Reports in newspapers this week revealed that Britain’s domestic production of energy has reached a new record low. The news comes from trade group, Offshore Energies U.K. (OEUK), whose analysis, far from unexpected, details the pressures on investment in conventional energy production, such as the windfall tax on oil and gas companies. Since the turn of the century, U.K. production of energy has fallen by two thirds, whereas consumption has fallen by a third. The difference has been met by an increased dependence on imports. Yet neither the report itself, which is at best agnostic about renewables, nor the stories that cover it, seem to have taken seriously the harm that Net Zero and adjacent agendas have done to our industries, businesses and economy – and are set to do worse.
The U.K. ceased being a net energy exporter in 2004, amid a flurry of green policymaking, culminating in the Climate Change Act 2008, and its increased ‘Net Zero’ target adopted in 2019. Over the duration, coal-fired power stations were demolished, but not replaced with equivalent (i.e. reliable) generating capacity, shale gas exploration was abolished before it had even started. Energy investors in the U.K. and across the continent, lured to attractive guaranteed profits by subsidy regimes, and dissuaded from conventional energy by rising costs of capital, lost interest in oil and gas. Despite promises of ‘green jobs’, a ‘green industrial revolution’ and ‘green economic growth’ and lower prices being the constant chorus of energy ministers of all governments and their so-called ‘opposition’ counterparts, domestic energy prices tripled. So if these new data on Britain’s energy production do not prove the expensive and dangerous folly of more than two decades of U.K. climate policy, what could?
It is as if the entire political establishment had at once decided to forget that there exists a relationship between scarcity and price. Yet, the effect of abolishing coal is just that: it creates scarcity. So too, do policies that either restrict the exploration of oil and gas, or increase the cost of capital, create scarcity. Politicians, lobbied by green billionaires’ ersatz ‘civil society’ organisations who pump false claims into the public sphere, then claim that the problem all along was ‘dependence’ on oil and gas. Green energy will lower prices and diminish the power of dictators, who turn energy into a ‘weapon’ that terrorises Europe, they claim. So successful are they in their policymaking that, since 2019, the Government has capped energy prices – a policy they stole from Ed Miliband in 2017, before taking us into Net Zero. If ‘green’ means anything at all, it means acute cognitive dissonance.
At stake, argues the OEUK report, is immense value that could be unleashed from the North Sea. But investment is being held back by policies, “having big impacts on the profitability of U.K. offshore energy”’ worth one trillion pounds of exports and £450 billion domestically “within the next 15 years”. However, though the bulk of that potential lies in oil and gas, the report includes in its analysis, wind power, CCS and hydrogen. Even oil and gas executives, it seems, have swallowed the green Kool-Aid. And that is a missed opportunity to reflect on the failures of the green agenda, as well as a disappointing failure of an industry to properly stick up for itself, and to defend industry in principle.
And it needs defending. The fig leaf that has concealed Britain’s shameful industrial decline, and blinding politicians to reality in recent years has been the notion that green policies have successfully caused GDP growth to ‘decouple’ from fossil fuel use. However, this conceit requires us to believe, in turn, that the 79% increase in GDP that coincided with the halving of emissions over the same period was not driven by funny money, tricksy policies and analytical sleights of hand, and that the deindustrialisation underpinning it has left us better off. Does anybody, other than green energy hustlers, actually feel better off? Who? How?! What better position can we claim to be in, now that we know that we produce less and import more at a higher price? How much of that ‘growth’ is just higher prices?
The embrace of green economics, at the expense of established economic orthodoxy, leads to regressive disdain for industry. It seems not to have bothered many that we are less capable of producing things and sustaining ourselves – an issue which would have once sent a modern government into a tailspin. It is as if using less energy was a ‘good thing’ in itself, not a reflection of rising prices and stagnant (or worse) productivity. As if to make my point for me, following OEUK’s report, the half-truthfully named Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and the obedient press put a different spin on the matter. “The U.K. recorded the highest ever share of electricity generation by renewables last year”, declared the Standard.
As greens rejoice our production of less for more, U.K. energy market regulator, Ofgem, announced its “discussion on the future of the price cap”, which is “so customers remain protected as the energy market evolves to a smarter, more flexible system”. Why would customers need ‘protection’ from a ‘smarter, more flexible system’? It is, of course, doublespeak. The ‘dynamic price cap’ is time-of-day pricing, more honestly known as rationing. And ‘flexibility’ means using prices to force customers to organise their lives around the ‘smarter’ system, rather than the energy market meeting people’s needs. And it is made necessary by the scarcity created by green energy policy and green ideology.
It would be all for the better if regulators, industry associations and, of course, politicians simply admitted that they have made a catastrophic mess of the very industries that were pioneered in this country. Putting green political ambitions before any other practical consideration has made us poorer, and is going to create a problem far worse than climate change.
Subscribe to Ben Pile’s The Net Zero Scandal Substack here.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Fossil fuel energy generation can operate independently!
Renewables cannot operate without Fossil fuels! Fact
Nor can they manufactured and transported with fossil fuels.
Fuels from fossils don’t exist.
Hydrocarbons – abiotic energy – does exist.
It is clean, it is plentiful, it regenerates. Ergo, heretofore, it is renewable.
It’s just a bit easier to say and describe it as fossil fuel!
80% of the worlds energy comes from fossil fuels. This will not change as time goes on. Western countries getting rid of fossil fuels is politics and nothing to do with science or climate. We in the prosperous west have apparently, according to the eco socialists at the UN, used up more than our fair share of the finite resources in the ground and we are to STOP doing that. ——To impoverish their own voters with draconian climate policies western governments fully onboard with this Sustainable Development nonsense need a fairly plausible excuse.—That excuse is “climate change”——-The greatest pseudo scientific fraud ever.
