HAVING championed the international fight against global warming, Tony Blair鈥檚 government laid out a key part of the battle plan for the UK last week. A white paper on energy paints a picture of a low-carbon, energy-efficient economy, yet curiously fails to provide leadership on the technologies that will underpin it.
The government鈥檚 direction is dictated by concerns about not only global warming but also the dubious reliability of oil and gas supplies from other countries. Much less fossil fuel will be burned: if all goes to plan, by 2020 renewable energy sources will produce about 20 per cent of the UK鈥檚 electricity, and carbon dioxide emissions will be cut back to two-thirds of their 1990 levels. This shift will knock up to 2 per cent off GDP in 2020.
Many sectors of society will help to create this vision. Home owners will receive smart meters to show them where their power is going, something that has been demonstrated to bring down bills. They will be able to claim grants to erect wind turbines and solar panels, and sell surplus power back to their supplier. Those suppliers will be able to make money in future by reducing their customers鈥� energy usage, though exactly how has to be decided.
Advertisement
Companies that generate energy, or use lots of it, are already issued permits to release CO2, which they can use themselves or sell under the European Union鈥檚 Emissions Trading Scheme. These permits will be extended to all large businesses. Energy research will be paid for from various public funds, while the development and building of costly renewable projects will be encouraged by paying extra for the power they produce 鈥� the less developed the technology, the higher the premium.
As a whole, the strategy looks progressive, but the devil is in the detail. The UK could, says the government, build a tidal barrage across the river Severn, which would generate 5 per cent of the UK鈥檚 electricity. Yet this will be fiercely opposed by environmentalists. The same is true of nuclear power, which is back in favour. Without nuclear, the government says there is a danger that the UK will not meet its CO2 emissions targets. Public consultation will now help to decide if private companies should be allowed to build new reactors.
A lack of decisiveness and conviction pervades the detail of the white paper. A weak transport section gives no clue as to whether the government prefers hydrogen fuel or just more efficient petrol and diesel engines. Where the UK has a technological lead, as in wave power, there is no sign of urgency that the government is pushing to create world-beating products. An imaginative foreign company could easily steal a march.
Instead, the UK is hedging its bets and waiting to see which way the rest of the world will go. This is not the vision of a technological trendsetter. Blair鈥檚 destination for the UK looks right, but how the country will get there is far from clear.
