Put national security at the heart of Net Zero
There can be no 'just transition' without a secure transition.
Image by Skitterphoto via Pixabay
Many a myth is being dispelled on the battlefields of Ukraine right now.
The arrogant idealism of globalisation, the supposed triumph of international institutions and international law, the much-vaunted end of conventional warfare. All were once certain; all now belong to another world. Another certainty being upended is the consensus on our energy future, the conviction that our priority should be hastening the demise of fossil fuels to achieve Net Zero emissions in the near future. COP26 was just four months and yet somehow an eternity ago.
As Vladimir Putin’s bombs pummel Ukrainian civilians, the West's reliance on Russian fossil fuels no longer looks like a cost-saving benefit of global trade or a conscience-salving scheme to reduce our production of planet-killing resources at home while importing the same resources from overseas. In our hubris, we have imperilled our physical and our energy security.
Before we go any further, it’s important to say that Westerners and their energy concerns are not the frontline of this war. That is the Ukrainian people, placing themselves in the path of a tyrant’s tanks because their lives are all they have left. They are lions and they are giving the bear the fight of its life.
If only we had their tenacity. Even as we impose sanctions on Moscow and talk tough about future penalties, this year the UK will import £2bn worth of Russian liquefied natural gas (LNG), a commodity on which Britain’s reliance has doubled since 2018. Some say we should sever our ties with Russia. Others say we should continue trading with them. In no small feat of dexterity, the UK Government has found a way to do both.
Both the UK and Scottish governments have embraced the Net Zero agenda, accelerating the abandonment of our remaining fossil fuels and making it even more difficult for us to achieve energy independence. Make no mistake, renewables are our future, especially in Scotland where we can command great quantities of tidal and wind power, but choosing to walk away from fossil fuels leaves us vulnerable during the transition period.
This view, considered beyond the pale just weeks ago, suddenly has rather a lot of supporters. Almost 40 Conservative parliamentarians have called on Boris Johnson to U-turn on the sealing of two fracking sites. In a joint op-ed, Lib Dem MP Alistair Carmichael and SNP MSP Fergus Ewing urge continued political support for the oil and gas industry because ‘the uncomfortable truth’ is that ‘the UK and our neighbours will need gas now and for several decades to ensure reliability and tackle intermittency for the National Grid’.
Indeed we will and there is no use in demagoguing this fact out of existence. These concerns were cast aside by Net Zero advocates eager to trample opposition to their agenda before a thorough public debate could take place. Whether they like it or not, there will have to be such a debate now.
Over the weekend, Elon Musk, chief executive of electric car manufacturer Tesla, tweeted: ‘Hate to say it, but we need to increase oil & gas output immediately. Extraordinary times demand extraordinary measures. Obviously, this would negatively affect Tesla, but sustainable energy solutions simply cannot react instantaneously to make up for Russian oil & gas exports.’
Nicola Sturgeon and Boris Johnson should listen to these voices, not least Musk, who has a vested interest in abandoning fossil fuels but realises the practicalities at work. These practicalities are rendered all the more urgent and all the more dangerous in light of Russia’s war in Europe, a continent in hock to Moscow’s mighty gas wells.
The effects of climate change are real and serious and cannot be wished away. The contributions of fossil fuel emissions to these developments are well-established. However, a cliff-edge approach to decarbonisation serves no one — except Vladimir Putin. Disruptions to energy supplies make us vulnerable and drive up already escalating household bills.
A government that cannot keep the lights on for its citizens is not well placed to protect the national interest. Rogue states that are pumping out crude oil and LNG with total disregard for the climactic impact can call the shots with Western countries reliant on these fuels. Thankfully the UK only sources four per cent of its LNG from Russia but even that amounts to 34 million megawatt hours. On mainland Europe, it is many, many times more.
One of the inescapable soundbites in this debate is ‘just transition’, a term used by all sides according to their own conception of justice. What we don’t hear enough about is a secure transition, a progression towards a post-carbon energy mix that puts our energy, economic and national security interests centre-stage. It is no just transition that leaves us reliant on autocrats who will sell us fuel and use the profits to oppress their own people, invade their neighbours and threaten us.
Nigel Farage wants a Brexit-style referendum on the UK Government’s Net Zero policy. While I proceed from the position that anything Nigel Farage wants must be a bad thing and therefore vast national energies should be expended preventing him from getting it, I appreciate some may be attracted to his proposal. Allow me to explain, then, why a referendum on Net Zero would be ill-conceived: it’s a referendum. This country is divided enough already without launching into another exercise in partisan discord. There is nothing Putin would welcome more right now than seeing Britons row with each other over energy policy instead of standing united against his oppression of the Ukrainian people.
We need the UK and Scottish governments to act pragmatically and with an understanding of the economic and national security factors at issue. Arriving at a post-fossil fuels era ought to be the long-term goal but in the short-to-medium term it would be costly in all senses to rush towards that outcome. Instead, we should be pursuing a secure transition that steps up renewables production, carefully manages our carbon resources and sets aside scaremongering to give serious reconsideration to the cases for fracking and nuclear power.
The global threats we face are ever-changing. We must be flexible in meeting them and never again allow ourselves to become dependent — for energy or anything else — on so patently hostile a regime as Putin’s Russia. Not only our ability to heat our homes and meet our utility bills but our national security itself depends on it.
It’s now a year since Anas Sarwar took the reins at Scottish Labour.
Stepping into the leader’s role in the middle of a pandemic was always going to be trying but Sarwar has proved an effective interrogator of Nicola Sturgeon, especially on health policy.
At Scottish Labour's weekend conference, he tried to signal a shift out of the doldrums the party has been in for the past decade. There was some policy at last — free residential care for over-65s — and a more confident tone. For the first time in a long time, Scottish Labour sounds like it might be more interested in talking to the voters than in talking to itself.
What the party still lacks is a grand vision. What does Scottish Labour believe? Why should you vote for it? What will Scotland look like if you do? These are questions Sarwar has to begin answering. The last 12 months have been a good start but the hard work is only just beginning.
The BBC reports that Scots aid workers were stopped at an Odessa checkpoint and asked the all-important question: 'Rangers or Celtic?'
No doubt the Ukrainians think it odd that Scotland is riven by division over football teams but wait till they find out about our long-running civil war over salt 'n' vinegar versus salt 'n' sauce.
Originally published in the Scottish Daily Mail on March 7, 2022.
What are the odds she will do a U-turn on fossil fuels? The opportunity is just too juicy for some more virtue signalling after Boris does it.
Did you watch the SNP woman on Question Time "talking" about nuclear deterrents? Independently on what your views on the matter might be, she was cringe-worthy.
Saw that woman on QT. Unfortunately Nicola hasn’t tutored her on getting herself out of a fix. The first line of defence is usually blame UK, however nuclear war possibly threatening and Putin posturing with half a brain working, and the other half playing Fortnite, only for real, she was unable to read the room and join up the dots. She was so steeped in SNP Mantra she was bereft of common sense. So who protects us if we don’t have anything in the cupboard as a deterrent. Not just that, she was left sulking like a kid. She didn’t realise that out of Nicolas protection and amongst other free thinkers, she had limited skills to analyse the task in front. They should have sent Humza. He could have played the bagpipes.