back buttonBack to Westminster Blog homepage

We’re running out of energy

November 9th, 2009 5:59pm
by Jim Pickard

The Infrastructure Planning Commission is much more important than it sounds.

Depending on your point of view, it is either a] an undemocratic body which will impose unwelcome nuclear power stations and wind farms on unhappy villagers or b] the only way to prevent the lights going out in 10 years’ time.

One day it could be a case study in utilitarianism. Who should have the final say - the small minority or the big majority?

It’s a major issue because the IPC is about to start work. But the Tories would scrap it next year. Their argument is that such schemes can get built; companies just need to work harder to turn “nimbies” into supporters.

The counter-argument is that time is running out. Ironically, it was Greg Clark in the chamber this afternoon who kept repeating the phrase: “Why did they leave it so late?“. (A report this summer suggested power outages by 2017 the way things are going).

Well yes, it is Labour’s fault that we are in this situation. The dirtiest coal power stations will have to be closed in the run-up to 2015. Many nuclear power stations have less than a decade before they are wound down. And still UK renewables lag behind all EU countries bar Malta and Luxembourg (as this blog has mentioned before).

But if the British public won’t embrace more power - while demanding 24/7 energy supplies - surely the time has come for some form of compulsion? Even if that means angering environmental groups* and others? On this Labour seems to have a more practical policy than the Tories.

Ed Miliband, energy secretary, tried to make the case, gingerly, this afternoon: “Saying no everywhere will not be in the national interest,” he said.

The Tory approach is to let the secretary of state make individual rulings on schemes - subject to today’s national policy statements, released by the secretary of state. Therein could lie the potential for even more judicial reviews.

There is no doubt that business groups are worried about the Tory policy, as my colleagues wrote here.

The Institute of Directors said today:

“The establishment of the Infrastructure Planning Commission and the consultations on today’s national policy statements are important steps towards reducing these costly delays while preserving the democratic accountability that is properly part of the planning process. Now that the new regime is getting under way, it is important that nothing should be done to hinder the IPC’s ability to deliver quicker decisions on key infrastructure projects.”

*I know that Friends of the Earth and others want a more democratic system. But if the IPC delivers much-needed wind farms isn’t that the better of two evils?

November 9th, 2009 5:59pm in Business vote, Conservatives, Economy, Energy, Environment, UK economy, UK politics | Permalink | Comment

Is David Cameron still a “green”?

October 7th, 2009 5:15pm
by Jim Pickard

The environmental agenda was a key part of Cameron’s attempt to revive the Tory brand several years ago when he became party leader. Highlighting the impact of climate change on the Arctic went hand in hand with his broader call to let more “sunshine” into the Conservatives.

Blue + green = nice: that was the equation. But are cracks appearing in the stance?

Some in the environmental movement are concerned that the promises may not translate into a truly green reality. Andy Atkins, executive director at Friends of the Earth, said yesterday: “We should be getting far more detailed, coherent and ambitious (environmental) policy so close to a general election.”

One source has told me that Boris Johnson has slashed the number of people working in the GLA’s climate team - although I need to confirm his claim that the total personnel has fallen from 49 to 10 (update here later I hope).

UPDATE - it’s actually fallen from 49 to 25. The GLA have sent me an email telling me how many trees Boris is going to plant in London (10,000). It says: “We are confident that we can deliver more services (from City Hall and across the GLA group) for less to improve London’s environment.”

Meanwhile another green said there was a wider frustration that many of the delivery mechanisms crucial for fighting climate change were not in favour with the Tories. For example:

1] They are determined to slash regulation, especially from Brussels. Ken Clarke’s new promise to set up an anti-red tape “star chamber” - which will remove one new rule for every new one created - is a concern among the greens.

2] Regional targets. The Tories have promised to remove Labour’s attempt to push climate change targets down from Whitehall through the regions via a target system. Weak though it was, it was seen as a step in the right direction. It just doesn’t fit into the wider Conservative agenda of localism.

3] Money. When public finances are tight and Whitehall is about to be slashed, will the environment be among the priorities for the surviving civil servants?

4] Green taxes. Favoured by environmentalists - but feared by politicians. Will Osborne risk enraging Middle England further by tilting his inevitable tax increases away from the petroleum-based economy? It looks doubtful.

So how do they reach any green targets without the machinery to push them through?

The greens are grateful that Cameron shifted his party in their direction for a few years, helping to push through favourable legislation such as the feed-in tariff for energy. I suspect (people haven’t told me this explicitly) they now fear that he will abandon them once in power.

Will tomorrow’s speech by Cam have a major green element - or anything beyond broad brush strokes? Let’s wait and see.

October 7th, 2009 5:15pm in Conservatives, David Cameron, Energy, Environment, UK politics | Permalink | Comment

back buttonBack to Westminster Blog homepage