On a scale of 1 – 10 just how dreary was delivery of The
King’s speech? But let’s not be too
critical. When a man who has spent much of his life promoting welfare of the
natural and human environment and the need to cut back on carbon production has
to proclaim “his” government’s intention to continue issuing oil and gas
exploration licences it must be very difficult to muster enthusiasm. Such is the token connection between monarchy
and government, but it must have been particularly galling when he's waited his whole life for this opportunity.
There’s disconnection elsewhere too. Polls show that a sizeable majority of the electorate favour policies which are geared to furthering decarbonisation. (Ipsos and UK Government). Some people certainly favour continuation of oil and gas extraction out of concern, in most cases, for local employment and economies, but the majority would prefer withdrawal from that sector in favour of renewables. So why the push for more oil and gas? It won’t cut energy prices in UK as the output will flow to the international market to be bought back again at market rates. A boost for economic activity? Perhaps, but at the cost of focussing less on development of exciting new technologies related to renewables, technologies which I suspect could bring substantial economic growth, as other countries are doing. Are our politicians really so averse to strategic planning and devoid of long-term thinking that we'll forever be lagging behind more enlightened countries and dependent on them for supplying us with power? At the cost, too, of engendering enmity from the growing band of nations seeking to reduce global carbon production let alone those suffering from its effects including, it could be argued, UK.
Why would a government act so perversely? Like much in life, I suspect the answer is
money.
With party memberships in decline, political parties need to find other sources of income to replace dwindling subscriptions. Thankfully for the Conservative Party, there’s a steady flow of funds from oil-related interests. There’s also pressure from lobby groups, not least those based at 55 Tufton Street and masquerading as respectable institutions acting in the public good while drawing a very opaque veil over their funding sources – sources which are widely understood to include carbon fuel interests. You’ll recall Liz Truss announcing with unseemly haste a few days after moving into 10 Downing Street that new solar arrays on agricultural land were to be prohibited, followed in short order by her Tufton Street inspired mini budget. The unfortunate realty, in my view, is that a change of governing party will make little difference in this respect. Labour too need money.
With national energy strategies across the world increasingly turning away from carbon fuels, those whose businesses have been built on oil and gas production, and whose continuation depends on it, are understandably desperate to keep avenues to survival open. It is suspected too that, just as tobacco interests did in the 1960s, they are using publicity campaigns to further their cause. (Take a look at Wide Awake Media’s Twitter page, for instance. They, too, are coy about declaring their funding sources.)
It's clear that the world’s climate has had warming and cooling cycles over the centuries. It’s a fact too that El Nino is currently having a short-term warming effect. But to my mind it defies all logic to deny that human activity isn’t exacerbating a warming trend.
So, with the balance of government loyalties between the interests of the electorate on one hand and those of its funders on the other tipping in favour of the latter, such funders are able to influence and manipulate strategies towards their own objectives and away from the national interest. Democracy? I don't think so, and I can’t see anything on the horizon which will reverse this trend. What are we to do? Any suggestions?
No comments:
Post a Comment