Fossils don’t make fuels. Dead dinos don’t make fuel. Devonian algae and other darwinian claptrap don’t make fuel. It is abiotic and renewable – it is called hydrocarbon energy.
I think the term “fossil fuels” applies also to dead vegetation. I haven’t heard anyone argue that all fossil fuels are abiotic and none are formed from decaying plant and animal matter. Is that what you are saying?
Let’s not get bogged down in what we call coal oil and gas. That just lets the eco socialists off the hook.
It’s almost uncanny how politicians get the big intergenerational issues wrong – every time.
The climate change fiasco is one of many slow motion train crashes. Decisions made today by the Incompetent Class won’t be felt immediately and therefore there is no natural negative feedback loop. Because of this it only encourages further virtue signalling and appalling decision making.
Furthermore, even if CO2 was responsible for any very mild warming (it really isn’t) then the U.K. contribution vis-a-vis China etc is statistically negligible. So why would they punish their own populations? Also if they are against oil and choose not to use their own, why not openly criticise the world’s oil producers to prevent ‘a boiling planet’. Such double standards.
Then we have mass immigration and Covid. Not a single correct decision anywhere. Short term knee jerk reactions ahead of proper debate and planning.
The question we return to is; are most politicians really as thick’s as mince, or are they all devious gits trying to harm the country? Cock up vs Conspiracy. It’s probably a mix. What we can say with certainty: there are vanishingly few decent and intelligent MPs left in this country.
The state is incapable of doing much well and the size and scope of the state he ought to be minimised. Politicians seldom recognise the depths of their ignorance and are consumed by personal ambition and the desire to leave a legacy.
My view is it’s a conspiracy concocted by relatively few influential people at the top, but followed unswervingly by a very large flock of sheep, consisting of those who are either as thick as mince, or those whose social status/financial well-being depend on not acknowledging the lies.
Heather Mills comes to mind. This whole shit show seemed to accelerate since 2008.
“Decisions made today by the incompetent class won’t be felt immediately” ——I know what you mean but these decisions are actually being felt. Millions are now in fuel poverty because of the huge cost of renewables paid for on people’s bills. This expensive energy that has replaced affordable energy affects the cost of everything people buy causing them more misery, since everything requires energy to manufacture. ——Yet politicians and mainstream news who have simply become climate activists tell us “Renewables are now cheaper than fossil fuels”. ——This is preposterous.
I saw an analysis some weeks ago which described the rapid succession of calamities which would follow a collapse of the National Grid. I recall that water supplies would be affected quite quickly.
I would be glad if someone could give me a reference to the report.
it would be interesting to see an analysis if how the political class will respond to significant power cuts and eventual grid collapse. Presumably we will be invited to live cold so Whitehall and the glorious NHS (oh, and the BBC) can continue to operate. But a protracted period of dull, windless weather would quickly lead to permanent damage with technical difficulties in restarting all sorts of services.
public violence would likely result as water and food become scarce. The police would be incapable of controlling crowds. What would happen thereafter.
If we were lucky enough to have thrown out the political class I wonder how a rational government could replace the destroyed reliable generating capacity. Would they need to or would we, by then, have long since become an openly fascist colony of, who?
I think it will be more insidious with energy rationing, so all but the older generations remember a time when you just pressed the switch and it worked.
However, the people at the top need mass consumption to feed their coffers and mass communication to boast of their power and I am not sure how that ties in with limited supplies.
It does seem counter productive. Why would government and energy companies want you to use less of a product —“energy”. That is where the politics comes in. The politics of Sustainable Development which takes the view that affordable energy drives Industrial Capitalism, and the Liberal Progressive UN are anti capitalist. They don’t want “Free Markets” which comes from this idea that there are too many people in the world with diminishing resources (coal oil and gas)
The same people who took us into lockdown without even considering that it would have a severe economic effect, never mind calculating what that would be, cannot be expected to apply any rigour in thinking about the economic effects of the Net Zero lunacy.
Yet the British people will go out and vote for one or the other of the same bunch of evil clowns they’ve been voting for since the Idiot Blair.
I am voting for the Reform Party. It is probably our last hope. There is now a horrible personal attack on Reform from both members of the Uni-Party, but particularly the Tories. Appauling!
When I wad a youngster the UK economy was always severely constrained by “balance of payment” crises. Strangley, it seems we can now offshore whole industries and import the goods instead with no economic repercussions.
We’ve long since discarded the idea of balancing the economy. Printing money by the creation of massive debt is all the rage nowadays.
If we scaled this down to a single household the profligacy would be self evident. Fifty thousand credit cards all maxed out by the ‘adults’ with no thought for how the kids can ever handle the debts. The house would be repossessed and the house contents sold for pennies.
It’s still a problem. A massive one. But no mainstream media wish to discuss. Because dealing with it means end to Net Zero, forever wars.
They are simply ignoring the balance of payments now, and covering it up by simply printing cash. But this cash is not real, in reality it is theft of our money by means of inflation and super-high taxes. One day the pound will collapse and guess who is bankrupted? It certainly will not be politicians, but the good solid Brits who are not on welfare! Politicians keep all their takings in forign tax havens, which needs serious investigation. Where exactly did Blairs money come from, and how much tax has he paid, for example?
Why does the Climate Party get a free pass, that smooth talking charlatan who is sometimes on GB News is a pound shop Tony Blair. For him, Net 0 (Agenda 2030) is such a great opportunity, But for who!
Vote for Reform UK
. Labour got in 100 years ago so change can happen.