Hi, I’m Yves. Your article on UK climate change policy may seem a bit parochial, but the micro world gives insight into the macro issue. The fact that this article originates from a financial institution, City AM, does not necessarily diminish the validity of the portrayal. In many ways, it clearly shows that the vast majority of citizens in developed countries are not willing to make even relatively modest sacrifices to prevent the worst climate outcomes. This attitude is enabled, as we have repeatedly stated, by proponents of the Green New Deal. They are obsessed with climate cakeism: the mistaken idea that by buying better, taking tax breaks and penalties, and building new infrastructure (which comes at an environmental cost), we can maintain almost all of our current lifestyles while saving the planet.
The reality is that we can only achieve this through extreme reductions in energy and resource consumption. In other words, our developed economy lifestyle will soon come to an end. The question is whether society as a whole, or communities within it, will get ahead of the problem of what to cut and what to leave in order to make the transition less disastrous, or whether governments will react as unplanned collapses become more frequent.
The media continues to report horrifying news that proves we are run by greedy, short-sighted fools. Today’s headline in the Wall Street Journal was: The tech industry wants to monopolise nuclear power for AI:
Technology companies scouring the country for power supplies have set their sights on a key target: America’s nuclear plants.
The owner of about a third of U.S. nuclear power plants is in talks with tech companies to power new data centers needed to meet the demands of the artificial intelligence boom.
One of those companies, Amazon Web Services, is close to signing a deal with Constellation Energy, the largest owner of nuclear power plants in the U.S., to get electricity directly from nuclear plants on the East Coast, according to people familiar with the matter. In a separate deal in March, a subsidiary of Amazon.com Inc. bought a nuclear-powered data center in Pennsylvania for $650 million.
So instead of treating energy as a scarce commodity and ensuring that uses essential to collective survival are prioritized, greedy billionaires are securing the supply and pushing more AI that dumbs down humanity. Frankly, we humans totally deserve the bad outcomes we are creating, and sadly, we are dragging many innocent species down with us.
CityAM.com is the online edition of City AM, London’s first free daily business newspaper. Oil prices
With just a week to go until the election, the Labour Party “Making the UK a clean energy powerhouse” has sparked debate about whether net-zero plans are actually achievable.
Sir Keir Starmer has revealed that Labour’s transition team is considering setting up an office for net zero to meet its target of decarbonising the electricity grid by 2030, five years sooner than the Conservatives, if it wins the election. The party plans to allocate £28 billion a year to climate action, citing economic limitations and stressing the importance of fiscal responsibility.
But the costly ambitions of the net-zero roadmap have sparked debate within the party about finding a balance between environmental goals and fiscal prudence.
The 2030 deadline would be met by creating a publicly owned clean electricity company, Great British Energy, to boost energy security and reduce bills, funded by increasing a temporary levy on oil and gas companies and then preventing them from cutting the levy.
Labour’s net zero minister, Ed Miliband, believes the 2030 target is achievable and a significant step towards a green economy.
But the policy doesn’t seem to satisfy everyone.
Javier Cabada, head of Mitsubishi Power’s European operations, argued the party’s plan had little chance of succeeding and said the focus should be on creating a “realistic, affordable and achievable path forward.”
While Labor has pledged its plan will ultimately bring down energy bills, Kabbada isn’t entirely convinced it can be achieved in less than six years. He worries the project will be prohibitively expensive and questions whether the country and industry can afford it.
INEOS CEO Sir Jim Ratcliffe also expressed concern about Labour’s “absurd” manifesto, arguing their policies will only lead to the UK importing energy from overseas.
Electricity demand is expected to rise from around 300 terawatt-hours per year currently to around 360 terawatt-hours by 2030, and Ratcliffe said the 2030 target coincides with when most of the UK’s remaining nuclear power stations are expected to be closed, increasing the risk of energy crises and power shortages.
The GMB union has called on Labour to rethink its manifesto, saying net zero plans would lead to “blackouts and outages” and damage the party’s reputation.
Sharon Graham, leader of the trade union Unite, said oil and gas workers could become “this generation of miners” if Labour goes ahead with its proposals to ban new drilling licences in the North Sea.
The Conservatives plan to continue authorising North Sea oil and gas production as part of their plan for a gradual transition to renewable energy, a move that has been heavily criticised, with former Conservative MP Chris Skidmore saying earlier this year that he would go on to support Labour, refusing to support “a party that boasts about new oil and gas authorisations in its manifesto”.
Still, the Conservatives aim to reach net zero by 2035, a transition that would be driven by tripling offshore wind capacity, building new carbon capture facilities, expanding nuclear power and building more new gas-fired power plants to support renewables.
The party claims it is taking a more “practical” approach to reducing costs for consumers and limiting the introduction of environmental taxes on household bills.
Labour has recently faced a furious backlash from Conservative Energy Minister Claire Coutinho, who claimed a ban on North Sea oil and gas would result in huge tax increases for workers which would “only accelerate the worsening climate crisis”.
She described the Opposition’s policies as a “triple blow to Britain: job losses, tax hikes and investment destruction”.
