The new Conservative government is unlikely to change UK climate and energy policy radically, writes Stephen Tindale, the new CEO of the pro-nuclear Alvin Weinberg Foundation and a former Executive Director of Greenpeace UK. According to Tindale, David Cameron will build on the considerable achievements of the previous coalition government with the Liberal-Democrats, although there will be some changes, such as less support for onshore wind and a weaker policy on coal. The UKâs engagement in the EUâs Energy Union could also weaken.Â
Following Thursdayâs general election, the UK has the same prime minister, but a different government. The Conservative Party won an overall majority not only by withstanding Labourâs challenge, but also by vacuuming up most of the seats of their former coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats. Ed Davey, the Lib Dem Energy and Climate Secretary in the last government, lost his seat. David Cameron has not yet announced who will be in charge of energy policy next.
The Tory manifesto promises to continue with a diverse approach to decarbonisation, including new nuclear, fracking, offshore wind and tidal power
Before the 2010 general election, Cameron used the slogan âvote blue, go greenâ (blue being the traditional colour of his Conservative party). Having won that election, but without an overall majority, he gave the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) to the Lib Dems, but went there on his second day to promise that he would lead âthe greenest government everâ. The coalition delivered a lot, tripling the UKâs installed renewable energy capacity in five years and legislating to prevent any new coal power stations without carbon capture and storage (CCS).
However, the prime minister has seemed in the last couple of years to lose interest in climate policy. When Labour started campaigning against energy price increases, he is alleged to have told his ministers to âcut the green crapâ (and his spokespeople never denied that heâd said this). Many Conservatives do not accept the link between carbon emissions and global warming. So were the coalitionâs climate achievements due to the Lib Dems? Will Cameron, shorn of the coalition shackles, go all out for fossil fuel expansion and abandon any climate action? I donât think that he will, for three reasons: the Conservative manifesto, Cameronâs own beliefs and the fact that there are some significant climate voices in the Tory party.
Tory manifesto
The Tory manifesto does not propose major changes in energy policy. It promises to continue with a diverse approach to decarbonisation, including new nuclear, fracking, offshore wind and tidal power. It cites the trebling of renewable energy capacity as an achievement of the coalition government in the last 5 years, promises to commit ÂŁ1billion to carbon capture and storage, to continue to support the UK Climate Change Act and to push for a strong global climate deal in Paris later this year: âone that keeps the goal of limiting global warming to two-degrees firmly in reachâ. However, the manifesto also says that a Conservative government will end all financial support for onshore wind, which is very unpopular with many local activists. This approach will make renewable expansion more expensive, because onshore wind is the cheapest available option at present. So it will be bad for those in fuel poverty, because the government will continue to raise most of the subsidy via fuel bills rather than taxes.
Cameron knows a lot about the natural environment
Lib Dem absence will weaken UK policy on coal. Their manifesto promised a law that electricity should all be from low-carbon sources by 2030, and a goal to shut all unabated coal by 2025. Labour also promised the 2030 law, though without the earlier closure for old coal. The Tories have not committed to closing unabated coal; indeed the coalition is giving old coal new subsidies under the Capacity Market, a fact which senior Lib Dems openly blame on the Conservaties. This is highly ironic. Coal miners brought down Edward Heathâs Tory government in 1974, and tried to bring down Margaret Thatcherâs, but it is now the Tories who want to keep the coal fires burning.
On a more positive note, the Conservative manifesto is strong on conservation. It states that we should be âthe first generation to leave the natural environment in a better state than that in which we found itâ and promises to protect our âgreen and pleasant landâ. Cameron knows a lot about the natural environment. I have only met him once â when I was running Greenpeace UK and he met with the heads of green NGOs. He came in and made some sensible introductory remarks, without notes as he always did in opposition. I thought that perhaps he had just been well-briefed and had a good memory. But he then engaged in a substantial conversation with us, and really knew his stuff on conservation. I was impressed, and so â more significantly â were my colleagues from conservation groups. These groups are not always helpful on climate policy: they often oppose wind farms, for example. But, in the UK at least, they accept that the greatest threat to wildlife and to landscape protection is uncontrolled climate change. That is why the RSPB (Royal Society for the Protection of Birds) has said that most wind farms should be supported.
Community energy
The Lib Dems deserve most of the credit for progress on energy policy between 2010 and 2015. But it was a coalition, so the Tories deserve some credit too. Conservative Greg Barker was an energy minister for four years (unusual longevity in that post in Britain), and successfully championed community energy â an approach on which the UK has much to learn from many other countries, notably Germany and Denmark. Barker stood down from parliament, but is now advising London mayor Boris Johnson on sustainable development, so well placed to help community energy expand in the capital.
Any UK engagement in the energy union looks less likely today than it did yesterday
Before 2010 Greg Clark was shadow energy and climate secretary; in the coalition he was a senior minister but not in the cabinet. He is a serious and effective politician who cares about climate action. He is also, unusually for a politician, quite modest â accepting that he has things to learn. Meanwhile John Gummer, Environment Secretary in the last majority Conservative government (1992-97), is now chairman of the Committee on Climate Change, with the role of advising governments on future carbon budgets. Gummer has become an impressive climate champion.
It is not that unusual for a Conservative to take climate change seriously. What is more unusual about Gummer is that he is a pro-EU Tory. The UK will now have an âin-outâ referendum on the EU before the end of 2017. This will dominate UK politics until then, just as the Maastricht Treaty dominated the government of John Major from 1992 to 1997.
Indeed 2015 seems eerily reminiscent of 1992. The opinion polls in 1992 suggested a close election and a possible Labour government. Instead, we had a Conservative government with a small majority. Anti-EU Tory MPs, including some ministers (or bastards, to use Majorâs own description of them) played havoc with the governmentâs attempts to ratify Maastricht. Cameron will have similar problems on Europe. He said during the election campaign that he would not seek a third term as prime minister. So other senior Conservatives will spend much of their time and effort seeking to succeed him. And saying anything even vaguely supportive of âBrussels bureaucratsâ would not enhance their prospects of success. Many Conservatives accept privately that the EU has a legitimate role to play in climate and energy policies; they just donât like to say so publicly. So any UK engagement in the energy union looks less likely today than it did yesterday.
Editorâs Note
Stephen Tindale (@STindale) is CEO of the Alvin Weinberg Foundation, a charity which promotes advanced nuclear reactor designs. He is also consultant for Tidal Lagoon Power and the Re-energise Group and a freelance writer. He was until recently associate fellow at the Centre for European Reform and is a former executive director of Greenpeace UK.
Jono Adams says
Thanks Stephen – I agree with your comments on Greg Clark. I think, with the right mandate, he could provide a useful push in the right direction; albeit, there are a plethora of risks that other issues distract Government.
Karel Beckman says
Note that on 12 May Amber Rudd was appointed the UKâs new energy minister, replacing former Liberal Democrat Ed Davey. Rudd was welcomed by both the Solar Trade Association (STA) and the Renewable Energy Association (REA) thanks to her championing of renewables in the past.
Mike Parr says
In answer to the question posed in the title of the article – “incoherence”. Tory-vermin rhetoric is all about “markets”. What that means is fixing things to ensure that Tory-vermin party doners (oil & gas industries plus the finance sector) get the favours they need to stay in business – hence the support for fracking (in the North of Ingerland – where they don’t vote Tory-vermin). Nuclear & Hinckley is another anti-market policy – if ÂŁ92.5/MWhr for 35 years is good enough for nuclear – why not on-shore wind? Surely the market should choose which tech is the best? Not in Tory-Vermin land.
Indeed, the Tory-vermin support for nuclear is highly puzzling – there is zero benefit for the UK & the only thing it will do is give money to (French) state-owned companies. Perhaps Tory-vermin actually believe there will be some benefit from a UK nuclear prog’? If that is the case then they are well deserved of the nickname “the stupid party”.
Capacity markets? I have already written on this subject – British serfs should make sure they have their cheques made out (ÂŁ18/household in 2018) to give to the large energy companies for exactly…..nothing (this covers both coal & nuclear – something which the writer conveniently missed out – why he did so is contained in the note at the end of the article).
Community energy does not exist in the UK, policy changes are half-hearted (twiddling with the 1989 Electricity Act) and have had close to zero impact. This will continue because Tory-vermin have a direct interest in maintaining fore-lock pulling rural poverty. Cann’t have the peasants better off – eh what!
& the reason I use the phrase “Tory-vermin” – I’m quoting Nye Bevan a British politician (as opposed to Camoron who merely represents the Ingerlish & only a small number of them to boot – the current UK gov’ has no popular mandate – welcome to 18th century UK and its rotten parliaments).
Simon Evans says
“The Tories have not committed to closing unabated coal”
David Cameron has pledged to phase out unabated coal – he just hasn’t set a date.
Paul Hunt says
Being Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change is very perilous politically. The first occupant of this post from 2007 to 2010 had the misfortune of subsequently becoming leader of the Labour Party and is now a humble backbencher. Neither of his Liberal Democrat successors are now in Parliament. It will be interesting to see how Ms. Rudd copes.
Energy and climate change policy and regulation in Britain is such a dysfunctional costly mess that I expect Ms. Rudd, her fellow ministers and her officials will just try to keep the show on the road and to prevent the wheels from coming off. And I expect she will be kept on a tight leash by the Treasury. There simply isn’t enough money to fund all of the costly follies that have been set going. So, for example, trimming the subsidisation of onshore wind will make a fiscal virtue out of a political necessity in the Shires.
It’s also likely that the report on the Competition and Market Authority’s energy market investigation (due by end Dec. this year) won’t create any waves for her. The Members involved are well-skilled at studiously ignoring the blatant policy and regulatory dysfunction and the consumer-gouging antics of the big energy suppliers. The fall in oil prices and the accompanying fall in the prices of other fossil fuels has reduced the political heat. And, to a considerable extent, the big energy suppliers are victims of their own greed and stupidity, so the Members are unlikely to recommend further punishment.
Mike Parr says
“And I expect she will be kept on a tight leash by the Treasury. There simply isnât enough money to fund all of the costly follies that have been set going”
Treasury does not (& never has) funded RES (or nuclear). British serfs through their energy bills do that. In the case of on-shore wind – this no longer needs a subsidy – IEC Class 3 WTs have remarkable capacity factors (& thus very interesting LCOEs relative to wholesale prices) even in low wind areas. On-shore wind will morph into on-shore wind and community energy schemes.