The Labour party’s “mission” to turn the UK into a clean energy leader by 2030
more details of which were unveiled today, is an early instance of a political battle increasingly being fought all over the world.
‌
Good evening.
The Labour party’s “mission” to turn the UK into a clean energy leader by 2030, more details of which were unveiled today, is an early instance of a political battle increasingly being fought all over the world. The Labour party’s “mission” to turn the UK into a clean energy leader by 2030In the words of columnist Martin Sandbu, it is the battle over whether today’s economic demands on governments require them to “go big” or move incrementally.
The party’s leader Sir Keir Starmer reiterated plans for a new publicly owned company, Great British Energy, based in Scotland, to fund infrastructure, cut bills, create jobs and provide energy security and a National Wealth Fund to funnel public and private money to projects such as battery gigafactories and clean steel plants.
The party will also forge ahead with wind power, reversing the current government’s de facto ban on onshore wind farms, forcing councils to “proactively identify” suitable areas.
Labour plans to stop issuing new North Sea oil or gas licences but allow planned developments, such as the huge Rosebank field, west of the Shetland islands, to continue, in order to provide certainty for investors. Critics include unions, which are worried about the effect on jobs, while environmentalists say projects such as Rosebank are inconsistent with the UK’s 2050 net zero emissions target.
The opposition party has made no secret of looking across the Atlantic for inspiration, although its plan to borrow £28bn a year to fund the green transition has now been delayed until halfway through the next five-year parliament.
Still, “go big or go home” seems to be Labour’s message, even as some experts warn that its clean energy targets are too much of a stretch. As Sandbu points out, Labour’s £28bn dwarfs America’s green measures, amounting to 1.1 per cent of British GDP — proportionately seven times bigger than the IRA’s 0.15 per cent of US GDP. It would also be nearly double the size of the EU’s post-pandemic recovery facility.
Tensions around the green transition are not confined to the UK.
EU energy ministers, meeting today to agree an overhaul of the bloc’s electricity market, hit out at Poland’s plans to extend subsidies for coal power plants for giving “contradictory signals to the market” although they did agree to France’s request for a greater role for nuclear.
In Norway, the government is caught up in a battle between combating climate and protecting nature, while in Switzerland, a fractious referendum on cutting carbon emissions has showed populist nimbyism is still alive and kicking.
Meanwhile oil majors such as Shell are determined to keep investing in new oil and gas production for years to come, even as their attempts to justify fossil fuel expansion with carbon capture technology are attacked by the UN.
Another point of tension is the knock-on effect of western green energy subsidies on developing countries where some see them as protectionist.
Raj Kumar Singh, India’s power minister, yesterday accused developed economies of hypocrisy for advocating the phasing out of coal, India’s primary energy source, more aggressively than other fossil fuels, including oil and gas.
“We’ve had the developed world lecturing the rest of the world on how important free trade is . . . And here they themselves are erecting barriers,” he said.