There's been a decidedly mixed reaction to Clegg's energy independence by 2050 announcement. I've left quite a long comment on Alisdair's blog, which I feel I may as well repeat here:
Please take this in the spirit it is intended. I don't wish to be labeled a climate denier or anti-environment, or anything similar.
Energy independence is an arse-headed idea. Not only would it be near impossible to achieve, it isn't a desirable end in itself.
Debunking two arguments for "energy independence":
1. It will provide impetus for creating a thriving green economy in Britain.
2. We cannot rely on unstable countries for our energy. It is a National Security and foreign policy necessity that Russia can't switch off the tap.
Contra 1. We don't attempt independence in anything else. Indeed, our interdependence in the global economy is the major factor in increasing prosperity. State directed ideas of a Green Economy are bound to certain failure just as Wilson's "White Heat of Technology" was a dismal disaster. We shouldn't attempt this central dictat. Global energy resources are most efficiently used in a global context, just like food, cars, or anything else. By shutting our doors to foreign energy we are pulling the PPF to the left. This is a bad idea.
Contra 2. Russia can not "just turn off the tap". Their economy is too dependent on the revenues from gas exports. It is a bluff and it should be called. The interdependence of the global market prevents Russia from stopping exports unless it is happy to have a food crisis at home. In a Total War situation, we may have a problem. But then again in a Total War situation we have a million problems and we'll all be dead anyway.
The only reason "energy independence" is an issue is because of triangulation in the US presidential election has made it a buzz term. Both McCain and Obama have wanted to use national security arguments and fears about jobs to forward a renewable agenda. Its just rubbish.
Efficient renewables are good. Reducing carbon emissions is crucial (which is why I believe we DO need "clean coal", however, oxymoronic the phrase sounds).
Energy independence is an absurd notion. Clegg probably knows that and he should drop it. Now.
Update: Forgot to mention that you should read 7 myths of energy independence and Nick Drew's 5 point energy plan.
Friday, 22 August 2008
Clegg, energy independence, and bad ideas
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Thanks for the link: agree with almost all of your post. On debunkee-point 2, in the long run you are clearly right, the Russians need the $$$; much as they would really love to be an exporter of manufactured goods, they've not a clue how to achieve this; and so their true interests are tied into being a reliable supplier of raw materials. However,
(a) with oil at > $100/bbl they are amassing a colossal sovereign fund (war-chest, if you like) and might fancy they could weather a medium-term period of revenue-loss
(b) they didn't ultimately hestitate to switch off the Italians when they punished the Ukraine in '06 (thus putting an end to a very fine 30-year track record of reliability as a gas supplier)
(c) they have become accustomed to heavy-duty kow-towing by several Euro-states, however often they kick'em in the teeth, and may feel able to chance their arm in this regard
Of course they may get it wrong, but you can't assume flawless decision-making by folks as bitter as they, notwithstanding their excellent strategic chess-playing
PS *coughs modestly* we also predicted this latest little spat, albeit we got the timing wrong by 2 weeks ...
... but I guess on your analysis, you'd say something rather different: that the Russians were suckered into the intervention, rather than doing it to prove they could ? Actually, both could be true
Both are true and I predicted it too, just not in print, so I have no proof.
Your predictions for the year are looking pretty good indeed. Nice work.
You make a solid point with the Russians but that perceived or real instability is already causing people and businesses to switch from dependence on Russian gas to other energy supplies. This State controlled, planned, action is entirely pointless.
The other point that Nick Drew has precisely right is to steer clear of renewables unless they wash their face economically. Windpower is a delusion - it cannot provide predictable or reliable generation; wave power in the long run might be attractive but it is embryonic in scale and has not reliably worked; tidal power as for wave power. Incidentally I am sceptical about a Severn Barrage since the amount of solids in suspension coming down the river will be deposited once the current is checked and will eithr clog up the generators or require to be dredged from the catchment area. Nuclear is uneconomic so, as Nick Drew says, we are left with coal. With clean technology and indigenous fuel it's, to use the cliche, a no brainer.
Post a Comment