Sussex Energy Group at SPRU

Owen Paterson, the UK’s former Secretary of State for the Environment – and now scourge of environmentalists – made the most extraordinary speech a few days ago on climate change and energy policy[1].  The speech was a rare combination of the unremarkable and the nonsensical.  In the unremarkable category, Mr Paterson argued that climate change science was broadly right.   Equally, his endorsement of local combined heat and power and what he called ‘rational’ demand management are compatible with a suitably wide-ranging approach to countering climate change.  His scepticism about the achievability of an 80% cut in GHG emissions by 2050 is at least arguable, and his view that the attempt will be very expensive is almost certainly right – but probably much less expensive than the long-term cost of inaction .[2]

But most of the rest of his speech is deeply misguided and/or prejudiced.  The warning signs come early on in his appeal to ‘common sense’ – always a dangerous approach, as my common sense will rarely be yours, and is often a cover for deeply-held prejudice.   The idea of common sense also has the appeal of not needing scrutiny.   Among the ‘common sense’ ideas Paterson advocates is exploitation of shale gas and, somewhat bizarrely, the building of small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs).  Shale gas is of course something that the UK may well develop in a limited way, though at some political cost and offering no reductions in gas prices, as the UK is well integrated in a European market that will scarcely notice UK shale production.  So shale’s impact will at best be marginal, take several years to become even noticeable, and not likely to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.[3]  And his view that renewables are hopelessly expensive ignores the fact that there are major, ongoing cost reductions in many renewable technologies Read more ›