aka Angela Merkel.

This originally appeared in today’s Morning Call, your daily guide to everything that’s moving in politics, in Westminster and beyond, to which you can subscribe here

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