From the Daily Skeptic
by Sallust
The basic economics of Toyland is that the price of any good or service is determined by supply and demand. The less of anything, the higher its price, depending on the level of demand. The higher the supply, the lower the price and therefore the greater the demand and usage.
Nowhere is this more evident than in energy. Whether it is intentional or environmental restrictions on energy supply, or even artificially raising prices through taxes, demand is bound to be suppressed. This will weaken the economy.
this telegraph Jonathan Leake published an article on how net-zero emissions are accelerating the UK’s national decline:
For Ed Miliband and Sir Keir Starmer, net zero emissions are the path to clean energy, economic growth and transforming the UK into a global green superpower.
Across the Atlantic, however, the UK's push to decarbonise is increasingly seen as an economic experiment – one that risks tipping the UK economy from modest growth into a full-blown recession.
Chris Wright, Donald Trump's nominee for US energy secretary, has warned that Britain's rush to ditch fossil fuels in favor of wind and solar is driving up prices, driving away energy-intensive businesses and leading to the decline of the British state.
“While no longer part of the EU, the UK continues to pursue aggressive climate policies that drive up energy prices for its citizens and industry,” he wrote in a recent report. “Once a world leader, the UK is now Per capita income is lower than even the poorest states in the United States.”
Leake did not 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 reducing energy use, but only in the UK. How much less?
To quote the Government's Advisory Committee on Climate Change: “In our balanced net zero path, the UK economy becomes significantly more energy efficient, with total end-use sector energy demand falling by around 33% between now and 2050.”
Improving efficiency—providing more output with the same or less fuel—helps reduce energy consumption. However, reducing consumption by a third would require huge progress. Many observers believe the tail will wag the dog when it comes to this target, meaning the UK may be forced to reduce energy use to meet this target.
For Wright and others, cutting energy consumption by a third and still expecting growth is heresy — an economic experiment that no other country has ever achieved or even attempted.
Their view, a view shared by most economists, is that access to energy has historically been directly related to prosperity. The more energy we have, the richer we become. If we have less, we become poorer.
Wright said Britain's Industrial Revolution, fueled by cheap and abundant coal, proved this theory. But with energy use falling sharply, it’s clear that the prioritization of climate targets will have a huge impact on the UK’s wealth and productive capacity.
In 1970, British industry consumed the equivalent of 62 million tonnes of oil per year, producing most of the products the country needed, including energy-intensive products such as steel, cement and petrochemicals. Manufacturing is by far the largest economic sector, accounting for 30.1% of total output.
Last year, manufacturing accounted for just 9% of the UK economy.
The point is that a key part of net zero policy is reducing energy use, but only in the UK. Other countries don’t matter as it all depends on the UK government’s climate policy.
For example, one of the things the UK is most proud of is that it has cut emissions from more than 800 million tonnes in 1990 to nearly 400 million tonnes in 2023. vehicles, homes, offices and industries.
However, it does not include all emissions from the things we buy from abroad, including cars, clothes, steel and cement. This “consumption emissions” have increased from less than 200 million tons of carbon dioxide2 From 1990 to 400 million tons today
When overseas and domestic emissions are added together, the UK's total carbon footprint is around 800 million tonnes. This is only a slight decline from 1990, and the UK has paid a considerable price for this, including continued high energy prices and greater vulnerability to global price shocks and shortages.
“Britain produces too little, consumes too much, saves too little and has too much debt,” Oxford University energy economics professor Dieter Helm recently wrote. “Perhaps not surprising, as it takes time for politics to catch up with the economy, the New Labor government is Redouble our efforts in these four areas.
“Current (and proposed) economic policies are perpetuating an unsustainable economy. What is unsustainable cannot last. It must end, most likely in a series of future economic crises. The next generation will pay the price. .
Leake went on to explain that the UK, unlike the US, does not have abundant energy supplies on its doorstep. Britain relies on imports.
The key conflict is between replacing old energy with new energy or simply reducing energy consumption. Britain is steadily reducing its oil refining and steelmaking capacity.
For Miliband, falling energy consumption is a sign of progress, not a bad omen. A spokesman for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero said: “Making the UK a clean energy superpower is vital to ending the UK’s reliance on unsafe fossil fuel markets.”
Therefore, the exact direction in which we are heading is unclear. There is also the open question of whether any government can execute its vision of the future by implementing policies that seem destined to leave people poorer, more mobile, colder, hungrier and with fewer options.
Readers may recall the irony of this statement from 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 UK.”
Boris Johnson, statement to the House of Commons, 25 July 2019
He is right to say that these are extraordinary times.
this telegraph This article is worth reading in full.
Relevant
