Energy review falls short

Submitted by Anon on 16 July, 2006 - 11:12

By Reshma Stephens

THE government’s review of energy policy, whose recommendations were announced on 11 July, will undoubtedly provoke widespread hostility on the left - but perhaps for the wrong reasons.

The media have focused on the boost given to nuclear power, with the review stating “Government believes that nuclear has a role to play in the future UK generating mix alongside other low-carbon options” and concluding that, under “likely scenarios”, the government should commission new nuclear power stations to replace existing reactors. This has already led to articles in Socialist Worker and a number of other left publications denouncing nuclear power per se.

There is undoubtedly a reasonable case against the expansion of nuclear, not least in terms of safety and the disposal of nuclear waste. This is particularly true since Tony Blair has made clear that he wants any new reactors built and operated exclusively by the private sector. But many socialists’ opposition to nuclear power seems to be more a knee-jerk reaction conditioned by the memory of disasters like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl and opposition to nuclear weapons than a rational response to the pressing issues of carbon emissions and climate change.

The left and the labour movement need to start discussing these issues. Because power-generation is now a huge profit-generating industry, Blair has pushed through policy in a typically presidential manner, bypassing debate at any level of the Labour Party. Whatever we decide about nuclear power, however, our response to the government’s plans needs to go beyond this one debate.

The most striking thing about the energy review is how it accepts - no, advocates - that these questions should be left for the market to decide. The most telling comment in the response to the review came from David Porter, chief executive of the Association of Energy Producers, who commented “People seem to forget that the government does not build and run our power stations. It is our members who do that...It is vitally important that we move on as soon as possible from the froth of public debate to a meaningful framework for investment”.

In other words, democratic processes and the public concern about environmental problems that they are likely to reflect should not be allowed to get in the way of corporations making a killing. And, of course, Blair agrees wholeheartedly.

One of the problems with a market-led energy strategy is that it will not allow the radically sharp turn to renewable energy sources required to deal with climate change. The review proposes to raise the ‘renewable obligations level’ to 20% (compared to the 4% produced from renewable sources now).

This is totally inadequate when set against the urgent need to reduce carbon emissions. The left-wing environmentalist George Monbiot estimates that what is required is a worldwide emissions cut of 60% per capital by 2030 - which would mean an 87% cut in the UK’s emissions in the same period.

Only a democratically planned energy policy as part of a democratically planned use of the world’s resources is going to do that. Blair’s market love-in will go nowhere near.

This website uses cookies, you can find out more and set your preferences here.
By continuing to use this website, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions.