You are here:   Climate change > Ditch Ed Miliband's Crazy Energy Legacy
 
Which is a pity, because the UK’s dogged efforts to implement the CCA are already going some way to despoil the economy, with the heaviest burden borne by the poorest in society.

The CCA’s main mechanism for reducing CO2 emissions is a comprehensive subsidy regime for renewable power generation. When the Act was passed in 2008, all forms of renewable power were more expensive than conventional generation from coal or natural gas. This was reflected in the scale of subsidy, which varied from twice the market price of electricity for onshore wind and solar to three times for offshore wind, and seven or eight times for more exotic technologies such as wave and tidal power.

Supporting the subsidy regime was the presumption that oil, gas and coal prices would continue to rise in a more or less linear fashion, and that, as they rose, the cost of renewable generation would decline.

As anyone who has tried to make a living from commodity markets knows, predicting future prices is folly. That is why commodity markets trade futures contracts, which allow them to hedge. Predicting a particular price, or a particular price growth curve, is worse than folly — it is insane. Yet this is what British energy ministers, from Miliband through to the hapless Ed Davey, have based their policies on. It is true that for a few years the oil price cracked through $100 a barrel, but markets do not reward high prices with yet higher prices for very long. The phenomenal growth of US shale oil and gas increased global output, and Saudi Arabia’s decision to stop acting as the world’s swing producer — i.e., the oil industry’s balancing mechanism — cut prices by more than half during 2014.

Oil prices are unlikely to recover any time soon. Saudi Arabia is sticking to a steady level of production, and Opec is a toothless cartel lacking the means to regulate production. Output growth of shale oil in the US will be tempered but not reduced. Supply will continue to grow elsewhere, including Iraq and post-embargo Iran, while demand, outside China is slowing. With a greater emphasis on efficiency the historic link between economic growth and oil demand has been broken, which means that the global economy can be expected to recover without this translating into higher oil consumption.

This cluster of fundamental changes in the world oil market, and by extension the wider energy market, has taken place over the past three years. Markets are dynamic, and yesterday’s sensible posture is today’s suicidal folly. Even if the CCA had embodied a sensible approach seven years ago — which it clearly did not — its effects are now ridiculous.

It is not yet clear which direction Amber Rudd, the new Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, will steer. After the post has been in Liberal Democrat hands for five years, one might expect that a Tory minister would adopt a more hard-headed set of policies. She has already signalled support for fracking, with all the appropriate safeguards, though one suspects this welcome departure was forced on her by the Treasury. The government says it will discourage the further expansion of onshore wind, while continuing to subsidise much more expensive offshore wind. And she has just announced government support for the insanely expensive Swansea tidal power lagoon. But then Ms Rudd is very much part of the blue-green consensus. DECC itself says the priorities in the Queen’s Speech are: “Keeping the lights on and powering the economy; keeping bills low for families and businesses; and getting a climate deal in Paris this year.”

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
TheMushyPea
August 21st, 2015
10:08 AM
David Cameron and the Conservatives were huge supporters of the CCA, and it would not have happened without them. It is a much respected and copied act around the world. It would be criminally short sighted to abolish it. Offshore wind is already cheaper than nuclear and solar and onshore wind much more so. They are closing in on gas too.. a few years of high subsidies does not undermine the case for renewables.

No Good Boyo
July 23rd, 2015
6:07 PM
So Millie's CCA requirements are legally binding. What if a government failed to meet them? Would the prime minister go to jail?

Twinkle
June 29th, 2015
11:06 AM
The creation of expensive electricity has several downsides. It increases inequality with some having to turn their electricity/gas off as bills are too high to meet. It will increase existing trends for businesses to relocate to parts of the world where energy is cheaper. I so nor believe there has been any government research at EU or UK level into effects on the economy because they want this policy regardless. Electricity is only 10-20% of energy use in most countries so cutting fossil fuel based electricity by 20% is only 2-4% reduction of total fossil fuel consumption. Windmills, solar, tidal - all a 'false hope', say Stanford PhDs http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/21/renewable_energy_simply_wont_wor...

John Dub
June 29th, 2015
9:06 AM
The CCA is very similar to most of current Labour policy - it makes the Islington set feel more self righteous, and it makes the working classes significantly poorer. And you wonder why you just took a beating at the election?

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.