The absurdity of the energy debate

By Kieran Roberts

Energy is probably the area that epitomises the battle between short termism and long termism the most. The government have announced plans to invest significantly in renewable energy and nuclear (which is in my opinion the least worst option we have) and there is a backlash. “Energy bills ‘to double in five years’ as customers are hit by switch to green power” squawks the Daily Mail and even the Guardian is ramping up fears: “Energy market reform expected to lead to higher household fuel bills.” Their remarkable ignorance is found in the context in which they’re saying this. British Gas has raised gas prices by 18%, Scottish Power are about to raise them by 19% and electricity is facing a 16% rise. Whilst consumers are already struggling to pay their energy bills under the status quo, the media has the short sightedness to attack our only alternative. Labour can’t afford to do the same.

It would definitely be the easiest political option, and there is specific room to oppose the proposals, but the choice is this. The first is to simply oppose the government’s energy proposals and perhaps face short term electoral gain. Alternatively, we can choose to support measures which, on the whole, will begin the end of our reliance on fossil fuels and reduce our energy bills in the long term. If the government does nothing, consumers will face even higher energy bills until they won’t be paying energy bills at all. By that point the oil will have ran out.

If we’re to be a constructive opposition, we need to propose that the consumer alone should not be footing the bill and most importantly, we need to ensure that the transition isn’t left solely to the private sector. They may be best placed to supply the wind turbines and tidal power generators but this is useless without a grid and that is for the government to supply. This is particularly needed for offshore renewables for which the grid doesn’t currently exist. Furthermore, energy companies cannot be allowed to make huge windfalls from this, as was suggested on the Daily Politics earlier this week. If the electorate are ever going to support the measures, the spending needs to be transparent and as much of the revenue as possible raised from this needs to be reinvested. The reason green taxes were viewed as stealth taxes was because this didn’t happen. One suggestion would be to create a ‘Renewable Energy Fund’. Entirely transparent and accessible to the public, all the revenue from increased bills and energy saving and hopefully more government investment would go in to it and the funds would be devoted to renewables and energy saving schemes.

That is the other absurdity in this debate – the deafening silence on preventing the waste of what we already produce. 25 million homes in the UK account for almost a quarter of Britain’s greenhouse gas emission. A huge number of these lack insulation and effective window glazing. Retrofitting every house in the UK could save £12 billion a year. That probably won’t be mentioned much. Nor will the fact that before we even begin to consume our energy, one third of it has already been wasted. As well as debating the transfer to a grid supplied more from renewables and nuclear, we can’t afford to overlook the need for retrofitting and micro generation.

The savings we can make in energy, both in terms of money and in carbon prove that this debate presents a huge opportunity. For Labour, this can be a battleground for lifting people out of fuel poverty, increasing people’s living standards and saving who knows how much carbon. Let’s not allow it to be reduced to a squabble about an extra tenner on fuel bills.