It’s Toytown basic economics that the price of any commodity or service is determined by the relationship between supply and demand. The less there is of anything, the higher its price will be, depending on the level of demand. The greater the level of supply the lower the price, and thus the greater the demand and usage.
Nothing could exemplify that better than energy. Restricting the supply of energy whether by design or circumstance, or even elevating the price artificially with taxes and levies, is bound to inhibit demand. And that diminishes the economy.
The Telegraph has published an article by Jonathan Leake on how Net Zero has accelerated Britain’s national decline:
For Ed Miliband and Sir Keir Starmer, Net Zero is the route to clean energy, economic growth and turning the U.K. into a global green superpower.
Across the Atlantic, however, Britain’s drive for “decarbonisation” is increasingly seen as an economic experiment – one that risks tipping the U.K. from miniscule economic growth into full-scale decline.
Chris Wright, Donald Trump’s nominee for US energy secretary, has warned that Britain’s rush to ditch fossil fuels in favour of wind and solar power is causing higher prices, driving away energy-intensive businesses and contributing to Britain’s national decline.
“The U.K., although no longer part of the EU, has continued aggressive climate policies that have driven up energy prices for its citizens and industry,” he wrote in a recent report. “The once world-leading United Kingdom now has a per capita income lower than even the poorest state in the United States.”
Leake doesn’t dispute the effects of climate change or “other consequences of greenhouse gas emissions”. His main point is that a key part of Net Zero policy is to reduce energy usage, but only in Britain. How much less?
To quote the Government’s advisory Climate Change Committee: “In our Balanced Net Zero Pathway, the U.K. economy becomes much more energy efficient, with total energy demand falling by around 33% in end-use sectors between now and 2050.”
Improved efficiency – delivering more output for the same amount of fuel, or less – could help to deliver a reduction in energy consumption. Yet huge advances would be necessary to yield a reduction in consumption of a third. Many observers believe the tail will wag the dog when it comes to this target, meaning the U.K. may be forced to curtail energy use in order to hit it.
For Wright and others, slashing energy consumption by a third and still expecting growth is heresy – an economic experiment no other country has achieved, or even attempted before.
Their view – one supported by most economists – is that access to energy has historically always been directly related to prosperity. The more energy we have, the richer we will become. And if we have less, we get poorer.
Britain’s Industrial Revolution, driven by cheap and abundant coal, is proof, Wright says, of the theory. But with decline in energy usage now far advanced, it’s clear the prioritising of climate targets is having a drastic impact on Britain’s wealth and productive capacity.
In 1970, U.K. industry consumed the equivalent of 62 million tonnes of oil each year, making most of what the nation needed including energy intensive products like steel, cement and petrochemicals. Manufacturing was by far the largest sector of the economy, contributing 30.1% of total output.
Last year, manufacturing accounted for just 9% of the U.K.’s economy.
The point is that a key part of Net Zero policy is to reduce energy usage, but only in Britain. Other countries don’t matter because it’s all about the U.K. Government’s climate policy.
For example, one of the U.K.’s proudest boasts is that it has slashed emissions from more than 800 million tonnes in 1990 to just under 400 million tonnes in 2023. These figures refer to the greenhouse gases emitted within Britain’s borders, from power stations, vehicles, homes, offices and industry.
However, it excludes all the emissions generated from things we buy from abroad, including cars, clothes, steel and cement. Such “consumption emissions” have grown, from under 200 million tonnes of CO2 in 1990 to 400 million tonnes today
If you add our overseas and domestic emissions together, the overall U.K. carbon footprint is about 800 million tonnes. This is only a slight decrease from 1990 and the U.K. has paid a pretty high price to achieve it, including continuing high energy prices and increased vulnerability to global price shocks and shortages.
“The U.K. has too little production, too much consumption, too little savings and too much debt,” Dieter Helm, Professor of Energy Economics at Oxford University, wrote recently. “Perhaps not surprisingly, since it takes time for the politics to catch up with the economics, the new Labour Government is in the process of doubling down on all four of these.
“Current (and proposed) economic policy is perpetuating an unsustainable economy. What is unsustainable will not be sustained. It will have to end, probably in a series of economic crises played out into the future. The next generation will pay the price.”
Leake goes on to explain that the U.K. is not the U.S. and does not have abundant supplies of energy on its doorstep. Britain is dependent on imports.
The key conflict then is between replacing old sources of energy with new ones or simply reducing energy consumption. Britain is steadily running down its oil-refining and steel-manufacturing capacity.
For Miliband, falling energy consumption is a sign of progress rather than an ominous portent. A spokesman for the Department of Energy Security and Net Zero said: “Making the U.K. a clean energy superpower is essential to end the U.K.’s dependency on insecure fossil fuel markets.”
Exactly where we are headed is therefore not clear. It’s also a moot point whether any government can survive enforcing a vision of the future with policies that seem destined to make people poorer, more immobile, colder, hungrier, and with less and less choice in the matter.
Readers may remember the irony of this pronouncement five-and-a-half years ago:
“We will be able to look back on this period – this extraordinary period – as the beginning of a new golden age for our United Kingdom.”
Boris Johnson, statement to the Commons July 25th 2019
He was right about it being an extraordinary period.
The Telegraph piece is worth reading in full.
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.