Blogging – or, at least, writing this blog – involves a great deal of heart-searching, not least to avoid falling into the trap of pursuing personal obsessions to the detriment of objective coverage.
The question I must constantly address in selecting a topic is whether the subject matter is objectively important, or important just because I think it is.
In that context, readers may recall my post late last month where I argued that a secure supply of cheap energy underwrote the very fabric of our civilisation, and the economy, making itthe most fundamental issue that any politician had to address.
Thus, it is of some comfort to see a letter to The Daily Telegraph from Miles Templeman, Director-General, Institute of Directors, who informs us of a survey of 1,800 business leaders last month.
Reflecting – and effectively vindicating – my own concern, the respondents identified "ensuring secure energy supplies" as the single most important issue facing the next government. Some 85 percent said that new nuclear power stations should be built in Britain.
Templeman goes on to say that political indecision, flaws in Britain's strategic planning system and the persistent threat of windfall taxes on the profits of energy companies have discouraged private investment in new capacity, and have left us dangerously exposed to power shortages over the next decade.
He concludes: "The next government must deal with this problem. If this results in a fast-track planning process and building lots of new nuclear power stations, so be it."
If we had grown-up politics, this would be a central issue in the coming general election. But, in the scheme of things, it is regarded as a technical, specialist concern, outside the run of mainstream politics. It is thus largely ignored by the political commentariat – a reflection of its lamentable superficiality.
It is not altogether untoward, therefore, to note the current focus of the Tories on their "big society" and then to point you to the comments of Gerald Warner, who is a tad dismissive of the idea.
The contrast, to me, points up the core ailment of contemporary politics. We have politicians sticking their noses in issues which are none of their business and where they can only do harm, while neglecting those issues where intelligent and timely intervention is essential.
It also points up another important aspect of our politics, namely that which politicians tell us is important (as a political issue) isn't necessarily so, while the issues they do ignore are not necessarily unimportant.
When, perhaps, we have the happy coincidence of politicians identifying and dealing with the really important issues, instead of what they think is important (to them), then perhaps we will have reverted to grown-up politics. In the meantime, I will continue to write about energy because, as a political issue, it really is important.
COMMENT THREAD
According to just released EU figures, CO2 emissions from industry sectors covered by the ETS have dropped by 11 percent over last year. This, we are told, is on top of a six percent fall the previous year, leaving industry users with a massive surplus of EU CO2 emission permits.
The effect is mainly due to the recession, although the increased use of gas rather than coal and fuel oil for electricity generation has contributed to the downturn in emissions.
Nevertheless, the power sector – the only one which actually has to pay for it permits – actually ran short, despite trimming 119 million tons of emissions, compared with the previous year, ending up having to buy 124 million tons from the market – costing electricity users about £1.5 billion.
That still left the heavy industry sectors, such as steel and cement production, with about 185 million tons of permits, or 30 percent more than they needed. These are valued at current prices at about £2.13 billion, given to them free under the EU system.
With little immediate demand for the extra, these firms can save their credits for an upturn in the economy, to offset against future emissions. That, much to the chagrin of the greenies, means that the way is clear for them to increase their emissions over current levels without incurring penalties.
This, of course, defeats the whole object of ETS which is supposed to drive industry emissions down, year on year, another brilliant "success" for our gifted Eurocrats, to add to their many others.
Clearly, they have missed a trick here as they should have given the scheme to the officials running the CFP – that would guarantee a shortage of permits (and the destruction of the industries needing them).
The real loser though will be the UN's clean development mechanism (CDM). With a surplus of European credits on the market, there will be very little call for certificates of dubious provenance, from grubby little third-world operators, except at a huge discount.
What will now happen, of course, is that for the next round of certificate giving, the EU will try to set a lower "cap", which will have all the industrialists threatening to offshore their production – which they are largely doing anyway, ending up in a token cut which satisfies no one.
Some of the greenies – and the money men – are setting their hopes on the EU upping its ante, from a 20 to a 30 percent cut in emissions on 1990 levels, but there is a long way to go before all member states will agree to an act of collective economic suicide. There are still some member states which seem not to have lost their will to live.
Without that, the ETS is likely to become ever-more irrelevant, although governments, industry and the money men are making far too much loot out of the system to want to abandon it. Thus, it will become – as it always has been – just another tax, hidden in our electricity bills, for the little people to pay.
T'was ever thus and will remain so until we rise up and slaughter our tormentors – a prospect which is becoming ever more attractive by the day.
COMMENT THREAD - CLIMATE CHANGE
Roger Harrabin of the BBC – objective? Dear me, no! Not according to Biased BBC.
COMMENT THREAD - CLIMATE CHANGE
Posts
